Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 01-28 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF-BROOKLYN CENTER JANUARY 28, 1985 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 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 Council member 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 - January 14, 1985 7. Resolutions: a. Directing Staff to Study and Develop a Redevelopment Program and Tax Increment Plan for the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment b. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for a Request for a Proposal for a Market Analysis of the Earle Brown Farm c. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for a Request for a Proposal for a Structural Analysis of the Earle Brown Farm *d. Approving a Special Use Permit for a Community -based Group Care Residential Facility at 4408 - 69th Avenue North *e. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for a 14' Foot Step Van -This item is authorized for the Fire Department in the 1985 Budget. Bids were previously taken on this item and were rejected because all bids exceeded the budgeted amount. The specifications have been redrafted and are being recommended for approval this evening. *f. Approving Private Sale of One Parcel of Land on Classification List 670 -NC *g. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Eugene H. Hagel. 8. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending the Brooklyn Center City Charter This ordinance was first read on November 19, 1984, published on December 6, 1984 and December 13, 1984, and is offered for a second reading this evening. A public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. The ordinance amendment would provide for even year elections in the City of Brooklyn Center. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- January 28, 1985 b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances Regarding On Site Sewage Systems - Currently the City of Brooklyn Center does not have any criteria for the approval or disapproval of on -site sewage systems. This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening and would adopt the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency criteria for individual on -site sewage systems. 9. Consideration of Specified License (8:15 p.m.) - Recommendation for denial of mechanical license for Neil Heating and Air Conditioning 10. Discussion Items: a. Staff Recommendation Regarding Special Assessment Policy Amendment Related to Street Reconstruction b. Preliminary Report on the Proposed Installation of Water Main and Street Reconstruction along Lyndale Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenues c. Staff Report and Update on Comparable Worth Study -The staff will be prepared to report on this item at the meeting. d. Senior Citizen Transportation Program *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment (C2 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 JANUARY 14, 1985 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, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Sheldon Matheson of the Brookdale Covenant Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1984 There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the Council meeting of December 17, 1984. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Theis, and Hawes. Voting against: none. • The motion passed. Councilmember Celia Scott abstained from the vote as she was not present at the December 17, 1984 meeting. EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION PROGRAM The City Manager announced that this evening is the sixth annual presentation by the City Council of service awards to City employees to recognize their years of service to the City. He indicated that recognition is being given tonight to those employees who during 1984 observed the anniversary for either their 20 or 25th year of permanent full -time employment with the City. The City Manager introduced Paul Holmlund, Finance Director; Bob Zimbrick, Public Utilities Superintendent; and Don Sollars, Sergeant in the Police Department. He noted that Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police, was not present because of a sore back. He also noted that Paul Holmlund had 20 years of continued service with the City, that Jim Lindsay had 25 years, that Bob Zimbrick also had 25 years and that Don Sollars had 20 years with the City, City Council members congratulated the individuals recognized by the Employee Service Recognition Program and Mayor Nyquist presented their awards of appreciation. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the 1984 Brooklyn Center City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist was not present for the vote. 1- 14-85 -1- I _ OATH OF OFFICE The City Manager /City Clerk administered the oath of office to Councilmembers Rich Theis and Bill Hawes. Councilmembers Theis and Hawes then took their places at the Council table. CALL TO ORDER The 1985 Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:11 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted he 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 proceeded with the regular agenda items. SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to nominate Councilmember Scott as Mayor Pro tem for 1985. Councilmember Lhotka then indicated his desire to see the position rotated and nomimated Councilmember Theis. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Scott. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the nominations. Voting for the closure of nominations were: Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Councilmembers voting for Councilmember Theis as Mayor Pro tem for 1985 were Councilmembers Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Councilmembers voting for Celia Scott as Mayor Pro tem for 1985 were Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Hawes, and Theis. Councilmember Scott was appointed Mayor Pro tem for 1985. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmember desired any items removed from the Consent Agenda. The City Manager requested that item 151 be removed from the Agenda to be brought back at a later date. Councilmember Lhotka requested item 15c be removed from the Consent Agenda and Mayor Nyquist requested that item 15k be removed from the Consent Agenda. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following appointments: a. Conservation Commission. Reappointment of Conservation Commission members William Price, Barbara Jensen, and Everett Carlson to three year terms. b. Housing Commission. Don Lawrence, Phil Cohen, Cliff Williams, and Ken Felger to reappointment to three year terms. 1 -14 -85 -2- c. Human Rights Commission. The reappointment of Evelyn Misfeldt for the reappointment for a three year term. The appointment of Mark Boldt to a one year term to complete the unexpired term of Marvin Trautwein. d. Park & Recreation Commission. The reappointment of Bud Sorenson and Dale Bloomstrand to three year terms. e. Northwest Human Services Council. The reappointment of Dr. Duane Orn. f. Weed Inspector. Mr. Brad Hoffman. g. Planning Commission. The reappointment of George Lucht,'Lowell Ainas, and Wallace Bernards to a two year term. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to designate the Brooklyn Center Post as the City's official newspaper. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -01 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -02 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -03 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 1 -14 -85 -3- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -04 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -A (DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1984 -01) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member. Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -05 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WELL NO. 8 RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE I AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly,passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -06 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WELL NO. 8 RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE II AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -07 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05 (CONTRACT 1985 -A) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared 1 -14 -85 -4- duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 - Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING WATER TOWER RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1985 -02, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1985 -B) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being aken thereon the following voted in favor g � g thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 - Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH AEC ENGINEERS & DESIGNERS FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, RELATING TO WATER TOWER RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO 1985 -02 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -10 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TWO (2) 72" ROTARY MOWERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -11 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO IMPLEMENT THE SOLAR BANK DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -12 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MARVIN TRAUTWEIN 1 -14 -85 -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -13 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MICHAEL STREITZ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -14 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JACQUELINE ALBRIGHT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly p adopted. ul assed and RESOLUTION NO. 85 -15 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING MAYOR NYQUIST'S 1985 SALARY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill'Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Holiday Leave. He noted that the ordinance provided for time and a -half pay for certain holidays for police clerks /dispatchers and those employees working irregular work shifts. He noted the ordinance was being offered for a first time reading. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if this was consistent with settlements with organized employees. The City Manager replied that it was. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Holiday Leave for a first reading. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -14 -85 -6- ORCHARD LANE PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION GAMBLING LICENSE There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and - seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve a Class A gambling license for the Orchard Lane Parent - Teacher Association. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to waive the $10,000 fidelity bond for the Orchard Lane Parent- Teacher Association Class A gambling license. Voting in favor : Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.' RECESS Mayor Nyquist recessed the Council at 7:40 p.m. The Council then reconvened at 7 :43 p.m, - PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84040 SUBMITTED BY NORMANDALE TENNIS CLUBS FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN /SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT APPROVAL TO ADD -A MULTIPLE PURPOSE FACILITY FOR BASKETBALL, VOLLEYBALL, ETC. TO THE RACQUET AND SWIM CLUB AT 4001 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages two and three of the December 20, - 1984 Planning Commission meeting in which the Planning Commission reviewed Application No. 84040. The Planning Director then provided the City Council with site plans and renderings for the Council's review.. He noted that a residence along Azelia Avenue had relayed her opposition to the basketball court but indicated that she was somewhat confused as to the nature of the addition and was unable to attend. He did note that it was not intent of the applicant to have large public games to which crowds would be attracted. Following his review, Councilmember Lhotka inquired if any additional landscaping would be required. Planning Director Warren indicated that no additional landscaping was required but that the original proposed landscape plan was still intact. Mayor Nyquist then opened the public hearing on Application No. 84040._ Councilmember Theis inquired what type of landscaping was proposed for the southeast corner of the lot. The applicant did not provide his name but indicated that blue spruces would be planted on the southeast corner. At that time he provided elevations of the project for the Council to review. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the Planning Commission Application No. 84040, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 1 -14 -85 -7- 2. The new multi - purpose building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards which shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 3• All conditions pertaining to Application No. 83051 continue to apply to this approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84041 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE RETAIL BUILDING AT 1500 69TH AVENUE NORTH FOR USE AS A CITY LIQUOR STORE The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for the Councilmembers pages three and four of the December 20, 1984 Planning Commission meeting at which Application No. 84041 was reviewed. The Planning Director then provided the Council with site plans and elevations for the proposed building. A discussion then ensued relative to a proposed landscape plan for the development. The Planning Director indicated that the landscape plan at this time has not been completed but would be made available to the Council at a later date. He also indicated the intent of the City was to provide more extensive landscaping at the site than was presently there. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Planning Commission Application No. 84041 contingent upon the receipt of a landscape plan and the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3• Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7• Plan approval acknowledges a "proof of parking" for the 33 parking spaces required for this expanded use and authorizes the deferral of up to 3 parking spaces. 1 -14 -85 -8- r Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 84 -16 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REMODELING OF LIQUOR STORE NO. 1 LOCATED AT 1500 69TH AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Remodeling the Liquor Store No. 1 located at 1500 69th Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84039 SUBMITTED BY NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR DETERMINATION THAT DAY CARE CENTERS BE CONSIDERED SIMILAR IN NATURE TO EDUCATIONAL USES SO THAT A CENTER MAY BE LOCATED IN THE PARK NICOLLET MED CENTER BUILDING AT 6M — EARLE BROWN DRIVE The Director of Planning & Inspections indicated to the Council that this application had been before the Planning Commission at its December 6, 1984 meeting. At that time, the Commission tabled the application and directed the staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment making day care centers a special use in a C2 zoning district as an alternative means of addressing day care centers. Under the proposed ordinance, day care centers would be a special use in C1 and C2 zoning districts. Day care centers would not be permitted to abut certain intense commercial uses such as gas stations or convenience food restaurants which, in turn, are not permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property. He further indicated special conditions would apply to day care centers in commercial districts similar to the conditions to apply to office uses in R5 and I -1 zoning districts. Finally, the ordinance amendment would stipulate certain site requirements on the outside recreational areas at day care centers in the C1 and C2 districts. The requirements were intended to make the play area a substantial component of the site, separated from commercial traffic as much as possible. It was recommended by the Planning Commission that Planning Commission Application No. 84039 submitted by New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. be denied and that An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Location of Group Day Care Centers in Commercially Zoned Districts be adopted. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to deny Planning Commission Application No. 84039. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The + motion passed unanimously. 1 -14 -85 -9- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adopt An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Location of Group Day Care Centers in Commercially Zoned Districts as a first reading. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS Mayor Nyquist recessed the City Council from 8:50 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORT ON PROPOSED STUDY IN CONJUNCTION WITH INTERIM ORDINANCE REGARDING SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN COMMERCIALLY ZONED LAND WITHIN THE CITY The City Manager introduced the next agenda item making reference to memorandums from himself and Ron Warren as well as a letter from the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce relative to a proposed moratorium on all commercial development within the City. In reviewing the staff recommendation, the City Manager indicated he believed the moratorium was in the best interest of the community by providing the City with an opportunity to examine the potential development of the remaining commercial sites within the City. This examination would analyze the impact such development would have and the compatibility of that development with the City's existing systems, such as traffic, water, sewer, etc. He indicated such a study would help the City make a determination as to the most appropriate mix of development in the remaining sites so as to be compatible with existing development and existing capacities of various municipal systems. Councilmember Scott indicated her concern with the cost of the consultant and inquired as to the need for a consultant to perform the study. The City Manager in reply to Councilmember Scott' uestion indicated existing staff q g did not have the expertise or the time to provide the type of traffic or real estate development analysis necessary for this study. He also indicated should the City and Council ever be challenged in court relative to the use or implementation of the study, a consultant would provide a more credible witness in court as an expert witness as opposed to existing staff. A discussion relative to traffic peaks and need for signalization within the Shingle Creek area south of I -694 then ensued. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the staff what the City hoped to attain from such an ordinance. The City Manager replied that he believed the study should provide at least three answers. First, he believed the study should indicate whether there is presently sufficient retail development within the City, or in fact, if there was a need for additional retail. Second, he indicated there were certain limited capacities within our present municipal systems to handle traffic, sewer, and water, etc. He indicated the study would identify potential problems within this area so such problems could be dealt with prior to development when it would be less costly and more easily accomplished. Third, he indicated that he believed the study should provide the City with some recommendations relative to the best uses or mixes of development relative to the capacity of the City's existing systems and compatability with existing development. Councilmember Hawes then noted the number of truck deliveries per day generated by the retail development within the City. He indicated its effect upon the City's traffic system. It was also noted that the Planning Commission had recommended the inclusion of all industrial development as well. 1 -14 -85 -10- Mayor Nyquist then invited the audience to address the Council relative to the proposed ordinance. Jim Justesen from the Chamber of Commerce spoke to the Council. He reviewed the process the Chamber went through in taking a position on the issue. He made reference to the letter sent to Mayor Nyquist from the Chamber and reviewed the same. He stated that at the present time there is very little retail space available for new business in Brooklyn Center. He further indicated developers are concentrating on inner rings as opposed to the outer rings in the City. He also stated the Brookdale retail area is one of the least dense areas in retail relative to the density of the population. He also indicated local developers have major parties interested in the C2 areas for which a moratorium is planned and a negative impact would be the outcome. He also said he was concerned that the City would be mandating the type of development allowed in the retail areas and felt that the best mix of retail should be determined in the area through competition. Dick Grones from Lombard Properties then addressed the Council. He indicated that from a business perspective they have held land for six years for development and now they are close to having development in hand and a delay of a year or more could drastically change the outcome of that development. The next person to address the City Council was Darryl Kramer from Target stores. He indicated to the Council that he felt that Target stores were perhaps the catalyst for the moratorium. He indicated that the Target stores plan to build on the former Byerly's site. He also indicated to the Council the willingness of Target stores to accommodate the needs of the City with respect to traffic flow design, landscaping, building size, and exterior materials and other areas of major concern to the City. The next person to address the City Council was Barb Jensen. She inquired as to the tax advantages or disadvantages of retail as compared to the cost of services. The City Manager indicated that relative to Fiscal Disparity Act the City loses the first 40% of the taxes generated by such a project and that the fact of the matter is that Brooklyn Center is a net loser. Barb Jensen then indicated her concern is that we not spend the money unless we are sure that the study being proposed is going to provide the kinds of information we are seeking. Councilmember Theis then inquired as to the length of time it would take' to do a traffic study. The City Manager indicated that for traffic study only it would take approximately three to four months. Councilmember Theis stated it was his perception the major concern seems to be one of traffic generation and that perhaps we should do a traffic study only and let the market place decide the retail development. The City Manager indicated that while a traffic study could be conducted without the moratorium ordinance, the City does not have any options available to them should a development take place before a study is complete and implemented. Councilmember Lhotka expressed his concern for the potential for maximized development, but he questioned whether we couldn't do the analysis without the moratorium. Councilmember Scott inquired as to whether it would not be appropriate to include I -1 zoned land also in the study. The City Manager indicated that I -1 could be included in the proposed study and that staff has no preconceived perception of what was the appropriate mix of development for the City. Councilmember Hawes then indicated his concern with the cost and length of time for the study. He also stated he was very concerned that by allowing development to proceed at this time was literally shooting in the dark. He felt that the study would provide us with an orderly process. Jeff Rice from Ryan Construction then addressed the City Council. He noted that traffic studies performed for Ryan Construction indicated that the traffic 1 -14 -85 -11- generated from Target and Byerly's were approximately the same. The Director of Public Works commented upon Jeff Rice's comments indicating that the studies done by Ryan Construction did not show that the two were same. A discussion then ensued relative to the potential length of time for the study and the options before the Council to extend the moratorium. The City Attorney indicated that the City Council could have a one year moratorium plus 18 additional months on a month to month basis at the discretion of the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to institute the moratorium per the staff recommendation. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired of Councilmember Hawes if he meant to include only retail. Councilmember Hawes answered yes. Councilmember Theis then inquired as to why we would include just retail when the Planning Commission recommended the inclusion of the industrial land. Councilmember Hawes indicated that he felt the primary concern was with retail and not industrial. Councilmember Scott reiterated her concern with the length of time of the proposed moratorium. Voting in favor: Councilmember Hawes. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Theis. The motion was denied. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott for a three month moratorium in order to perform a traffic study. Further, if the traffic study was to provide some insight for the need for a broader study the moratorium extension would be considered at that time; and further that the study cover just retail uses in all zones. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Theis, Hawes, and Scott. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka stated he wanted the moratorium to extend to industrial land uses also. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to direct the staff to obtain traffic study proposals for Council review and approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE Advance Carter Company 850 Decatur Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Liquor Stores 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Denny's Restaurant 3801 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Red Lobster 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr. Brookdale Mobil 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Chuck's Q. 1501 69th Ave. N. Dahlco Music & Vending 119 State Street Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Rd. 10 Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. State Farm Insurance 5940 Shingle Cr. Pkwy, Jerry's Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive 1 -14 -85 -12- Pipeseller Brookdale Center Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE American Bakeries Company 4215 69th Ave. N. Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Mobil 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Northwestern Bell 6540 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Plum Company 6840 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brookdale Motel 6500 Lyndale Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Cronstrom's Heating & Air Conditioning 4410 Excelsior Blvd. Guaranty Heating Co. 11741 Elm Creek Road Lloyd's Sheet Metal 6659 Vicksburg Lane United Burner Service Inc. 7909 30th Ave. N. NURSING HOME LICENSE Maranatha Conservative Home 5401 69th Ave. N. OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. Denne's Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Jerry's Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. POOL & BILLIARD TABLE LICENSE Advance Carter Company 850 Decatur Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Voting in favors Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m'. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 1 -14 -85 -13- MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: January 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Earle Brown Farm Project There will be three (3) resolutions before the City Council Monday evening, all dealing with the Earle Brown Farm development. The first resolution authorizes or directs staff to develop a redevelopment and tax increment financing plan. The plan would provide a general guide for development within the district as well as establish potential. financing mech- anisms. It should be noted that the Council is directing the preparation of a plan and that approval is subject to public hearings and review from the Planning Commission. The other two (2) resolutions were recommended unanimously by the Earle Brown Farm Committee. The Market Analysis is intended to provide the City with information to determine the suitability of the farm as a senior center. It should also provide some direction for the eventual scope of rehabilitation. I would anticipate that a market analysis of the type necessary will cost between $15,000 and $25,000. A structural analysis of each of the buildings is also necessary. It is imperative that we determine the existing physical conditions of each building and the feasibility of restoration for each. This is especially true for the Barn and Hippodrome. I would estimate that the cost of the structural analysis to be around $10,000. Both studies would be financed with CDBG funds. I will be available to answer questions Monday evening. 7A Member introduced the following resolution and rived its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A REDEVELOPMENT AND FOR INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE EARLE BROWN FARM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is considering a development project which includes the Earle Brown Farm; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Brooklyn Center have expressed a desire to preserve the Earle Brown Farm. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center directs staff to Prepare a Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Earle Brown Farm. 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. - 7b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL POSAL FOR A MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE EARLE BROWN FARM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specifications for the proposal for a market analysis of the Earle Brown Farm,be accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the proposal for a market analysis of the Earle Brown Farm. 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 I i i I i j REQUEST OF A MARKET ANALYSIS FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF THE EARLE BROWN FARM INTRODUCTION The Earle Brown Farm, located in Brooklyn Center, is a local historical focal point that the City would like to preserve. Located at 6100 Summit Drive, the Farm today covers approximately fifteen (15) acres and consists of thirteen (13) buildings in varying degrees of repair. The City of Brooklyn Center is considering a development project that contemplates the use of the Barn (1) *, Hippodrome (2)* and the Housing Complex (3) *, as a Center for senior services and activities. Also, approximately four hundred (400) residential units, of which approximately three hundred (300) will be elderly, are being considered for the site. At this time, the Barn (1)* and Hippodrome (2)* would function, with their combined 20,000 plus square feet, as the center for most, if not all activities. It is our desire to make this development more than the typical senior center, by incorporating other activities that would occassionally attract a broader segment of the population, we hope to make the farm available to the general public. INTENT - It is the City's intent to use the market analysis of the senior center to provide the City with direction in the physical design or layout of the buildings and for direction in program and activity development. The analysis should provide the City with sufficient information to determine whether or not the proposed project is appropriate for the selected site and whether or not such a facility would be supported (used) by seniors. SCOPE The market analysis desired by the City should, at a minimum, direct itself to the following areas of concern. A. Location Suitability 1. Identify transportation problems as they .relate to this site and its potential uses. a. Within Brooklyn Center proper b. Within northwest Hennepin County 2. Need for Senior Center 3. Identify /locate competing facilities 4. Identify recognition of Earle Brown Farm i.e. general population of study familiarity with the farm and its location. B. Activities 1. Identify and rank desired acitivites with special emphasis given to attracting individuals in the age group 50 -60. 2. Identify Agencies providing services to Seniors and those that might be interested in leasing space in the proposed facility. 3. Identify meal programs currently available. a. Programs implemental in Brooklyn Center b. Potential subsidies c. Support for a senior discount at a "for profit" restaurant *Note attached photo C. Housing 1. Analyze market feasibility for approximately 270 senior (55 plus) apartments. 2. Analyze support rent structures i.e. maximum limits not including utilities. 3. Projected need (10 years) for senior housing in Brooklyn Center. D. Demographics 1. Provide an analysis of the senior population (55 plus) by the year 2000 relative to the number and percentage of the total population in: a. Brooklyn Center b. Northwest Hennepin County REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Brooklyn Center is soliciting proposals from individuals or qualified organizations to provide a market analysis of a proposed senior center development for the Earle Brown Farm. The Contractor should design a survey directed to the concerns expressed by the City. Proposals must include a complete description of the applicants qualifications and experience. Provide at least three (3) references, one (1). of which should be a similar senior survey. A resume of each individual involved in the proposed study must be included. All proposals must include a detailed description of the scope, design and methodology of the proposed analysis. Priority will be given to qualifications first and cost and time frame second. Please submit three (3) copies of each proposal by 4:30 p.m. February 20, 1985. Further inquiries should be directed to: Kathy Flesher Program Supervisor • City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 561 -5440 Contractor Obligations 1. Design a survey instrument (s) ** of sufficient detail to address, at a minimum, the concern outlined under the Scope of the analysis. 2. Develop a random sample population from Brooklyn Center and Northwest Hennepin County of sufficient size as to provide a confidence level of 95 percent. 3. A preliminary report or draft should be made available to the staff for review and comment by May 15, 1985. 4. Provide a final written analysis of the survey or market analysis and make a verbal presentation of the finished product to both the Brooklyn Center City Council and the Earle Brown Farm Committee. Areas of concern outside of the survey instrument (demographics, existing agencies, competing senior center and others as appropriate under the scope) are also to be included in the final report. The report should be completed by June 6, 1985. 5. Identify areas in need of follow -up and propose a plan for the same. "The survey design should be based upon a mailed survey. However, we would also like a quotation based upon a telephone survey and one based upon a combination of each. 7c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR AN RFP FOR A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE EARLE BROWN FARM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specifications for an RFP for a structural analysis of the Earle Brown Farm be accepted BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for an RFP for a structural analysis of the Earle Brown Farm. 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. x REQUEST FOR A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE EARLE BROWN FARM COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS Introduction The City of Brooklyn Center is presently considering a development project for the Earle Brown Farm. Part of that development includes the restoration of the Barn (1), the Hippodrome (2) and the Housing Complex (3). A multi -use facility for senior citizens is contemplated for the Barn and Hippodrome. The City of Brooklyn Center is requesting proposals from qualified firms or individuals to provide a structural analysis of the existing building on the site. It is the desire of the City to be provided with an analysis of the existing conditions of each of the buildings with recommendations for their repair and /or renovation. Barn Special detail must be given to the analysis of the Barn. It is intended that the Barn will house various agencies providing services to the elderly. Also some activities would occur in this building. Generally, most space, especially on the second level, will be general office space. Special detail should be given to the footings and their potential to handle the proposed use. Load limits should also be provided with recommendations for upgrading to accomodate the proposed use. Hip podrome The Hippodrome will most likely be used for a variety of activities which could include a restaurant to a gymnasium. In restoring the Hippodrome, it is anticipated that the structural frame work of the roof would remain exposed. Assume that a floor and heating system will be installed, assess the basic structural capacity of the building and its footings and make a recommendation for its renovation based upon the proposed use. Housing Complex At this time, no concept has been developed for the use of the housing complex. Provide an analysis of the existing conditions and make recommendations to assure the integrity of the housing complex. All Other Buildings Provide an analysis of each of the remaining buildings describing their current condition. Describe the potential of each for restoration and preservation. Proposals Submit four (4) copies of your proposal to the City Manager's Office by 11:00 a.m., February 20, 1985. Include the following information along wi th our proposal. y p posal. 1. Complete description of the qualifications and experience of the individual(s) involved in the preparation of the report. 2. At least three (3) references from similar projects. 3. Completion date For further information contact Brad Hoffman at 561 -5440. 7c/ Member introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: n. CIT Y OF BROOKLYN CENTER RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY - BASED GROUP CARE RESIDED ?TIAL FACILITY AT 4408 69th AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the Applicant, Northwest Residence, Inc., has requested, under Planning Commission application no. 83021, a special use permit to operate a community -based group care residential facility for 18 mentally ill persons at 4408 69th Avenue North, within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City has been directed by a Court Order issued in, the case entitled Northwest Residence, Inc., et al v. City of Brooklyn Center filed in Hennepin County District Court, File No. 804715, to grant the application filed by Northwest Residence, Inc.; -Pins u 0a kv /-L.e d t s 4-r, f C vunj- Cyr cJA v(L NOW, THEREFORE&BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, that the application of Porthwest Resi- dence, Inc., file no. 83021, to operate a community -based group care residential facility for 18 mentally ill persons is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facil- ity and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable state and local codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Existing tenants shall receive a minimum of 60 days` notice prior to the date they are expected to vacate the premises. 4. The permit authorizes the boarding of not more than 18 mentally ill adults with no ast history of P y violence, . toward themselves or others and /or chemical dependency. Any change to increase the clientele residing in the facility or to include previously, violent or chemically dependent individuals will require amend ment of the special use permit by the City Council and the oc- cupancy of the facility shall be governed by the standards set forth in the Housing Maintenance Ordinance. 5. Unless accompanying the entire clientele in an excursion off premises, there shall be at least one qualified mental health worker on the premises at all times. 6. A copy of the current State Board and Lodge License shall be kept on file with the City. 7. Any structural, plumbing or mechanical modifications to the existing building shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Official (and the City Sanitarian where appro- priate) with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance' of permits. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed within one;year from the date of Council approval to examine the history, if any, of complaints or police actions relating to the facility. 9. The applicant shall resurface the parking lot to meet the stan- dards of the Housing Maintenance and the Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of the special use P ermit. 10. Parking for client vehicles shall be limited to two spaces on the premises. In the event that the off street parking be- comes inadequate the applicant agrees to add two additional parking spaces in the front of the building pursuant to the applicant's revised parking plan. DATED: , 19 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk /Manager 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 same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specification for the delivery of one (1) 14 Foot Aluminum Step Van is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the delivery of one (1) 14 Foot Aluminum Step Van in accordance with said specifications. 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 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 PROVISIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN 1 GENERAL All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:30 P.m., February 7, 1985, and shall be submitted on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed envelope, plainly marked "Bid for Step Van." It is also understood that the City Council reserves the rights to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities and to award the contract to the best interest of the City. The Step Van proposed and delivered to the City of Brooklyn Center shall be complete in every respect and ready for operation in accordance with these specifications, with certificates of service and inspection submitted at the time of delivery. Manufacturer's reference, trade name, brand or description mentioned in this proposal are descriptive but not restrictive and used only to indicate type and standard of material or equipment desired. The Step Van the bidder proposes to furnish must be of a current production. Obsolete equipment is not acceptable. Catalog information showing make, model, and complete specifications of the Step Van the bidder proposes to furnish shall accompany the vendor's bid. Insufficient descriptive information shall be cause for rejection of the bid. The bidder must give assurance to the City of Brooklyn Center in regard to patent infringements and in case of suits against the City by other parties he must defray all costs in connection with such a suit and save the City harmless in all such actions. 2. GUARANTEE The bidder shall guarantee this equipment as to the specified capacity and satisfactory performance and to be free of defects in design, material and workmanship. All defective equipment shall be replaced free of cost to the City of Brooklyn Center for a period of one year from date of delivery. 3. DELIVERY DATE The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City of Brooklyn Center for the earliest date possible. 4. Award of the contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be based on, but not necessarily limited to, the factors of price, delivery date, parts and service, as well as analysis and comparison of specifications and performance. 5. SAFETY STANDARDS The Step Van bid shall have all the safety devices and shall meet the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry; Division of Accident Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 6. SERVICE MANUALS Repair manuals, shop type, operator's handbook and parts book shall be furnished, including parts book for body of van. SPECIFICATIONS FOR 14 FOOT ALUMINUM BODY STEP VAN 10,000 GVW GENERAL The vehicle and /or equipment called for herein shall be a new 10,000 GVW step van furnished with an aluminum body, currently advertised incorporating all the latest changes and features, including all the safety devices and tools to make a satisfactory operating unit. The unit shall meet the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Accident Protection, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Gross Vehicle Weight: 10,000 lbs. Wheel Base 157" Body The van shall have an all aluminum body equal to the Grumman or J.B. Olson units, furnished according to the following: Front doors - sliding camlock type with ventilating glass windows roll up type Rear door - 38" wide with windows and key lock Roof - furnished with headliner and roof vent and sky light Sides - insulated with styrofoam or fiberglass and covered with panelling Interior height - 80" Interior width - 86" 6 cargo lights center of roof Ladder for access to roof on back right hand side Cab 2 spot lights Seats - two heavy duty Sun visors dual Windshield wiper - dual, 2 -speed electric with washers Heater - fresh air type with defrosters Mirrors - left and right side - 6 x 16 stainless steel convex mirror on bottom, retractable Guages - oil pressure, water temperature, gas supply, ampmeter Glass - all tinted AM radio Chassis Brakes - Power disc front, drum rear Steering - power assist Rear axle - 7,900 lb. with dual wheels with 4.10 ratio Front axle - with stabilizing bar Springs - 4,000 lb. rear (each) and 4,400 front Shock absorbers - heavy duty front and rear Transmission - automatic 3 -speed with park Tires - 750.16# 8 ply, firstline tube type with rear tires to be mud and snow type, furnish spare rim Bumpers - front with two hooks; rear, heavy duty step type (chromeplated, front) Gas tank - 40 gallon minimum Engine 350 cubic inch with engine oil cooler full flow oil filters, fuel filter and air cleaner Electrical Alternator shall be 90 amp minimum Batteries, dual 4,000 watt 80 amp hr. - no 705 dual battery selector and disconnect switch Horns - electric Color Dupont Red #1863 DH Imron PROPOSAL ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN T0: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Gentlemen: We propose to furnish and deliver one 14 foot aluminum step van according to the _ specifications at the following bid price: 1. Base bid price 2. Optional Equipment total 3. Total bid price Delivery date calendar days i Signed Firm Name Address Date Bid opening 2:30 p.m. February 7, 1985 _7 F Member introduced the following resolution and roved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF LAND ON CLASSIFICATION LIST ' 1 670 -NC" WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has received from the County of Hennepin, a list of lands in Brooklyn Center which became the property of the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of real estate taxes, which has been designated as Classification List No. 670 -NC; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as nonconservation land and the sale thereof has heretofore been authorized by said Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Inspections has advised the City Council that the following described parcel is not a buildable site in accordance with applicable rovisions of the Brooklyn Canter City Code p Yn Y Property Identification No. Description 03- 118 -21 -22 -0037 That part of lot 2, block 1 Twin Lake North Addition embraced within lot 5 and Sub. No. 216 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Citr of Brooklyn Center, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, that said classification as nonconservation land be and the same is hereby approved with respect to said parcel BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said land is hereby approved for sale to the owner of an adjacent property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes relating to the sale of unbui.ldable parcels of land. 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 Date: January 24, 1985 To: Gerald G. Splinter From: Peter M. Koole P(\ Subject: Classification List 670 -NC PID #03- 118 -21 -22 -0037 The above referenced parcel has forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non- payment of taxes. It is a very small triangle of land between the Moorwood Townhouses project and the recreation building at Twin Lake North Apartments. The parcel is unbuildable and has no public access. The concensus of the Department Heads is that it should be approved for sale to an adjoining property owner. 2;19.75 Key. .......... -- - y Ilg,q .• CITY OF CRYSTAL rr y v \ NI 1359.92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER v o hi �, I , .n -� • M E!. • y r C7 J +�.— •mss 0 LOT d. co =a 8� I I, 4p 14; a ti J N �— ' -- – i��II1 _ 66 I �:._- -.. M..1 05 I c�8 w AVE N :' N' ° ' � _ ..G °.;� /` o �'. � _ �64 8 IN 5 ° 4. DU LO N 3005'24•W 531.81 S AS ti2c2 10— ! �J y' 0 to 0 p, +146 \ 03 o L r f i q w w q ID 13 0 I ' . 9 gbIZZ 16 Q s r 9so R WO p ' 41 0 I50� y iEY�S}i (ut u O '4 \ V Q K Y L SE �. US` E so °i4, 95 bb 146.41 25. 1,"•00. /. 11.25_ /�- r: - .. ! , 615 29 51 °3B'30''w .i F+►�' — j , -' Ti 0 I �in5 , n A� tN'v N to S 0 T PO DAU .f a= PA t, 9 •: - 1115 Sh (1 5f3 /� 5� Z i � ;. j� 7 1c 1! / � ri _ o ZS _ 00 ty 3 ��/ bCD� CcYj r4 „[i, r , 519. �•jtt -- 4 ° _.. t loo A bNy9 ., f•:, - , - ' - " °' -- 95.4 JUNE �. vo �r, 3.90 I V 91.49 8L !tL W �hta �,, cy'.�z(ya;9° , °, �♦\ • Qsp� y IS ° u Jl9 :-' !_ (� u1" =' ,_ DI _ I I�J_�z A i �i� -�' %U6 59iL _ c�D -5 "Z- 5710._ �,, / GWL 6a /d . `1• " '� Nti 1 S..'` N•r1h I .r f- T < -/•.1 •. •r+, , .- o .n < �� - �, n .� (. 5 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF EUGENE H. HAGEL WHEREAS, Eugene H. Hagel was appointed as the City of Brooklyn Center's first Director of Parks and Recreation on April 15, 1957 and has served in that position for more than twenty -seven years; and WHEREAS, he is retiring from public service on February 28, 1985; and WHEREAS, as Director of Parks and Recreation, he was responsible 'for the development of the City's excellent park system and recreation programs; and WHEREAS, his accomplishments include the coordination of the planning and construction of all the City's parks, the Arboretum, the Community Center, and the Trai.lway System; and the coordination of recreation programs for all ages; and WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities as Director of Parks and Recreation contributed substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the conmuni.ty merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the dedicated public service of Eugene H. Hagel is recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center and that the City wishes him a long and happy retirement. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by ❑;ember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the followinq voted against the saris: 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 28th day f Janua Y, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Charter. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN A FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 2.03 and 4.01 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter are hereby amended in the following manner: Section 2.03 Elective Officers. The Council shall be composed of a Mayor and four Councilmembers who shall be registered voters of Brooklyn Center, and who shall be elected at large. Each Councilmember shall serve for a term of [three (3) ] four (4) years. The Mayor shall serve for a term of two (2) years. The Council shall be canvassers of the election of the t and the Councilmembers. Section 4.01. THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION. A regular municipal election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even numbered year at such place or places as the City Council may designate. The City Clerk shall give at least two (2) weeks previous notice of the time and lace of p holding such election and of the officers to be elected and such other :natters to be voted upon by posting in at least one public place in each voting precinct and by publication at least once in the official newspaper, but failure to give such notice shall not invalidate such election. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and ninety (90) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication De;er.er 6, 1984 Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITIZENS FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT (CBG) POSITION PAPER ON CHARTER CHANGE PROPOSAL REGARDING CITY ELECTIONS AS PRESENTED TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL 1 /2u /SS THIS PAPER HAS BEEN PREPARED BY A CBG TASK FORCE WHICH CONSIST'S OF: --CBG PRESIDENT DAVE SKEELS - FORMER MAYOR PHIL COHE::.N - FORMER COUNCILMAN TONY KUEFLER THE PAPER ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: --IMPORTANCE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE - PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE -TERMS OF OFFICE - FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL - MERITS OF ODD YEAR VS EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS -COST OF ELECTIONS VS THEN PUBLICS VOTING FRANCHISE -THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE - PROVISIONS FOR ENACTING CHARTER CHANGE - SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION 1 IMPORTANCE - OF OUR - LOCAL - GOVERNMENT - STRUCTURE THE STRUCTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME CONCERN OF THE CITIZENS OF BROOKLYN CENTER. SINCE 1961, WHEN THE FIRST REFERENDUM ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS HELD IN BROOKLYN CENTER AND TO THIS DATE, THIS HAS BEEN A MUST SENSITIVE ISSUE. IN 1961, A PROPOSAL FOR THE 'PLAN B COUNCIL /MANAGER' FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS SOUNDLY DEFEATED BY THE RESIDENTS. THIS WAS MAINLY DUE TO THE CITIZENS CONCERN FOR BEING SURE THAT THEIR FRANCHISE AS A VOTER WAS PROTECTED. AS A RESULT OF THAT REFERENDUM, THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED A `GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE' IN 1962. IN THE FALL OF 1963, THIS COMMITTEE MADE ITS REPORT, WHICH RECOMMENDED (BY A MAJORITY VOTE) THAT THE CITY PROCEED WITH ESTABLISHING A CHARTER COMMISSION BY CALLING FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO TAKE THE ACTION PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE. THE CHARTER COMMISSION HELD ITS FIRST MEETING ON APRIL 29, 1964- AT THEW SEPTEMBER 14, 1966 MEETING THE CHARTER WAS APPROVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLICATION. THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER AND AT 'THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, THE CHARTER PASSED BY A 78% MAJORITY VOTE (4,248 TO 1,235) DURING THE STUDY, THE ISSUE OF DATES OF ELECTION AND TERMS OF OFFICE WERE STRONGLY DEBATED. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THE ISSUE WAS RAISED ABOUT THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED TO KEEP THE TERMS AS THEY HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY. AND, THOSE ARE THE TERMS OF OFFICE THAT THE VOTERS OF BROOKLYN CENTER VOTED FOR IN THE CITY CHARTER ELECTION OF 1966 AND WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO DATE. THEY SEEM TO HAVE SERVE] BROOKLYN CENTER WELL, AS WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HAD GOOD, OPEN, HONEST AND NON- PARTISAN GOVERNMENT EVER SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE CITY CHARTER. PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE t PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OUGHT TO BE SOLICITED FROM ALL CONSTITUENCIES F WHEN CHANGES TO THE CHARTER ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED. PERHAPS IF THE CBG WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE WORK OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THEIR MEETINGS WHEN THE ISSUES CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION. FOR NOT HAVING DONE THIS, WE SINCERELY APOLOGIZE: TO THE COMMISSION. HOWEVER, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE CITIZENS, PERHAPS THE COMMISSION TOO COULD HAVE BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE IN f SOLICITING INPUT FROM US AND OTHERS. 2 -------------------------------------- TERMS - OF OFFICE W- - FOR - MAYOR - AND - COUNCIL THE CHARTER COMMISSION IN ITS FINDING DECIDED TO INCREASE THE CITY COUNCIL.. MEMBERS TERMS FROM 3 YEARS TO 4 YEARS, WHILE LEAVING THE MAYORS TERM AT YEARS. FRANKLY, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC FOR THIS -- WE FEEL THAT IF ANY TERM WERE TO BE LENGTHENED, IT OUGHT TO BE THE MAYORS NOT THE COUNCILS'_ WHY, BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS THE TITULAR HEAD OF THE CITY AND THE SPOKESPERSON AT ALL OFFICIAL MEETINGS WHERE THE CITY IS REPRESENTED. HE IS LOOKED AT AS THE PERSON WHO GIVES POLICY DIRECTION ON ISSUES AT THE COUNTY, METRO, STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL AS IT AFFECTS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. THE MAYOR OF THIS CITY HAS MORE Of- THAT TYPE 01` COMMITMENT THAN THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND RIGHTLY SO. AND, HE ALSO HAS TO INTERFACE WITH MAYORS OF OTHER CITIES WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME LENGTH OF TERMS, WHETHER THEY BE FULL OR PART TIME MAYORS__ OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES OF BROOKLYN PARK AND CRYSTAL ARE EXAMPLES OF THIS AS THEY EACH HAVE 3 YEAR TERMS FOR THEIR MAYOR AND MINNEAPOLIS RECENTLY' VOTED A CHARTER CHANGE TO MAKE THEIR MAYORS TERM 4 YEARS. MERITS OF ODD YEAR VERSUS EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS IT APPEARS THE DRIVING FORCE, OF THE CURRENT CHARTER COMMISSION, IN SETTING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WAS THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE ELECTIONS ON EVEN YEARS ONLY. AND, THE DESIRE FOR EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS ()NL...Y APPARENTLY HAS COME ABOUT FROM CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY SOME ELECTION JUDGES AT THE 1903 FALL ELECTION, WHERE THE VOTER TURNOUT FOR AN UNCONTESTED ELECTION WAS LOW. THE QUESTION OF JUSTIFICATION ON A COST PER VOTER BAST WAS APPARENTLY SURFACED. ONE MIGHT QUESTION WHETHER COST WAS A CONCERN IN OTHER ODD YEAR ELECTIONS WHEN THERE WAS COMPETITION AND THE VOTER TURNOUT WAS MUCH HIGHER, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO DEMONSTATE THAT ITS NOT THE FACT THAT IT IS AN OFF YEAR ELECTION, BUT RATHER A FACT OF AN UNCONTESTED ELErCTIOt THAT CAUSES THE LOW VOTER TURNOUT. FURTHER, IF ALL ELECTIONS WERE HELD ON EVEN YEARS AND HIGHLY COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGNS FOR LOCAL OFFICE ENSUED, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO RAISE FUNDS IN COMPETITION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICE CANDIDATES WITHOUT PERHAPS A GOODLY AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND ENDORSEMENTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE POLITICAL PARTIES. BROOKLYN CENTER HAS BEEN ONE OF THE SHINING EXAMPLES OF HOW NON- PARTISAN GOVERNMENT HAS SERVED THE PEOPLE WELL FOR OVER 20 YEARS. WE FEEL THE PRESENT ELECTION FORMAT HAS GONE A LONG WAY To PRESERVE THAT PROCESS. 3 COST OF� ELECTIONS �VERSUS ' THE �PUBLICS �VOTING �FRANCHISE THE COST OF AN ELECTION SHOULD BE PUT IN THE PERSPECTIVE WITH WHAT AND WHO WE ARE VOTING FOR. THE CITY COUNCIL IS IN EFFECT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ELECTED BY THE STOCKHOLDER - THE VOTERS. THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE POLICY MAKER THAT OVERSEES AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $7,500,000 ALONG WITH A PHYSICAL PLANT, UTILITES, ETC THAT IS WORTH WELL OVER $50,000,000 (COST BASIS)_ THE DESIRE TO BE PRUDENT IS COMMENDABLE, AND THIS CITY CO UNCIL HAS AN OUTSTANDING RECORD OF RUNNING THE CITY IN AN EXCELLENT FINANCIAL MANNER. HOWEVER, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAVE "THE RIGHT TO VOTE" THE COST OF ELECTIONS HAVE TO BE PUT INTO THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. TO CARRY THE COST SAVINGS.EVEN FURTHER, ONE MAY WISH TO TALK ABOUT ELECTIONS EVERY F YEARS, OR LESS VOTING PRECINCTS, LESS JUDGES, ETC;. HOWEVER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE IN BROOKLYN CENTER_ WE HAVE STRIVED TO MAKE ELECTIONS AS ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE AND THE WRITERS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER (IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS VOTED IN BY 75% 1S YEARS AGO) WERE VERY CAREFUL ON THIS ISSUE. THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE IN THIS CHARTER CHANGE? THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT MORE PEOPLE VOTE IN THE EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS THAN THE IN ODD YEAR ELECTIONS. THIS WAS ALSO KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD WHEN WRITING AND VOTING ON THE ORIGINAL CHARTER IN 1966, BUT WAS NOT' FOUND TO BE A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO ELIMINATE ODD YEAR ELECTIONS. IF ONE WAS TO TAKE A PURIST POINT OF VIEW, OF GETTING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE Wt -10 ARE DEDICATED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES OUT TO VOTE, THEN THE ELECTIONS SHOULD BE HELD ONLY IN THE ODD NUMBERED YEARS. THIS ALSO WAS REJECTED BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION IN 1966- THE CHARTER COMMISSION WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING CONTINUITY IN THE CITY COUNCIL, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE TO ALLOW FOR A MAJORITY SHIFT IN LOCAL PHILOSOPHY. THIS IS EVIDENCED AS ONCE EVERY 6 ELECTIONS, 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS PLUS THE MAYOR STAND FOR ELECTION AT THE SAME TIME. BUT THIS IS DONE ON THE OLD NUMBERED YEAR ONLY SO THAT THE TOTAL FOCUS IN THAT ELECTION CAN BE SOLELY ON LOCAL ISSUES. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNANCE QUESTION GOES BEGGING FOR AN ANSWER. IF THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE GOVERNANCE BY THE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS UNDER THE EXISTING CHARTER, THEN THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A CHANGE IN THE TERMS OF OFFICE AND IN ELECTION YEARS WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. 4 PROVISIONS FOR ENACTING CHARTER CHANGE IN RESEARCHING THE CHARTER, WHICH WE REALLY SEE AS A DOCUMENT WHICH IS INTENDED TO GIVE ALL CITIZENS A GUARANTEED VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, WE SEE IT AS A DOCUMENT WHICH `IF AND WHEN CHANGED' SUCH CHANGE SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY STUDIED, RESEARCHED, CHALLENGED AND DEBATED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE. WE ALSO FIND, THAT' ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL AVENUES FROM WHICH A CHARTER CHANGE CAN BE INITIATED, THERE ARE REALLY ONLY 2 BASIC AVENUES T ENACT A CHANGE. 1) BY REFERENDUM VOTE OF THE PEOPLE 2) BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE `UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL OPTION' IS INTENDED F USE WHEN THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE IS IN REALITY A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM (ie TO MAINTAIN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE STATUTES, etc;). AND, THAT THE 'REFERENDUM VOTE OPTION' IS INTENDED To BE USED FOR ALL CHANGES WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL RESULT IN 'A CHANGE. IN INTENT'. WE CLEARLY SEE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE AS BEING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF INTENT TO .THE EXISTING CHARTER. THEREFORE, WE QUESTION THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE OPTION CURRENTLY BEING PURSUED BY THE CITY COUNCIL -- AND MOST CERTAINLY FIND IT MOST QUESTIONABLE CONSIDERING THAT WIDE SOLICITATION OF DEBATE BY, AND INPUT FROM, GROUPS OUTSIDE OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THOROUGH STUDY, DEBATE AND SOLICITATION OF COMMUNITY r INPUT DID TAKE PLACE WAS WHEN THE CHARTER COMMISSION IN THE MIDDLE 70's TOOK THIS TYPE OF INITIATIVE WHEN THE QUESTION OF `WARD GOVERNMENT' CAME UP FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION DID GO OUT AND BRING IN ALL THAT MIGHT BE CONCERNED TO OFFER THEIR RESPECTIVE VIEWS. THE COMMISSION AFTER THOSE TYPE OF EXTENSIVE HEARINGS VOTED AGAINST WARD I� GOVERNMENT FOR BROOKLYN CENTER. i 'j 5 r' SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS 1:. THE HISTORY OF THE DEBATE AND DECISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CITY CHARTER WRITERS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED AND UNDERSTOOD WHEN CHANGE.`') ARE BEING CONSIDERED. 2. PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OUGHT' TO `NOT ONLY BE ALLOWED' BUT OUGHT TO `BE WIDELY SOLICITED'. 3. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE TERM OF MAYOR MORE THAN THE TERM OF COUNCILMEMBER MERITS CONSIDERATION FOR LENGTHENING. 4. THE MERITS OF ODD YEAR ELECTIONS AND THEIR APPARENT INTENDED VALUE IN PROVIDING THE CITIZENS AN ANNUAL OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER THEIR SATISFACTION AND /OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CITY OFFICIALS ACTIONS OUGHT TO BE PRESERVED AS A GOOD `CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE CITIZEN'. 5. THAT THE ISSUE OF COST OF ELECTIONS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE LOOKED AT IN THE SAME LIGHT AS OTHER CITY BUDGET ITEMS. THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE MEASURED IN DOLLARS. 6. THE MERITS OF PROVIDING THE CITIZENS MAXIMUM ASSURANCE OF CONTROL BY ASSURING THAT EVERY 6TH YEAR THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AFFECT A CHANGE IN THE MAJORITY ON THE COUNCIL BY HAVING 2 COUNCIL POSITIONS PLUS THE MAYORS POSITION UP FOR ELECTION IN THE SAME YEAR OUGHT TO ALSO BE PRESERVED AS A GOOD `CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE CITIZEN'.` 7. IT SEEMS VERY QUESTIONABLE THAT THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE SHOULD BE ENACTED VIA THE `UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL OPTION'.- IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS COULD /SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF AND WHEN ALL POSSIBLE DEBATE AND INPUT HAS BEEN `AGGRESSIVELY SOLICITED' AND HEARD. RECOMMENDATION BASED ON OUR FINDINGS TO DATE, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 5; THAT YOU REFER THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE BACK TO THE CHARTER COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR FINDINGS AND THAT OF OTHER INTERESTED. GROUPS AS WELL. THE CBG, OF COURSE, STANDS READY TO FURTHER EXPLAIN AND DISCUSS WITH THE COMMISSION AND /OR THE COUNCIL OUR FINDINGS QND RECOMMENDATION. WE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR INPUT ON THIS MATTER. 6 Yb CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 4 -301. CONNECTIONS TO SEWER REQUIRED. Every dwelling building or other structure in which plumbing exists or is to be installed shall be connected with the City sanitary sewer system whenever such system is available as determined by the Director of Public Works. Connections shall be made within one year after the City sanitary sewer system is made available. All buildings' liquid waste systems shall be connected to the City Sanitary Sewer. Where no sanitary sewer is available the on-site system shall be approved by the Health Authority utilizing the criteria specified in MPCA -WPC 40, Individual Onsite Sewage System. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant FROM: Tom Heenan, Supervising Sanitarian -Ii RE: Onsite Sewage Systems DATE: October 17, 1984 The City of Brooklyn Center is served by sanitary sewer, however, there are some properties where it is impractical to provide a connection to the sanitary sewer. We currently do not have criteria for the approval or disapproval of onsite systems. Within the past year, we have had a request for onsite sewer approval on a lot near Twin Lakes. I would suggest that City Code Section 4 -301 be revised to read: All buildings liquid waste systems shall be connected to the City Sanitary Sewer. Where no sanitary sewer is avail - able the onsite system shall be approved by the Health Authority utilizing the criteria specified in MPCA -WPC 40, Individual Onsite Sewage System ". This proposal has been discussed with Jim Grube and he has indicated that it is a satisfactory solution. TLH:jt cc: Jim Grube, Asst. Engineer 503 6 MCAR § 4.8040 �} ; c § 4,(x440 individual sewage treatment systems standards. i A. lnt t. 71 improper design, location, installation, use and maintenance of indivLual sewage treatment systems adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by discharge of inadequately treated sewage to sur- face and ground waters. In accordance with the authority granted in Minn. Stat, ch. 104, 105, 115, and 116 (1976), the Minnesota Pollution Control i Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Agency, does hereby provide the mini- mum standards and criteria for the design, location, installation, use and mainte ;e of individual sewage treatment systems, and thus protect the surface =d ground waters of the state, and promote the public health and general welfare. Further, h is intemded that the administration and enforcement of these stan- dards be conducted by local units of government, since experience has shown that sanitary ordinances can most effectively be administered at the local level. B. Definitions. For the purposes of these standards, certain terms or words used herein sh be interpreted as follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, the words "should" and "may are permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. 1. Aerobic tank. Any sewage tank which utilizes the principle of oxida tion in the decomposition of sewage by the introduction of air into the sew- age. 2. Agency. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 3. Alternative system. An individual sewage treatment system employ - ing such methods and devices as presented in section I. 4. Baffle. A device installed in a septic tank for proper operation of the tank, and to p:ovide maximum retention of solids. Includes vented sanitary tees and submerged pipes in addition to those devices that are normally called baffles. ro . S. Bedrock. That layer of parent material which is consolidated and un- weathered. 6. Bedroom. Any room within a dwelling that might reasonably be used as a sleeping room. 7. Building drain. That part of the lowest piping of the drainage system 4 r. which re_'ehes the sewage discharge inside the walls of the building and con- vevs it tc the b sewer beginning at least one foot outside the building f_ footings. 1 i i e 6 MCAR § 4.8040 504 8. Building sewer. That part of the drainage system which extends from the end of the building drain and conveys its discharge to an individual sew- age treatment system. 9. Capacity. The liquid volume of a sewage tank using inside dimen- sions below the outlet. 10. Cesspool. An underground pit into which raw household sewage or other untreated liquid waste is discharged and from which the liquid seeps into the surrounding soil. See section C. 2. d. I L'Distribution pipes. Perforated pipes or agricultural drain tiles that are used to distribute sewage tank effluent in a soil treatment system. 12. DNR. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 13: Dosing chamber (or pump pit or wet well). A tank or separate com- partment following the sewage tank which serves as a reservoir for the dosing device. 14. Dosing device. A pump, siphon, or other device that discharges sew - age tank effluent from the dosing chamber to the soil treatment system. 15. Dwelling. Any building or place used or intended to be used by human occupants as a single family or two family unit. 1 16. Filter material. Clean rock, crushed igneous rock or similar insoluble, durable and decay - resistant material free from dust, sand, silt, or clay. The size shall range from three - fourths inch to two and one -half inches. 17. Greywater. Liquid waste from a dwelling or other establishment pro- duced by bathing, laundry, culinary operations and from floor drains, and specifically excluding toilet waste. i 18. Holding tank. A watertight tank for storage of sewage until it can be transported to a point of approved treatment and disposal. I 19. Impermeable. With regard to bedrock, a bedrock having no cracks or crevices and having a vertical permeability less than inch in 24 hours shall be considered impermeable. With regard to soils, a soil horizon or Layer having a vertical permeability. less than one inch in 24 hours shall be considered im- permeable. 20. Individual sewage treatment system. A sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other establishment, or group thereof, which utilizes subsurface soil treatment and disposal. 21. Local unit of government. A township, city or county organized Order the laws of the State of Minnesota. I 22. Mottling. A zone of chemical oxidation and reduction activity, ap- pearing as splotchy patches of red, brown, orange and gray in the soil. 23. Mound system. A system where the soil treatment area is built above the ground to overcome limits imposed by proximity to water table or bed- rock, or by rapidly or slowly permeable soils. 24. Other establishment. Any public or private structure other than a dwelling which generates sewage. 25. Percolation rate. The time rate of drop of a water surface in a test hole as specified in section D. 3. b. of this regulation. 26. Permitting authority. Any State agency or local unit of government which administers the provisions of these standards. 27. Plastic limit. A soil moisture content below which the soil may be manipulated for purposes of installing a soil treatment system, and above which manipulation will cause compaction and puddling. 28. Sand. A soil texture composed by weight of at least 85 percent of soil particles ranging in size between 0.05 and 2.0 mm. 29. Seepage pit (or leaching pit or dry well). An underground pit into which a sewage tank discharges effluent or other liquid waste and from which the liquid seepk into the surrounding soil through the bottom and openings in the side of the pit. 30. Septage. Those solids and liquids removed during periodic mainte- nance of a septic or aerobic tank, or those solids and liquids which are re- moved from a holding tank. 31. Setback. A separation distance measured horizontally. 32. Sewage. Any water carried domestic waste, exclusive of footing and roof drainage, from any industrial, agricultural, or commercial establishment, or any dwelling, or any other structure. Domestic waste includes but is not limited to liquid waste produced by bathing, laundry, culinary operations and liquid wastes from toilets and floor drains, and specifically excludes animal waste and commercial process water. 33. Sewage flow. Flow as determined by measurement of actual water use or, if actual measurements are unavailable, as estimated by the best avail- able data provided by the Agency. 34. Sewage tank. A watertight tank used in the treatment of sewage. In- cludes, but is not limited to septic tanks and aerobic tanks. 35. Sewage tank effluent. That liquid which flows from a septic or aero- bic tank under normal operation. 6 MCAR § 4.8040 Ud 36. Septic tank. Any watertight, covered receptacle designed and con- structed to receive the discharge of sewage from a building sewer, separate solids from liquid, digest organic matter, and store liquids through a period of detention, and allow the clarified liquids to discharge to a soil treatment sys- tem. 37. Shoreland. Land located within the following distances from public waters: (1) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond or flowage; and (2) 300 feet from a river or stream or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on such a river or stream, whichever is greater. 38. Site. The area bounded by the dimensions required for the proper location of the soil treatment system. 39. Slope. The ratio of vertical rise or fall to horizontal distance. 40. Soil characteristics, limiting. Those soil characteristics which pre - clude the installation of a standard system, including but not limited to evi- dence of water table or bedrock closer than three feet to the ground surface, and percolation rates faster than one -tenth or slower than 60 minutes per inch. i 41. Soil textural classification. Where soil particle sizes or textures are specified in this regulation, they refer to the soil textural classification in the Soil Survey Manual, Handbook No. 18, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1951. 42. Soil treatment area. That area of trench or bed bottom which is in direct contact with the filter material of the soil treatment system. 43. Soil treatment system. A system whereby sewage tank effluent is treated and disposed of below the ground surface by filtration and percola- tion through the soil. Includes those systems commonly known as seepage bed, trench, drainfield, disposal field, and includes mounds, Electroosmosis systems, and seepage pits. 44. Standard system. An individual sewage treatment system employing a building sewer, sewage tank and the soil treatment system commonly known as seepage bed or trenches, drainfieid, or leachfield. 45. Surface water flooding. The 100 year flood plain along rivers and streams as defined by the DNR, or in the absence of such data, as defined by the largest flood of record. On lakes, high water levels as determined or re- corded by the DNR or, in the case of no DNR record, by local records or ex- perience. Other surface water flooding or high water areas should be deter- mined local information. 46. Ten year flood. That flood which can be expected to occur, on an '±venige, of once in ten years; or the level to which flood waters have a ten --c-nit 4}iance of rising in any given year. 507 6 MCAR § 4.8040 47. Toilet waste. Fecal matter, urine, toilet paper and any water used for flushing. 48. Valve box. Any device which can stop sewage tank effluent from flowing to a portion of the soil- treatment area. Includes, but is not limited to caps or plugs on distribution or drop box outlets, divider boards, butterfly valves, gate valves, or other mechanisms. 49. Water table. The highest elevation in the soil where all voids are filled with water, as evidenced by presence of water or soil mottling or other information. 50. Ordinary high water mark. A mark delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period .of time to leave evi- dence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark.is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. 51. Watertight. Constructed so that no water can get in or out below the level of the outlet. 52. Wild and scenic river land use district. Those lands designated by the Commissioner of the DNR as the protected land corridor along those rivers or river segments designated as wild, scenic or recreational rivers. C. General provisions. 1. Applicability. a. Administration by State Agencies. (1) Individual sewage treatment systems which serve a single facility generating greater than 15,000 gallons per day shall conform to the requirements of these standards and shall make application for and obtain a State Disposal System Permit from the Agency. (2) Collector systems which serve 15 dwelluigs or 5,000 gallons per day, whichever is less, shall conform to the requirements of these stan- dards and shall make application for and obtain a State Disposal System Per - mit from the Agency. (3) Individual sewage treatment systems serving establishments or facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the State of Minnesota shall conform to the requirements of these standards. (4) Any individual sewage treatment system requiring approval by the State of Minnesota shall also comply with all local codes and ordi- • nances. b. Administration by local units of government. r 6 MCAR § 4.8040 508 (1) Shoreland and floodplain areas, and wild and scenic river ? land use districts. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., § § 104.04, 104.36 and 105.485 (1976), certain counties and municipalities must enact ordinances which com- ply with the appropriate regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, some of which in turn require compliance with the regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2) Other areas. Outside of the above mentioned areas, these standards provide recommended guidelines for the adoption of local ordi- nances and for the design, location, construction, use and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. (3) Localized standards. Nothing in these standards shall prevent local units of government from enacting ordinances which provide more ade- quate sewage treatment under local conditions. R 2. General. R a. Surface discharge. Unless specifically permitted by the Agency • sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from a soil treatment system shall not be discharged to the ground surface, abandoned wells, or bodies of sur- face water, or into any rock or soil formation the structure of which is not conducive to purification of water by filtration, or into any well or other f excavation in the ground. b. Treatment required. The system, or systems, shall be designed'to j receive all sewage from the dwelling, building, or other establishment served. l Footing or roof drainage shall not enter any part of the system. C c. System components. The system shall consist of a building sewer, ! sewage tank and soil treatment system. All sewage shall be treated in a sewage I tank or toilet waste treatment device, and the sewage tank effluent shall be j discharged to the soil treatment system. d. Prohibited installations. Cesspools shall not be installed. e. System sizing. Where the construction of additional bedrooms, the installation of mechanical equipment or other factors likely to affect the operation of the system can be reasonably anticipated, the installation of a system for such anticipated need shall be required. 3. Advisory committee. a. There is' hereby created an Advisory Committee on Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) hereinafter referred to as the Committee. ' All new or existing systems which discharge to surface waters or the ground surface must obtain either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- : on Systeal (NPDL'S) or State Disposal System Permit from the Agency and shall comply with all requirements pertaining thereto. 509 6 MCAR § 4.8040 b. The Committee shall, subject to the approval of the Agency: (1) Review and advise the Agency on revisions of standards and legislation relating to ISTS. (2) Review technical data relating to ISTS. (3) Develop and revise a technical manual on ISTS. (4) Develop educational materials and programs for ISTS. (5) Advise the Agency and local unit of government or, the ad- ministration of standards and ordinances pertaining to ISTS. c. The Committee shall consist of 16 voting members. Of the 16 voting members: One shall be a citizen of Minnesota, representative of the public; One shall be from the Agricultural Extension Service of the U.S.D.A. and the University of Minnesota; Six shall be county administrators (such as zoning administrators, sanitarian, etc.), one from each of the five Agency regions and one from the seven-coun- ty metropolitan area; One shall be a municipal building inspector; Six shall be sewage treatment contractors, one from each of the five Agency regions and one from the county metropolitan area; and One shall be a water well contractor. d. The following agencies and associations shall each have one non- voting ex officio member to assist the Advisory Committee and to be advised, in turn, on matters relating to ISTS: the Agency, the DNR, Department of Health, the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the Metropolitan Council, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the Minnesota Association of Township Officials, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Society of Pro- fessional Engineers. e. All members shall be appointed by the Agency Board from rec- ommendations by the affected groups. All members shall serve for two years, with terms staggered so as to maintain continuity. f. In the case of a vacancy, an appointment shall be made for the unexpired balance of the term. The administrators, inspectors, and contrac- tors shall have been bona fide residents of this state for a period of at least three years prior to appointment, and shall have had at least three years ex- perience in their respective businesses. u ir��ai� y 4.6U4U 510 f g. Robert's Rules of Order shall prevail at all meetings of the Ad f visory Committee. D. Site evaluation. . All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be evaluated as to: a. Depth to the highest known or calculated ground water table or bedrock; b. Soil conditions, properties and permeability; c. Slope; d. The existence of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock outcrops; e. All legal setback requ from: existing and proposed build- ings; property lines; sewage tanks; soil treatment systems; water supply wells; buried water pipes and utility lines; the ordinary high water mark of lakes, rivers, streams, flowages; and the location of all soil treatment systems and water supply wells on adjoining lots within 150 feet of the proposed soil treatment system, sewage tank and water supply well; f. Surface water flooding probability. 2. A preliminary evaluation shall be made of publicly available, existing data. If this evaluation, in the opinion of the permitting authority, yields enough information that the site is suitable, approval may be given for the installation of a standard system as specified in section H. 2. If a preliminary evaluation does not produce sufficient information, a field evaluation shall be made to determine the necessary information as specified in section D. 1. 3. Procedures for soil borings and percolation tests. a. Soil borings. Where soil borings are required, they shall be made as follows: (1) Each boring or excavation shall be made to a depth at least three feet deeper than the bottom of the proposed system or until bedrock_ or a water table is encountered, whichever is less. I (2) A soil texture description shall be recorded by depth and notations made where texture changes occur. (3) Particular effort shall be made to determine the highest known water table by recording the first occurrence of mottling observed in i the hole, or if mottling is not encountered, the open holes in clay, or loam soils shall be observed after standing undisturbed a minimum of 16 hours, and depth to standing water, if present, shall be measured. s 3 { 511 6 MCAR § 4.8040 b. Percolation tests. Where percolation tests are required, they shall be made as follows: (1) Test hole dimensions and locations: (a) Each test hole shall be six to eight inches in diameter, have vertical sides, and be bored or dug to the depth of the bottom of the proposed individual sewage treatment system, (b) Soil texture descriptions shall be recorded noting depths where texture changes occur. (2) Preparation of the test hole: (a) The bottom and sides of the hoIQ shall be carefully scratched to remove any smearing and to provide a natural soil surface into • which water may penetrate. (b) All loose material shall be removed from the bottom of test hole and two inches of - fourth to three - fourths inch the t s one grav el shall be added to protect the bottom from scouring. (3) Soil saturation and swelling: (a) The hole shall be carefully filled with clear water to a minimum depth of 12 itches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole and maintained for no less than four hours. (b) The soil shall then be allowed to swell for at least 16, but no more than 30 hours. In sandy soils, the saturation and swelling pro - cedure shall not be required and the test may proceed if one filling of the hole has seeped away in less than ten minutes. (4) Percolation rate measurement: (a) In sandy soils adjust the water depth to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest one - eighth inch at approximately ten minute intervals. A measurement can also be made by de- termining the time it takes for the water level to drop one inch from an eight- inch reference point. if eight inches of water seeps away in less than ten min- utes, a shorter interval between measurements shall be used, but in no case shall the water depth exceed eight inches. The test shall continue until three consecutive percolation rate measurements vary by a range of no more than ten percent. (b) In other soils, adjust the water depth to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest one - eighth inch at approximately 30 minute intervals, refilling between measurements to main- _.. , .., 512 tain an eight -inch starting head. The test shall continue until three consecu- tive percolation rate measurements vary by a range of no more than ten per - cent. The percolation rate can also be made by observing the time it takes the water level to drop one inch from an eight -inch reference point if a constant water depth of at least eight inches has been maintained for at least four hours prior to the measurement. (5) Calculating the percolation rate: (a) Divide the time interval by the drop in water level to ob- tain the percolation rate in minutes per inch. (b) Percolation rates determined for each test hole shall be averaged to determine the final soil treatment system design. (6) For reporting the percolation rate,' worksheets showing all calculations and measurements shall be submitted. (7) A percolation test shall not be run where frost exists below the depth of the proposed soil treatment system. E. Building sewers. The design, construction, and location of, and the ma- terials for use in building sewers are presently governed by the Minnesota Building Code which, in Minn. Reg. SBC 8701, incorporates by reference the Minnesota Plumbing Code, Minn. Reg. MHD 120 -135, and by specific pro- visions of the Minnesota Water Well Construction Code, Minn. Reg. MtiD 217 (cx Ixdd), (ee) and (ft). Relevant portions of the Minnesota Plumbing Code, as of the date of enactment of this rule, are reproduced in Appendix C. Minn. Reg. M11D 217(c)(1)(dd), (ee) and (ff), as of the date of enactment of this rule, is reproduced in Appendix D. F. Sewage tanks. i 1. General. be: a. All tanks, regardless of material or method of construction shall (1) Watertight. i (2) So designed and constructed as to withstand all lateral earth pressures under saturated soil conditions with the tank empty. j (3) So designed and constructed as to withstand a minimum of seven feet of saturated earth cover above the tank top. i (4) Not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. b. Any tank not having an integrally cast bottom shall not be in- st:0 when the water table is closer than three inches to the bottom of the e ion at the tune of construction. F7700,3 513 6 MCAR § 4.8040 2. Septic tanks. a. Design. All tanks, regardless of material or method of construc- tion, shall conform to the following criteria: (1) The liquid depth of any septic tank or compartment thereof shall be not less than 30 inches. A liquid depth greater than six and one -half feet shall not be considered in determining tank capacity. (2) No tank or compartment thereof shall have an inside hori- zontal dimension less than 24 inches. (3) Inlet and outlet connections of the tank shall be submerged by means of baffles. (4) The space in the tank between the liquid surface and the top of the inlet and outlet baffles shall be not less than 20 percent of the total required liquid capacity, except that in horizontal cylindrical tanks this space shall be not less than 15 percent of the total required liquid capacity. (5) Inlet and outlet baffles shall be constructed of acid resistant concrete, acid resistant fiberglass or plastic. (6) Sanitary tees shall be affixed to the inlet or outlet pipes with a permanent waterproof adhesive. Baffles shall be integrally cast with the tank, affixed with a permanent waterproof adhesive or affixed with stainless steel connectors, top and bottom. (7) The inlet baffle shall extend at least six inches but not more than 20 percent of the total liquid depth below the liquid surface and at least one inch above the crown of the inlet sewer. (8) The outlet baffle and the baffles between compartments shall extend below the liquid surface a distance equal to 40 percent of the liquid depth except that the penetration of the indicated baffles or sanitary tees for horizontal cylindrical tanks shall be 35 percent of the total liquid depth. They also shall extend above the liquid surface as required in section F. 2. a. (4). In no case shall they extend less than six inches above the liquid surface. (9) There shall be at least one inch between the underside of the top of the tank and the highest point of gh p the inlet and outlet devices. (10) The inlet invert shall be not less than three inches above the outlet invert. 01) inlet and outlet shall be located opposite each other along the axis of maximum dimension. The horizontal distance between the nearest points of the inlet and outlet devices shall be at least four feet. (12) Sanitary tees shall be at least four inches in diameter. Inlet 6 MCAR § 4.8040 514 i I baffles shall be no less than six inches or no more than 12 inches measured from the end of the inlet pipe to the nearest point on the baffle. Outlet baf- fles shall be six inches measured from beginning of the outlet pipe to the nearest point on the baffle. (13) Access to the septic tank shall be as follows: i (a) There shall be one or more manholes, at least 20 inches least dimension, and located within six feet of all walls of the tank. The man- hole shall extend through the cover to a point within 12 inches but no closer than six inches below finished grade. The manhole cover shall be covered with at least six inches of earth. (b) There shall be an inspection pipe of at least four inches diameter or a manhole over both the inlet and outlet devices. The inspection pipe shall extend through the cover and be capped flush or above finished grade. A downward projection of the center line of the inspection pipe shall be d in line with the center line of the inlet or outlet device. (14) Compartmentation of single tanks. - (a) Septic tanks larger than 3,000 gallons and fabricated as a single unit shall be divided into two or more compartments. (b) When a septic tank is divided into two compartments, not less than one -half nor more than two - thirds of the total volume shah be in the first compartment. (c) When a septic tank is divided into three or more com- partments, one -half of the total volume shall be in the first compartment and the other half equally divided in the other compartments. (d) Connections between compartments shall be baffled so as to obtain effective retention of scum and sludge. The submergence of the inlet and outlet baffles of each compartment shall be as specified in sections F. 2. a. (7) and (8). (e) Adequate venting shall be provided between compart- ments by baffles or by an opening of at least 50 square inches near the top of the compartment wall. (f) Adequate access to each compartment shall be provided by one or more manholes, at least 20 inches least dimension, and located within six feet of all walls of the tank. The manhole shall extend through the cover to a point within 12 inches but no closer than six inches below finished grade. The manhole cover shall be covered with at least six inches of earth. (15) Multiple tanks. (a) Where more than one tank is used to obtain the required 0 ;Aujd volume, the tanks shall be connected in series. 515 6 MCAR § 4.8040 (b) Each tank shall comply with all other provisions of sec- tion F. 1. (c) No more than four tanks in series can be used to obtain the required liquid volume. _ (d) The first tank shall be no smaller than any subsequent tanks in series. b. Capacity. (1) Dwellings. The liquid capacity of a septic tank serving a dwelling shall be based on the number of bedrooms contemplated in the dwelling served and shall be at least as large as the capacities given below (see sections B. 6. and C. 2. e.): Number of Bedrooms Tank Liquid Capacities (gallons) 2 or less 750 3 or 4 1,000 5 or 6 1,500 7, 8 or 9 2,000 For ten or more bedrooms, the septic tank shall be sized as another estab- lishment. See section F. 2. b. (2). (2) Other establishments. The liquid capacity of a septic tank serving an establishment other than a dwelling shall be sufficient to provide a sewage detention period of not less than 36 hours in the Yank for sewage flows less than 1,500 gallons per day, but in no instance shall the liquid ca- pacity be less than 750 gallons. For sewage flows greater than 1,500 gallons per day the minimum liquid capacity shall equal 1,125 gallons plus 75 per - cent of the daily sewage flow. c. Location. (1) The sewage tank shall be placed so that it is accessible for the removal of liquids and accumulated solids. (2) The sewage tank shall be placed on firm and settled soil capable of bearing the weight of the tank and its contents. (3) Sewage tanks shall be set back as specified in Table IV fol- lowing section I1. 2. d. (3). (4) Sewage tanks shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding or in flood plains delineated by local ordinances adopted in compliance with the "State -wide Standards for Management of Flood Areas of Minnesota" (Minn. Reg. NR 85 -93), or in areas for which regional flood information is 6 MCAR § 4.8040 516 available from the DNR, except that in areas where ten year flood informa- tion is available from and /or approved by the DNR, sewage tanks may be in- stalled in accordance with all provisions of Appendix A, section C. 6. of these standards. d. Maintenance. The owner of any septic tank or his agent shall regularly inspect and arrange for the removal and sanitary disposal of septage from the tank whenever the top of the sludge layer is less than 12 inches be- low the bottom of the outlet baffle or whenever the bottom of the scum layer is less than three inches above the bottom of the outlet baffle. 3. Aerobic tanks. Aerobic tank treatment systems shall comply with the general requirements for sewage tanks set forth in section F. 1., and with the following: a. The treatment system including each individual unit or compart- ment shall be easily accessible for inspection and maintenance and shall be provided with secured covers. b. The raw sewage flow from the dwelling shall be intercepted by a I trash trap prior to its entering the aeration compartment. The trash trap shall have a net holding capacity of not less than 20 percent of the average daily flow. The invert level to the trap shall be above the liquid level and discharge . directly into the trap. The outlet from the trap to the aeration compartment shall be deep baffled or equipped with a tee or long ell. . c. The trash trap shall be readily accessible for inspection and ef- fective cleaning and shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry. d. The aeration compartment shall have a minimum holding capa- city of 500 gallons or 120 gallons per bedroom, whichever is greater. e. The method of aeration shall be accomplished by mechanical aeration, diffused air, or both. The method used shall maintain aerobic con- ditions at all times. f. The settling compartment shall have a minimum net holding ca- pacity equal to 20 percent of the volume of the aeration compartment. The design shall provide for effective settling and continuous return of settled sludge to the aeration compartment. g. A minimum one year warranty and an initial two year service contract which specifies regular inspection calls and effluent quality checks shall be provided as a part of the purchase agreement. h. All other features of the aerobic tanks not specifically mentioned above shall comply with National Sanitation Foundation Standard No. 40 (November 1970)., ;. DLstribubon and closing of effluent. a 517 6 MCAR § 4.8040 1. Distribution. a. Gravity distribution. (t) Level ground. Where the elevation difference of the ground surface does not exceed 28 inches in any direction within the soil treatment system, the sewage tank effluent may be directed to the soil treatment sys- tem through a system of interconnected distribution pipes or trenches in a continuous system. (2) Slightly sloping ground. (a) Sewage tank effluent may be distributed by a distribu- tion box provided the final ground surface elevation of the lowest trench is at least one foot higher than the outlet inverts of the distribution box. (b) Distribution box. (i) The box shall be watertight with a removable cover and shall be constructed of durable materials not subject to excessive corro- sion or decay. (ii) The inverts of all outlets shall be at the samd eleva- tion as measured fro►n a liquid surface in the bottom of the box. (iii) The inlet invert shall be at least one inch above the outlet inverts. (iv) The outlet inverts shall beat least four inches above the distribution box floor. (v) Each drainfield trench line shall be connected.sepa- rately to the distribution box and shall not be subdivided. (vi) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the dis- tribution box by pump, either a baffle wall shall be installed in the distribu- tion box or the pump discharge shall be directed against a wall or side of the box on which there is no outlet. The baffle shall be secured to the box and shall extend at least one inch above the crown of the inlet flow line. (3) Sloping ground. (a) Where the elevation difference of the ground surface exceeds 28 inches in any direction within the soil treatment system and a distribution box cannot be used as specified in section G. 1. a. (2), a drop box shall be installed at the head end of each lateral line. Connections between drop boxes shall be by watertight pipes. (b) Drop boxes. 6 MCAR § 4.8040 518 ' (i) The drop box shall be watertight and constructed of durable materials not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. (ii) The invert of the inlet pipe shall be at least one inch higher than the invert of the outlet pipe to the next trench. (iii) The invert of the outlet pipe to the next trench shall be at least two inches higher than the invert of the outlet pipe of the trench in which the box is located. (iv) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the drop box by a pump, the pump discharge shall be directed against a wall or side of the box on which there is no outlet. (v) The drop box shall have a removable cover either flush or above finished grade or covered by no more than six inches of soil. b. Pressure distribution. (1) Pressure distribution laterals shall be sized as shown in Ta- ble L (2) Laterals shall be spaced no further than 20 inches from a trench or bed wall. (3) Laterals shall be spaced no further than 40 inches apart. ' (4) Laterals shall be connected to a header pipe which is at least one and one -half inch and no more than two inches in diameter. TABLE I Maximum Allowable Lateral Lengths In Feet From Header Pipe Perforation Spacing Perf. 2.5 Feet 3.0 Feet Dia. Pipe Dia. Pipe Dia. V 1 -1/4" 1 -I/2., l:, 1 -1/4" 1 -1/2" 3/16" 34 52 70 36 60 75 7/32" 30 45 57 33 51 63 1/4" 25 38 50 27 42 54 2. Dosing. a. Dosing chamber. A dosing device is not necessary in all situations but, where used, shall comply with the following requirements. i (1) The dosing chamber shall be watertight and constructed of sound and durable materials not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. (2) There shall be one or more manholes, at least 20 inches least 519 b IVI( Hlc g �r.ov -ry dimension and preferably located directly above the dosing device. The man- hole shall extend through the dosing chamber cover to final grade and shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry. (3) The size of the effluent dose shall be determined by design of the soil treatment unit but in no case shall the dosing chamber be sized to provide a dose of less than 75 gallons. b. Dosing devices for gravity distribution. (1) Where a dosing device is employed, a pump or siphon shall deliver the dose to the soil treatment unit for gravity distribution over the soil treatment area. (2) For dwellings, the dosing device shall discharge at least 600 gallons per hour but no more than 2,700 gallons per hour. (3) For other establishments, the dosing device should discharge at a rate at least ten percent greater than the water supply flow rate but no faster than the rate at which effluent will flow out of the distribution device. (4) if the dosing device is a siphon, a maintenance inspection shall be made every six months by the owner or his agent. The siphon shall be maintained in proper operating condition. (5) If the dosing device is a pump, it shall be cast iron or bronze fitted and with stainless steel screws or constructed of other sound, durable and corrosion - resistant materials. (6) Where the soil treatment area is at a higher elevation than the pump, sufficient dynamic head shall be provided for both the elevation dif- ference and friction loss. (7) Where the dosing device is;a pump, an alarm device shall be installed to warn of pump failure. c. Dosing devices for pressure distribution. (1) The dosing device shall be a pump which is cast iron or bronze fitted and with stainless steel screws or constructed of sound, durable and corrosion - resistant materials. (2) The pump discharge capacity shall be at least seven and one - half gallons per minute for each 100 square feet of soil treatment area. (3) The pump discharge head shall be at least five feet greater than the head required to overcome pipe friction losses and the elevation dif- ference between. the pump and the distribution device. (4) Tlie quantity of effluent delivered for each pump cycle shall be no greater than 25 percent of one day's sewage flow. 6 MCAR § 4.8040 520 Y (5) An alarm device shall be installed to warn of pump failure. H. Final treatment and disposal. 1. General. Final treatment and disposal of all sewage tank effluent shall be by means of soil treatment and disposal. 2. Standard system. a. Sizing. (1) The required soil treatment area shall be determined by the daily sewage flow and the percolation rate of the soil. (2) Acceptable methods for estimating sewage flow for dwellings are given in Table II. The minimum daily sewage flow estimated for any dwelling shall provide for at least two bedrooms. For multiple residential units, the estimated daily sewage flow shall consist of the sum of the flows of each individual unit. TABLE II Sewage Flow (Gallons Per Day) Number of Classification of Dwelling* I ' Bedrooms I II III IV 2 300 225 180 — 3 450 300 218 — 4 600 375 256 — 5 750 450 294 — 6 900 525 332 *Table II is based on the following formulas: Classification I: Sewage Flow = 150 (No. of Bedrooms) Classification 11: Sewage Flow = 75 (No. of Bedrooms + 1) Classification III: Sewage Flow = 66 + 38 (No. of Bedrooms + 1) Classification IV: If a greywater system is employed pursuant to Appendix A, section D. 2., estimated sewage flow shall equal 60% of the amount provided in column 1, 11, or III of Table 11. (3) For other establishments, the daily sewage flow shall be de- termined as provided in section B. 33. Table II[. . (4) The soil treatment area shall be at least as large as set forth in 521 6 MCAR § 4.8040 TABLE III Percolation Rate Required Soil Treatment Area in Square Feet (Minutes per inch) (Per Gallon of Sewage Flow per Day) Faster than 0.1 * _ 0.1 to 5 * ** 0.83 6 to 15 1.27 16 to 30 1.67 31 to 45 2.00 46 to 60 2.20 Slower than 60 * * ** ** Soil is unsuitable for standard system if percolation rate is less than 0.1 minutes per inch. See Appendix A, section C. 5. ' * ** Consider alternative sewage treatment systems for soils with this per- colation rate range. See Appendix A, section C. 5. * *'* Soil is unsuitable for standard system if percolation rate is slower than 60 minutes per inch. See Appendix A, section C. 4. (5) Table III gives the required bottom area assuming six inches of filter material below the distribution pipe for trenches and beds. The re- quired bottom area may be reduced, for trenches only, by the following per- centages: 20 percent for 12 inches of filter material below the distribution pipe; 34 percent for 18 inches; and 40 percent for 24 inches. The filter ma- terial shall completely encase the distribution pipe to a depth of at least two inches. b. Location. (1) On slopes in excess of 12 percent, the soil profile shall be carefully evaluated in the location of the proposed soil treatment system and downslope to identify the presence of layers with different permeabilities that may cause sidehill seepage. In no case shall a trench be located within 15 feet of where such a layer surfaces on the downslope. (2) Bed construction shall be limited to areas having natural slopes of less than six percent. (3) Soil treatment systems shall be located as specified in Table IV following section ff. 2. d. (3). (4) Soil treatment areas shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding or in flood plains delineated by local ordinances adopted in compli- ance with the "State -wide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota" (Minn. Reg. NR 85 -93), or in areas for which re- gional flood information is available from the DNR, except that in areas where 'ten year flood information is available from and /or approved by the DNR, soil treatment systems may be installed in accordance with the pro- visions of Appendix A, section C. 6. MEMOORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio. DATE: January 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Deny a Mechanical Contractor's License for Neil Heating and Air Conditioning On the January 28, 1985 City Council Agenda is a recommendation that the Council deny the issuance of a Mechanical Contractor's License requested by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. n 'S Section % -1500 of the City Ordinances requires a Mechanical Contractor's License to be procured from the City Council before any person install, alter, reconstruct, or repair any portion of a building mechanical system consisting of heating, ventilating, comfort cooling, or refrigeration equipment, including any gas piping incidental thereto. This section of the ordinance also establishes the standards or criterion for obtaining such a license, that being that "licenses shall be issued only to individuals or contractors who demonstrate an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems." Licensing in this case is a matter of public health, safety and welfare and it is the City's responsibility to issue licenses only to those who are capable of doing proper work and are, therefore, eligible to obtain permits to do mechanical work within the City. The permit process is for the purpose of assuring, through an inspection, that any particular job has been completed in accordance with the mechanical code. Section 23 -002 of the City Ordinances sets forth the application procedure. Section 23 -003 requires that an application for a license be submitted to the appropriate municipal officer for review and comment and assurance that ordinance requirements have been complied with. In addition, the municipal officer is required to recommend approval or disapproval of the license request and furnish the City Council in writing the reasons whenever recommending disapproval of a license request. Our department first became aware of Neil Heating and Air Conditioning, which is located in Brooklyn Center, during an October or November 1984 Northstar Chapter of Building Officials meeting when Building Inspectors were warned of problems associated with this particular contractor in other communities in the area. The problems involved code violations and improper work by the contractor and doing work in some communities without a license and /or proper permits. On December 14, 1984, Mr. Neil Olson, President of Neil Heating and Air Conditioning, made application to the City of Brooklyn Center for a Mechanical Contractor's License and also requested the 'issuance of a permit to install a furnace in Brooklyn Center. The Building Inspector, during a discussion with Mr. Olson, noted the comments he had received from other Building Inspectors and informed Olson that it was very possible that a recommendation to deny his request for a license would be made to the City Council, but that he would need to make further investigation and inquiries into the allegations before making any recommendation on the matter. He also informed Olson that no permits to do mechanical work would be issued unless and until the City Council approved his license request. Our records indicate that Neil Heating and Air Conditioning has never had a Mechanical Contractor's License from the City of Brooklyn Center. The Building Inspector then made a number of contacts with other cities regarding their experience with this contractor. To date, we have received the following information and comments from various communities: The City of Edina has denied Neil Heating and Air Conditioning a license for 1985 based on previous improper work involving code deficiencies and for doing work without proper licensing and permits (seethe January 3, 1985 letter from 0. John Schirmang, Edina Building Official, attached). The City of Minneapolis is proceeding with license revocation hearings against Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. We have been advised that the reason for such action is improper work involving code violations, a history of tags and complaints and doing work without a license or permit. Attached is a letter from Paul Sperry, City of Minneapolis Inspector, relating to Neil Heating and Air Conditioning where Mr. Sperry states "I feel that you are well advised to not issue a license to this man with the preponderance of reports from Metropolitan area inspectors and court records which we maintain." He has also agreed to supply us with additional information prior to Monday evening's City Council meeting. Also attached is a letter from Don Amundson, Contract Installation Supervisor for Minnegasco, indicating how Minnegasco was called to make corrections of an improper installation of a manual damper in a flue tee done by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning in Fridley. We have also received correspondence from the City of Crystal involving problems that community has had with the same contractor (see attached letters from Don Peterson, Chief Building Inspector City of Crystal). Our ordinance standards for licensing Mechanical Contractors are very basic, requiring demonstration of an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems. We have no specific test for such a license and our determination generally involves a review by the Building Inspector of an applicant's credentials, if any, and a review of past problems. If these matters are in order, approval is recommended. To my knowledge the City has, in the past, never denied a Mechanical Contractor's License. However, I believe our ordinance standards are quite clear and the City is certainly not required to issue a license unless a contractor can show he has an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems. I believe the information we have obtained and presented regarding Neil Heating and Air Conditioning indicates quite clearly that his work, in many cases, has not been done in accordance with the State Mechanical Code and he has obviously not demonstrated an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to building mechanical systems and, therefore, should not be licensed to do mechanical work within the City of Brooklyn Center. Furthermore, the numerous -2- - charges of doing mechanical work without a license or proper permit, I believe, demonstrates either his unwillingness, or his inability, to abide by the laws and regulations relating to proper mechanical work. Therefore, based on the above, it is recommended that the City Council deny the license requested by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. Mr. Neil Olson has been advised of the City Council's consideration of this recommendation and also of his right to appear before the Council in support of his application. (see attached notice) -3- APPLICATION FOR LICENSE CITY OF BR E BROOKLYN CENTER HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENTLEMEN: *....... Ft �G'L'L6'�Z�- �t-iL�� ................ Fee WE.. ............................... . ............. /. ............ ............................... New .... a�.....Renewal................ ............. F ' ��` /.. �,1 ........ ........... ....... ��.......... Telephone .... .1. . .... ................ enclose the sum of ........................................................................ ....,.......................... ........................DOLLARS to the City of Brooklyn Center as required by the Ordinances of said City and have complied with all the requirements of said Ordinances necessary for obtaining this License: NOW, THEREFOR , I .,.�.. .. � ..... . . .................... l•• ......... .....hereby make application to ................. .......................�e,D,D -� ...................... ............................... ........ .. for the period ............it .... l..��..i.. ?Y .. ...............through..... l subject to all conditions and provisions of said (lydinance. City Use Only ......................... .......... ...: ..... /.. Signature of Applicant - j R. 'M. OLSON ENTERPRISES 61 9 0 ! FLO P. O. BOX 29292 PH. 786 -5530 } MINNEAPOLIS. 55428 i l LIC. 0- 425 - 626 - 3-3 03 -386 19.� 75- 1674!910 � E QQ dC — ORDER OF- EZP -A R 5 k First Brookdaie Bank 5620 Brooklyn Bowevard Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 i 157441:2 231.4334 6190 CITY OF WR EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 612- 927 -8861 January 3, 1985 Mr. Andy Alberti City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Andy, As per your request, I am writing this letter to inform you of the problem we have had with Neil Heating Inc. (Neil Olson). A year ago, he was tagged because he did a job without a per- mit or license. The customer was very unhappy because the job didn't work, so I was called to the resident's home to view the problems. We later found he had done another job in Edina without a license nor permit. We issued another tag and had both cases set for court. He did not show in court. We then had a bench warrant issued for his arrest and we could not find him. He has not had an Edina License during 1984 and we have denied him a 1985 license. Sincerely, 4 -1ohn Schirmang, Building Official City of Edina OS /kb �{'j S r-� 0 DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS SOL J. JACOBS, DIRECTOR U 1'/ 11 WIJNJ 300 PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 December 18, 1984 City of Brooklyn Center Department of Building inspections 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Attention: Andy Alberti Dear Andy: This is to advise you that there are license revocation hearings pending in the case of Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. We deamed this action necessary because of a long history of tags and complaints, the majority of which Neil had pleased guilty to and paid fines. There are still a number of cases which have not reached the courts as yet. I am aware of problems with this man since 1976. Most of the charges deal with doing gas or refrigeration work without a license or permit. He is due to appear in court in Crystal for work without a license or permit in February. I became aware of a job in Fridley where he installed a manual damper in a gas furnace vent recently. Don Amundson of Minnegasco can fill you in on this, they have pictures of the installation, Phone: 343 -7059. I feel that you are well advised to not issue a license to this man with the proponderance of reports from metropolitan area inspectors and court records which we maintain. Trust this. ill assist you in your efforts to stop this type of activity by Neil's Heati Yours truly, _. e Sup, isor al e frigeration Inspectiot w I MUM R 1 rte, a . I Minnego a +' January 10, 1985'`' r =� Andy Alberti City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr.. Alberti: I've enclosed copies of pictures taken of a manual damper installed in a flue tee, by an employee of Neil Heating Company. The customer paid $100 for the installation of this flue damper. Our Service Department was called out on a furnace service call, and at this time found the non approved vent damper. Minnegasco removed the tee and changed out the venting as needed. I called Neil Heating and explained the situation, and after doing so, the customer was reimbursed by Neil Heating. Sincerely, Don Amundson Contract and Installation Supervisor DA /pl Enclosure A Company of Diversified Energies, Inc. 700 West Linden Avenue Minneanoiis, Minnesota 55403 •.tea �� Y • ii /� 9A is n i � -l• A r Phone: 537 -8 WiT City o = 4141 jDOUGL " S DRIVE NORTH +{ CRV AL MUNIC L BUtLDIN ' - j j r. 4. , h CRY TAL, MIX tESOTA 55422 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE December 18, 1984 Dear Andy, .Attached find copy of letter which I submitted to our attorney, Paul Rosenthal, in regards to Neil Olson. We have a trial date of February 7, 1985, - 8:30 a.m., at which time Mr. Olson will answer the charges. I gave testimony at a Minneapolis committee hearing on December 12th. The hearing has been continued and I may appear again. Hope this is helpful. Phone: 537-842, C it ry, Stall.- - y oC., ­C Ir 0 V == =1 414?1IDOUGL S DRIVE NORTH r CRY 6TAL, MI y OTA 55422 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE / July 31, 1984 O Mr. Paul Rosenthal Rosenthal & Rondoni, LTD • 7600 - 56th Avenue North New' Hope, MST 55428 Dear Paul, in-regards to Nei- H. Olson dba Neil Heating and Air Conditioning, P.O. Box 29292, Minneapolis, Minnesota, my assistant, Bill Barber, had the first contact due to a concern OIL the homeowner, Mrs. Norton Korn at 4116 Jersey Avenue, about the cutting of a gas vent pipe. He checked the file and discovered that there had been no permit taken out for the - installation of a gas furnace nor was he licensed to do gas work in the city. That was on July 10, 1984. He was then contacted to make application for a license to install, main - tain, construct and repair gas burning devices and appliances. Neil H. Olson did make application for the license as well as an application for the permit after work had been started. On July 18, 1984, I was called out on a final inspection at 4116 Jersey Avenue and found a number of things that did not meet code. I meet with Neil on July 20,_1984, at 5:30 a.m., at 4116 Jersey Avenue and approximately 4 p.m. he had the job finished to meet the minimum standards of the State Building Code. I again asked him for a Class A gas- fitters card so we could license him. He got quite angry and stated that he had been licensed in Crystal before and that we had to renew his license. Joan Schmidt searched the records and found he had been licensed in 1976 and 1978, however, he never did produce a Class A cas- fitters card which is required along with the $1,000 gas bond and certificate of insurance in the amounts of $100,000 - $300,000 - $100,000. On July 25, 1984, I received a number of zerox conies of licenses from St. Paul, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Edina, and Fridley. None of•the licenses are for gas pitting. Those that are valid and current are for warm air onl%-. Mr. Paul Rosenthal July 31, 1984 Page 2 We have not as of this date received his $1,000 gas bond. Bloomington.said his bond with their city has been cancelled. I called Mr..Dave Kennedy and he advised that I give him a choice, either get another licensed contractor to pull the permit or -a court appearance_ July 30, 1984, Neil returned my call and said, "Write me a tag. We'll go to court." I believe we shall charge him with 1) Section—lD05.01 - working without - licenses required, 2) Section 400.07 - working without - permits required. We do have his money for both the application for license and the permit. If there is anything else that I .can help with such as copies of licenses, etcetera, please feel free to call me at .537 - 842 Sincerely,. ' Don Peterson Chief Building Inspector City of Crystal DHP /j s CITY BYROO 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY . BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE January 23, 1985 Mr. Neil Olson Neil Heating and Air Conditioning Box 29292 Minneapolis, MN 55428 Re: Notice of City Council Consideration of Your Request for Mechanical Contractor's License Dear Mr. Olson: Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will consider the recommended denial of your request for a Mechanical Contractor's License on Monday evening, January 28', 1985 in the City Council Chambers at the Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Council's consideration of this matter will begin at approximately 8:00 p.m., or later, depending upon their scheduled agenda. This notice is being sent to you pursuant to Section 23 -004 of the City Ordinances (copy attached) which requires notice to an applicant in the event disapproval of a license application is recommended. Section 23 -1500 of the City Ordinances (also attached) sets forth the requirement and standards for mechanical contractor's license. Based on our investigation of your request and information we have obtained, we believe that you are unable to demonstrate an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems and, therefore, are unable to meet the standards for obtaining a license from the City of Brooklyn Center. You have the right to appear before the City Council to provide information in support of your application. The decision to affirm or deny your license request, lies with the City Council. If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice or the City Council's consideration of this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mlg cc: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Enclosures " "Ilse .Saticet �2 a�re L� CHAPTER 23 - GEPTERAL LICIUTSDIG REGULATIONS Section 23 -001. APPLICABILITY. The provisions of these sections shall apply to h-e application for any issuance and revocation of licenses in the City except as may otherwise be specifically provided in the ordinances pertaining to particular licenses. Section 23 -002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSES. Application for licenses shall begin wrung to the Clerk for presentation to the Council. Such applications shall specify the following: a. Name and residence of the applicant(s) and if a corporation, the registered office thereof. b. The name and address of the location or place of business or activity for which the license is requested, or in the case of occupational licenses, the location from which the applicant operates. c. Such additional information or documents as the ordinance or administrative regulations may require from the applicant. Section 23 -003. REVIEW PRIOR TO COUNCIL ACTIONS. Prior to submitting the application to the Council for approval, the Clerk shall submit the application to the appropriate municipal officer for review and comment. Said official shall issue that all ordinance requirements have been complied with, and shall furnish the Council with such additional information as may be deemed appropriate or as requested. In addition, the officer shall recommend approval or disapproval of the application, and shall when recommending disapproval, furnish the Council in writing his reasons therefor. Section 23 -004. NOTICE TO APPLICANT. In the event disapproval of an application is recommended or in the event the Council disapproves or materially qualifies the license, the clerk shall notify the applicant of: a. The nature of the recommendation or action. b. The time and place at which the Council will next consider application. c. The applicant's right to appear before the Council in support of the application. Section 23 -005. COUNCIL ACTION. The application shall be submitted to the Council for consideration within a reasonable period following submission to the Clerk. Section 23 -006. SUSPENSION: REVOCATION. The Council may suspend or revoke a iy- license issued pursuant to the ordinances if the Council finds that any of the following ever occur; provided, however, that the licensee shall be given notice of the proposed revocation or suspension and be provided an opportunity to appear before the Council and be heard: 1 . That the licensee has knowingly made false statements in or regarding his application. Section 23 -1416. PEI;ALTIES. Whoever does any act or admits to do any act which constitutes - a breach of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. Each day that a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Section 23 -1500. DIECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall_ install, al erg , reconstruct, or repair an portion of a building mechanical Pa Y A g system consisting of heating, ventilating, comfort cooling, or refrigeration equipment, including as incidental thereto without first having c g Y g piping � g procured a license therefor from the City Brooklyn of Brookl Center. Licenses shall be issued only to individuals or contractors who demonstrate an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems. The annual license fee shall be as set forth in Section 23-010 of the City Ordinances. Licenses shall expire on the last day of April each year. Section 23-1501. HOUSE MOVING CONTRACTORS LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall move, remove, or raze any building within Brooklyn Center without first having procured a license therefor from the City of Brooklyn Center. Licenses shall be issued only to individuals or contractors who demonstrate qualifications and knowledge regarding such work and who can furnish proof of insurance relating to such work. The annual license fee shall be as set forth in Section 23-010 of the City Ordinances. Licenses shall expire on the last day of April each year. a Permit Required. No licensed person within Brooklyn Center shall q A Yn move, remove, or raze any building within Brooklyn Center without first applying f r and obtaining he Building Official.. Th e 0 obta n a permit from t � P g applicant r a he Building Official for permit shall furnish t g c such information as the Building Official deems necessary and shall conform to such reasonable regulations as the Building Official may establish. The application shall be accompanied by a permit fee ih the amount of $25. Section 23 -1502. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. ALLEGED ORDINANCE VIOLATION REPORT efenddnt's Name - William rjarW DBA Laundry Installers Address in full 5900 Drew Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 Place of Violation 1040 -42 13th Avenue Southgit,,f Zoning(not zip code) Number of Units Date and Time August 29, 1979 11:00 a.m. (DU) (RU) (SBU) Violation 2/7.1380 License or permit working without (Chapter & Sec. No.) (Short Description) ag Number 18 036322 6 Detailed Description of Alleged Violation: On July 2, 1979 I made an inspection at above listed property after noticing a chimney installed in a haphazard manner. Further inspection reveal 2 gas_ vents installed in which the wrong venting materials were used, no considerati was given for proper clearances to canbustables, vents were not fastened togethEr r4 L so that there was complete seperation at several points, all of which were concealed in the walls between the two halv of the building. The general contractor fbr the building advised me that Neil Olson of Neil Heatin 5 was responsible for this work and arranged a meeting for the following morning,at za this meeting eil Olson told me that the work was performed b his as contractor wh g Pe Y g was determined to be Mr. Bill Clark by a permit taken on August 16, 1979 more than C a month after work was started; a violation of the Minneapolis Charter of Ordinances At no time prior to this was an inspection called for as required by 103.690 of En z Minneapolis Ordinances. r. r-; The condition was an extreme safety hazard in my opinion and further installations . Of this type should not be permitted. Mr. Clark stated that he did not make this installation as Neil Olson had said but took a permit for the gas work at the reques of Neil Olson and Gene Peterson who is the owner of said property. Witnesses (Name and Address): Neil Olson - 3242 92nd Curve Northeast, Blaine, Minnesota 786_ 5530. Hiatt LaBissoniere - Department of Inspections, MUJA Inspector ector (Full Name): Yau gyp ry Telephone: 343 -7834 Section and Title: Department of Inspections, Heating Section, Gas Inspector Office Hours: 11:00 to 12:00 Noon n7VAT7TMrATT nr TATCDTOTTn1 TC ALLEGED ORDI +ANCr: VIOLATION REPORT , efendant's Name Neil Olson DBA Neil Hating and Air Conditionings Address in full 3242 92nd Curve Northeast Blaine Minnesota 55434 *,ace of Violation 4145 19th Avenue South Zoning(not zip code) Number of Units Date and Time September 28 1979 12:15 p. m. (DU) (RU (SBU ) Violation 277.1380 Gas heating work without license or permit (Chapter & Sec. No.) (Short Description) T ag Number 18 036324 1 Detailed Description of Alleged Violation: Neil Olson installed or caused to be installed gas jipina and vent piping without a permit or license. He left _iob where he had created a gas leak and owner had to call t c _Gas company to repair leak t" t r h t ti r 4 1 e t Q C V W itnesses (Name and Address): Robert Strom- Homeowner 4145 l9th Avenue South Inspector ( Full Name )\ S . T elephone: 348 -7884 S Son and Title: Department of Inspections Heating ection Gas I � r Office Hours: 11:00 to 12:00 Noon DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS ALL::Gi:O OPDINANC'; ' ;OLATION REPORT Defendant'Aamle Neil Olson DBA ,Veil Heati Air Conditioning W dress in full 7125 Sunrise Avenue, Circle Pines, Minnesota_ 55014 Place of Violation 947 18 Avenue Northeast Zoning(not zip code) Number of Units ate and Time May 7, 1980 2:00 p.m. (DU) (RU) (SBU) Violation 277.1380 Gas heating work without a license (Chapter 8 Sec. No.) (Short Description) Tag Number 18 452071 4 Detailed Description of :lleged.Violation: A inspection of a Bryant gas furnace at 947 18% Avenue Northeast, revealed a improperly installed furnace venting syatem which lacked proper clearance from combustible surfaces as required by Minnesota State Building Code 7404 Mr. Frank Nt -15on owner of homy stated that work was done by Neil Ol A convPrsatinn 1-gith MZ William Clark DBA Laundry Installers stated that he had not done this work but had taken a permit to enable h i.»LsQ p erform c omhilti nn test as required by Minnesota State Building 7905 The above work was done on or about January 1 1979 4 itnesses (Name and Address) : Frank Nelson - 947 18'5 Avenue Northeast, �r 5541;5 William Clark - laundry Installers 5800 Drew Avnnun Sni!rh, `+innn•pn1j4 Minne ota 554 Inspector ( Full Name). � S r �y u *phone: 348 -7884 Section and Title: Department of Inspections, Heating Section ,as Inspector Office Hours: 11:00 to 12 :00 Noon DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION'S O CITY M] OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 B ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: January 23, 1985 RE: Special Assessment Policy Street Reconstruction in Residential Areas Introduction• To -date the City of Brooklyn Center has maintained a policy that all costs relating to street improvement projects will be . specially assessed to the benefiting properties. Exceptions which have been made to this policy are few, but include the ,following: 1. on Municipal State Aid street projects, assessments to benefiting residential projects (in 1985) are limited to: - for concrete curb and gutter - actual cost, or $12.29 per assessable foot, whichever is less for grading and paving - (where no previous assessment has been levied) - actual cost or $21.93 per assessable foot, whichever is less - for grading and paving - (where a previous assessment has been levied) - assessment is based on a 15 year "equity schedule" with a maximum rate of $11.68 per assessable foot. Note: Municipal State Aid Street funds are used to pay the balance of costs on these projects. 2. In Industrial areas, where 9 -ton roadways are constructed, 70% of the costs are specially assessed, while the City pays 30% of the costs (usually through the use of Municipal state Aid street funds). 1 3. On the Xerxes Avenue reconstruction project between T.H. 100 and C.S.A.H. 10, special assessments levied covered 67% of the total costs, while the City's M.S.A. funds covered the balance. 4. On the Halifax Avenue /70th Avenue North improvement project in 1984, the total costs for concrete curb and gutter and street resurfacing were assessed, while the City paid for storm sewer system improvements and special intersection improvements. Maintenance Program The City has established and is maintaining a high -level street maintenance program. Under this program street patching and repairs are accomplished whenever signs of deterioration become evident (chuckholes, cracking, settlement, rough edges, poor rideability, etc.) and all streets in the City are seal- coated approximately once every 5 to 6 years. Total costs for this high level of maintenance, including overhead and administration costs is estimated t a $300,000 per $ P year. (This does not include signing, street sw n g g, P g, storm sewer maintenance, snow plowing, or any other costs not directly related to pavement maintenance.) Recommendation To Establish New Policies For Street Reconstruction Although most streets within the City of Brooklyn Center are being well maintained, there are needs for street improvements. These needs reflect the following considerations: - Some streets need geometric improvements to increase their traffic- carrying capacity, and /or to improve their structural capacity. (Note: Nearly all of these are on the Muncipal State Aid Street System.) Some streets have poorly- defined edges, especially at intersections (vehicles drive across corners) and in areas of high parking demand (despite the Code Enforcement Officers' enforcement of the City's prohibition to park on the boulevard). - Several preliminary requests are received each year from residents interested in having concrete curb and gutter installed - to improve the aesthetics and maintainability of their yards. However, when the estimate of costs are determined and they are advised that existing policy requires all costs to b ially assessed (currently at a rate of approximately 15.00 per assessable foot), none are able to receive a ougkr -- neighborhood support for the proposal to even justify circulation of a petition. VO 7,8 2 Determination of Benefits To Be Specially Assessed 40 "Special assessments are intended to reflect the influence of a specific local improvement upon the value of the property. No matter what particular formula or method is used to establish the amount of the assessment, the real measure of benefits is the increase in the market value of the land as a result of the improvement. "In the past, City Councils have been given broad discretion in determining benefits.... However (recent court decisions) .. require that the City Council should gather as much evidence . as possible on the issue of whether or not the benefits to be derived from installation of a particular improvement are sufficient to justify the cost and make specific findings as to the increases in market value. "(2) "(One way) to reduce the number of special assessment appeals is for the City to pay for some substantial portion of the cost of improvements out of general funds. The larger the portion of cost assumed by the City, the smaller would be the chances that...(the assessment would be found to exceed the benefit) ... "(3) (1) League of Minnesota Cities - "Local Improvement Guide" (2) Ibid (3) Ibid Accordingly, we have reviewed the question of benefit Y qu fit using two approaches, i.e. - (1) What rates are other cities using? and (2) What amount of benefit will be supported by qualified real estate appraisers? Survey of Other Cities A telephone survey of 10 metropolitan -area cities similar in size to Brooklyn Center indicates a great variance in assessment policy for street reconstruction. The hypothetical project (in a residential area) we described was as follows: "Before" condition: a bituminous - surfaced street without concrete curb and gutter, in fair to ,good condition "After" condition: a street with new concrete curbs and gutters,with pavement repairs as needed and with a bituminous overlay. 3 Following is a summary of the special assessments which would be levied by the 10 cities surveyed. Special Assessments Levied Number of Cites None 2 between $500 and $1000 3 between $1000 and $1600 3 over $1600 2 Real Estate Appraisers Discussions with our City Assessor and with a qualified independent real estate appraiser have indicated that it is very difficult to develop specific findings which clearly demonstrate the amount of increase in market value to properties which occur as a result of this kind of street improvements. However, the following guidelines have emerged from our discussions: - the benefits of concrete curb and gutter installation are easier to define than those relating to pavement improvements. - the benefits for any street improvement are approximately equal for any residential building site - regardless of size or frontage, and regardless of whether the property is a "corner lot" (with improvements on both sides) or an interior lot. - benefits are related to "before" and "after" conditions of the street, not to the question of whether (or when) the property was specially assessed for previous improvements. Recommended Assessment Policy For Street Reconstruction In Residential Areas It is abundantly clear that the policy of "Total Benefits = Total Costs" cannot be arbitrarily applied to street reconstruction projects. If the City is to proceed with street reconstruction projects, a new policy more closely relating to market value increases must be adopted to reflect guidelines established by recent court rulings. Based on our studies, I recommend that the City's special assessment policy be amended to provide that ,special assessments for street reconstruction projects (which include the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related grading, storm drainage and street paving improvements) will be determined as follows: for R -1 properties which are not subdividable: $1,200 per buildable site plus costs for driveway improvements, special parking provisions, etc. 4 for R -2 properties: $16.00 per assessable foot, with a minimum of $1,200 (75 x $16.00 $1.200.00). for R -3 properties: Total benefit = $16.00 per assessable foot Assessment per residential unit = Total benefit No. of Units for R -4 to R -7 properties: Benefits to be determined based on individual project evaluation Cost Analysis of Proposed Policy In order to evaluate the financial impact of the proposed policy, we have developed the following analysis: Total Cost For Improvements If all streets in the City were to be improved to optimum standards (i.e. - all Municipal State Aid streets to 9 -ton design with concrete curb and gutter; and all local streets to 5 -ton design with concrete curb and gutter) the estimated total costs, based on 1985 construction prices would be: Miles of Cost per Estimated Street Description Streets Mile Total Costs Municipal State Aid streets 20 $500,000 $10,000,000 Residentail streets in good condition (needing curb and gutter and overlay only) 75 $225,000 $16,875,000 Residentail streets in poor to fair condition (needing soil corrections, drainage improvements, curb and gutter and overlay) 8 $350,000 $ 2,800,000 TOTAL $30 million Note: It must be emphasized that we are not recommending consideration of reconstructing all streets in the City - either immediately or over any specified time period. Rather, these cost estimates are provided simply for the purpose of providing a total perspective of the question. i 5 Funding Sources: Application of the above- recommended special assessment formula for residential areas would result in special assessments totaling approximately $8.4 million (staff estimates that approximately 7000 of the City's 8200 residential units would abut a street improvement and would be assessed at $1200 /unit). It is estimated that special assessments to commercial and industrial properties within the City would total $2.6 million. An additional $10 million would be eligible for Municipal State Aid street fund reimbursement. This would leave approximately $9 million to be paid from the ad- valorem property tax levy or other funding sources. Rationale for City Participation: Participation in street improvement costs can be justified on the following basis: Description of Estimated Item City Benefit Benefit Reduced Pavement Over a 20 year period, $300,000 /year Maintenance Costs it is estimated that x .67 pavement maintenance costs x 20 years on a reconstructed street $ 4 million would be reduced by 2 /3rds when compared to the costs involved in extended maintenance Improved Property Increases in Assessed $10 million Values Property Value (equal value increase to value of special x .02 (2% average assessments) will result tax rate) in increased ad- valorem x 20 years taxes $ 4 million Note: approx. 15% of this increase represents the City tax levy. The remaining 85% represents tax levies by other agencies (school, county, etc.) Other Benefits Improved Community Intangible Appearance and, Socio- Economic Effects 6 Summary: As noted above, this office has no intention of recommending the initiation of a City -wide street reconstruction program. Rather,. this memo seeks to identify a rationale for adoption of a realistic special assessment policy relating to street reconstruction projects in residential areas. It is my opinion that adoption of the recommended policy would: (a) make special assessments levied on City- initiated projects more acceptable to property owners. (b) make it possible for some property owners who are interested in neighborhood improvement to recieve the support of other affected property owners; and (c) place the City in position to show market value benefits equal to or exceeding the special assessment, as required by recent court rulings. With adoption of the new policy, I would not expect any 'gush on City Hall ", by property owners asking for petitions for street improvements. Rather, I would expect to see petitions for a maximum of 6 to 10 blocks (less than 1 mile) per year. And, of course, the City Council always retains the authority to approve or disapprove any individual project based on its merits, its costs, its benefits to the property owners, and a cost /benefit analysis of City participation. Respectfully submitted, SK:jn 7 CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE, CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER rp Corrected copy 1/28/85 a� 3 Additions /corrections notated in bold type - ENGINEER'S REPORT Lyndale Avenue Improvement Proj Nos. 1985 -04, 1985 -05, 1985 -06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05 Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1985 -06 PROJECT LOCATION Lyndale Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North to 57th Avenue North. DISCUSSION: The City Council was presented a proposal for the improvement of Lyndale Avenue North in 1984, said proposal • recommending the City provide for the installation of water main, reconstruction of the street surfacing, and construction of concrete sidewalk between 53rd and 57th Avenues North. Subsequent to an informal neighborhood meeting and formal public hearing regarding the proposal, the City Council terminated proceedings and directed the staff to propose a funding program for the project which would be more equitable in its use of state, local, and special assessment funds. Based upon that directive, staff has presented a proposal for a new City -wide policy regarding special assessment of street reconstruction costs. This report incorporates said proposal. Following is a brief summary of the Lyndale Avenue North improvement proposal and an analysis of the effect of the special assessment recommendations on project financing. Water Main Improvement Project No 1985 -04 As noted in the 1984 proposal, it is recommended that water main be extended along Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd and 57th Avenues North in conjunction with the completion of street improvements. The proposal provides for extension of municipal water service to one of the few areas within the City presently served by individual private wells only. In addition to providing a source of water for domestic use, the main installation would extend the existing fire protection system which consists of fire hydrants at 53rd and 57th Avenues North only. 1 "7lie Souceticic� �Z oze C� „ i In conjunction with the main and hydrant installation, it is recommended that water service lines be extended to all developed lots and to those undeveloped lots which are capable of being developed without need of variances from setback and area requirements. Street Improvement Project No 1985 -05 The proposed improvement of Lyndale Avenue North provides for reconstruction of the street surface from the existing rural cross - section configuration of 24 to 26 feet to the minimum State Aid urban section standard of 28 feet. The proposed construction provides for installation of curb and gutter and concrete driveway aprons, thereby eliminating ponding along the street's edge. As noted in the 1984 proposal, an analysis of the roadway structure has shown it will be more economical to totally, remove and reconstruct the existing roadway than it would be to upgrade the existing roadway. This decision is reinforced by the consideration that at least 250 of the existing surface would have to be removed and replaced to allow installation of the water main. Again, as in 1984, the proposal comprehends the prohibition of on- street parking unless agreement can be reached by the adjacent property owner and the City. Conditions which must be met in order that on- street parking may be provided include: Condition No. 1 - Adequate street right -of -way exists, or the requesting property owner provides required easements at no cost to the City. Condition No. 2 - The City Engineer determines that proper drainage patterns can be maintained through such parking bays, Condition No. 3 - The City Engineer determines that safe and proper slopes can be maintained in the boulevard areas. Condition No. 4 - The property owner agrees to pay full -rate special assessments rather than the reduced- rate assessment (recommended later in this report) available to property owners who do not require on- street parking. Condition No. 5 The property owner understands and agrees that any such on- street parking spaces are public parking spaces which are subject to the same rules and regulations which apply to any other on- street parking areas within the City. 2 A new feature incorporated in the current proposal is that an extensive streetscape design be implemented in conjunction with the street reconstruction (see attached concept plans). The design goal is the achievement of a parkway effect, thereby promoting the motorist's tendency to reduce's speed along the seemlingly narrowed corridor. The concept, as proposed by the City's consultant Erkkila & Associates, proposes the planting of larger stock canopy trees along the boulevard, while interspercing lower level decorative trees along strategic sight lines toward the Mississippi River. The concept also enhances various locations along the route through the use of shrubbery and other various decorative g ri Y plantings and includes screening of the City's lift station. In conjunction with the proposals comprehended above, staff recommends that concrete curb and gutter, concrete driveways and bituminous overlay be constructed along 55th and 56th Avenues North between Lyndale Avenue North and the cul -de -sacs to the west. Sidewalk Improvement Project No 1985 -06 Staff the street improvement "package" include the construction of public sidewalk along the west side of Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd and 57th Avenues North, thereby providing a pedestrian link between the two bridges (both bridges have sidewalks) and to the River Ridge Park area. In the event the sidewalk construction proposal is deleted from the current project, boulevard restoration should include construction of the "benched" area to allow future installation of a sidewalk. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Water Main Improvement Project No 1985 -04 Staff has reviewed its previous position regarding the levy of special assessments for water improvements within the subject area and again recommends the City Council levy one residential unit assessment against each property which is used as a single- family residential site. Further, staff recommends that the City Council defer additional assessments allowed for levy against any site which could support a 2 family structure if that site is presently supporting a single family structure. Said deferrment would remain in effect until such time as the property is fully developed. In those cases where the property currently supports a multi - family structure (i.e. the duplex at 5519/5523, the 4 -plex at 5547 and 5601, and the motel at 5608) we recommend that the property be assessed frontage, excess area, and service costs in accordance with the existing assessment policy. 3 Finally, staff again recommends that no water main assessment be levied against presently undevelopable land (i.e. variance required). Rather, it is recommended that the Council propose to levy hookup charges only if and when development occurs on these properties. B. Street Improvement Project No 1985 -05 For Turnback projects, the Municipal State Aid system has established a special " Turnback Account" specifically for the purpose of allowing the City to upgrade the street to current standards. Accordingly, turnback funds will be made available for street construction, curb and gutter installation, driveway construction and storm sewer modifications. Staff also proposes that all abutting properties be specially assessed on the basis of the separate staff report which has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. As applied to this project, the proposed assessment policy recommends that properties zoned and /or used as single- family home sites be assessed at $1200 /unit, unless such property is subdividable to more than one building site without requirement of a variance. All other properties (i.e. - properties used for multiple dwellings, properties which are subdividable to more than one building site, and properties which are used for commercial purposes) would be assessed at $16.00 per assessable foot. A unique consideration applies to the proposed Lyndale Avenue project, i.e. - the proposal to prohibit parking along most segments of the project. To compensate for this factor we recommend that reduced special assessment rates be applied to those properties where no on- street parking is allowed. In these areas, we recommend that single- family properties be assessed $900.00, and that all other properties be assessed at $12.00 per assessable foot. In addition to the street improvement assessment, property owners who do not now have paved driveways would be assessed for the cost of concrete driveway apron construction at an estimated cost of $35.00 per square yard. Regarding the proposed street improvements on 55th and 56th Avenues North, staff again recommends that no additional assessments be levied for sideyard footage. Whereas, in 1984 staff proposed that the City Council assess street improvement costs for all properties abutting Lyndale Avenue North to the east, we now recommend that no assessment be levied for those properties considered unbuildable according to City Ordinances (i.e. those properties lying between 53rd and 55th Avenues North). 4 Based upon the incorporation of the special assessment policy amendment as recommended and the reduction in the area considered for special assessment, the City will be responsible for financing approximately $22,850 from its local M.S.A. account. C. Sidewalk Improvement Project No 1985 - 06 It is anticipated that the sidewalk improvement project can be paid for by the use of turnback funds. However, this is subject to final determination by the MN /DOT State Aid Division when project plans and specifications are approved. In the event of an adverse ruling regarding use of turnback funds, there is no doubt that the City can elect to use our regular Municipal State Aid funds. PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SUMMARY: Based upon the information provided, staff has estimated the project costs and funding available for the proposed projects. A summary of the costs and finances is as follows: 1 ows. Estimated Project Costs: A B C Project Project 1985 -04 Project 1985 -05 1985 -06 t� - Lyndale Lyndale 55th -56th Total Lyndale Item Water Main Street Street Street Sidewalk ------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -------- ------- Construction $54,600 $260,440 $12,810 $273,250 $37,750 Contingency - _ 5,460 __26_040 - 1_280 27_320 _ - 3_780 Subtotal $60,060 $286,480 $14,090 $300,570 $41,530 Engineering Consultant 7,500 7,500 City 5,400 25,780 1, 250 27,030 3,750 Administration 600 2,870 140 3,010 380 Legal 600 2,870 2,870 Capitalized Interest 8,000 5,550 5,550 Subtotal $74,660 $331,050 $15,480 $346,530 $45,660 Previous Capital Expenditure 71,180 Total $145,840 $331,050 $15,480 $346,530 $.45.,660 5 Previous Capital Expenditure for Main Extension @ I94 = $ 71,180 Estimated Total Cost, Project 1985 -04 = $ 74,660 Estimated Total Cost, Project 1985 -05 = $346,530 Estimated Total Cost, Project 1985 -06 = $ 45,660 Estimated Grand Total, All Projects = $538,030 plus cost of driveways and water service lines Estimated Revenue Sources: A. Water Main Improvement Project No 1985 -04 Special Assessments Single Family Residential (26 Units @ $2,484.00 /Each) $ 64,580 Frontage (1286.49 L.F. @ $25.43/L.F.) 32,720 Area (4,297 S.F. @ &7.89/100 S.F.) 340 Service Line Installations Actual Cost TOTAL $ 97,640 (plus service line Payment Against Previous Capital costs) Expenditures for Main Extension @ I94 $---48,200 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $145,840 B. Street Improvement Project No 1985 -05 Municipal State Aid Turnback Funds Construction & Contingency $238,630 Engineering Costs 31.020 SUBTOTAL $269,650 Special Assessments Single Family Residential (25 Units @ $900 /Each) $ 22,500 Frontage (215.42 L.F. @ $16.00 /L.F.+ 16,300 1070.97 L.F. @ $12.00 /L.F.) Driveway Actual Cost SUBTOTAL $ 38,800 TOTAL $308,450 Plus ,transfer from Public Utility fund 15,230 Plus transfer from M.S.A. Account 2611 22,850 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $346,530 6 C. Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1985 -06 Municipal State Aid Turnback Funds $ 45,660 (Alternate source = Regular M.S.A. funds) D. Net Grand Total Project Revenue $538,030 plus charges for driveways, ` and water service lines E. Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge Departmental records indicate that four remnant parcels located at the southwest corner of L ndale y and 57th Avenues may be combined to form one developable parcel. Neither remnant (nor its partent parcel) has been assessed a sanitary sewer connection charge. e. g It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge this condition and consider levying a special assessment for said connection charge based upon the g P 1960 levy rate ($402.23) with interest compounded at 6 percent per year, resulting in a hookup charge of $1,726.32. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The improvements as described above are feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated. It is recommended the City ouncil establish public a Y P hearing or the project on g March 11 .1985 and authorize P 7 , staff to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the proposed improvement hearing date thereby affording the affected property owners an opportunity to become familiar with the staff proposals. Respectfully submitted, James N. Grube City Engineer Recommended for Approval, Sy Knapp Director` of Public Works 7 Note to City Council: If this preliminary report meets with Pp our approval of the Y 1/28/85 Council meeting, we recommend the following ,schedule for consideration: February 6th or 7th- - City staff review proposal at informal neighborhood meeting February 11th - City Council officially receives Engineer's Report and calls for Public Hearing March 11th - Public Hearing and approval of plans and specifications April 4th - Open bids Aril 8th - April Award contract May 1st - Start construction September 1st Complete project 8 IDtnn1�1( c aa nwct.K ._rre�fl[a. ��� Mr — KDRD* '� V� reeMavcrt Eor�f aocwawc. aR txt�o far,1' eoaaw,K„ f *LOf1� ENGONeI �� UHICIWfi i AnG 41(,i'yd.?i nC-- -- MISSISSIPPI RIVER UFT TAT N .. WEMIr Df RN Y AVM, 9 lq W N pl fouMO ft P Nbb K Nb UI�f bfM a 218!!t '( �PMfC'f rIAEI?MlY7. WIfN GDHOpY 110Ef`/! iN4UH" ^1 4NG I nvN CONCEPT SHEET 4 of 7 REV �„�,0,,9� E * E I � � LYNDALE AVENUE LANDSCAPE SC PE t'LAN 53rd to 57th AVENUES 1o¢�at�¢� CITY Of umww. ercM4cl^ Y BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. 6 MR � 66� ! M MISSISSIPPI RIVER Hof&; k- k- UH�uNfo�t E� LAy{ MATL� INS[- . iH HFi f'f7v.1, f °CF1tavED L~A VW-Rf. r LYNDALE AVE. cy --7-- 23 hUb6f/1f � i 1 vr h �\ ►�►�� # VP 51&►i �uPnvlefy 7���iNiO1[LG�TN���IF�TF�EZ�f 1�F{. • f&fAVLKM FAKKWAY UFt4T • WA13LlvK 414AlrW69 TD JH& LORRID�IC • AA*.ft'fY • 'fwme. Am PEG6'J(RIAIy • FAG►Ll -fA%. M HJtHA, G ►L- • -t btvRAf t y ■ MDWIMf� CONCEPT 3 of 7 REV., �a�u�ra,,a0s LYNDALE AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN 53rd to 57th AVENUES pp CITY OF Q Iluni �{ A cNNHYn� r BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. b�5' — � ���� E 59TH AVE. N. Q) 1 58 AVE. N. 57TH AVE. N. z z z 1 W ui U W ` 1 a a Ir a �� a 1` 56TH 11 � AVE. N. z II I w Q =11 211 94 V m o 11 J 11 V 55TH AVE. N. \ �A • \ BELLVUE 'cn PARK • 54TH AVE. N. A. . ' — — — 1 ? •• 53RD AVE. N. MAP OF PROJECT LOCATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, Wate Imp Pro ject 1985-04-- Street Imp Project 1985--05 Sidewalk Imp roject 1985 -0 p 1 6 i ,��r --�j r .�1'�"",Cr �.�,G,�.,�/►r� ,w�Aaw /".�' ��+— •�% lj .'aL�►,; ��7 l L;�A A6149 xe + Am2vo lr..:►,Js/ s-a �►r.,� ""' ,yip .��i s► We Ar AT— fH��-- � ✓v/+�P.l.� .w•�r �r►�` �/n ,�Grr./e",�" ,rGrOi� r �� - 4 ,, o �" 40 Ai OdP Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTROL DATA BUSINESS ADVISORS, INC. JOINT COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 471.991 enacted in 1984 requires all political subdivisions in the State to establish equitable compensation relationships among its employees; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Area Management Association, the Coalition of Outstate Cities, the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association and other rela ted ublic jurisdictions risdictions desire to meet requirements of the law throw P J the requi h g a joint job evaluation study; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Area Management Association in consultation with representatives of outstate cities and after meeting and confering with representatives of organized labor screened and selected Control Data Business Advisors, Inc. as the consultant to perform the study; and WHEREAS, the cost of the study is to be divided among the participating jurisdictions in the following manner: each entity will pay a base charge of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) and a charge per employee of Thirty -five Dollars ($35.00) pe r person. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that it hereby approves participation of the City in the Joint Comparable Worth Study to be conducted by Control Data Business Advisors, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $7,575 based on the above specified formula be transmitted to the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota which city has offered to serve as the fiscal agent and contractor for the duration of the study. 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 F K Fig C 1 C 7d R T .3anuary 8, 1985 TO: ALL JURISDICTIONS PARTICIPA`T'ING IN JOINT COMPARABLE WORTIi S'T'UDY FROM: William S. Joynes, Chairman MAMA General Labor Relations Committee SUBJECT: FINAL COST DETERMINATION AND SAMPLE RESOLUTION At long last I am finally able to provide you with the specific dollar cost to your organization for the Comparable Worth Study being conducted by Control Data Business Advisors, Inc. The contract costs have been alloted in the following manner: 1. Three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) base charge for each jurisdiction, and 2. Thirty -five dollars ($35.00) for each employee. This is on the high side of our original estimate due to several factors. The first is the fact that we have chosen to build in a contingency of ten percent to provide for possible legal consultation or other unforeseen problems. Secondly, we have had to develop more original survey information than anticipated due to the variety of occupational areas represented in our study group. If all goes well, the project should enjoy a surplus at its conclusion which would be returned to the participants in proportion to their original costs. I would also like to define for you the definition of a jurisdiction, that is, one that must pay the $3,000.00 base fee. Obviously each individual city will be considered one entity and will be defined to include employees who work for libraries and Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. All utilities, regardless of the degree of autonomy from the city, will be considered separate entities and will be subject to the $3,000.00 base charge. Hospitals will be similarly considered. The reason for this was two -fold. One, it was necessary to develop separate occupational survey materials for utility and medical Positions which, in fairness, the cities should not be asked to subsidize. Second, it was virtually impossible to determine which utilities were autonomous or operated by individual cities. A waiver of the $3,000.00 base charge to a utility because it was a part of the city would have been difficult to discern and unfair. i FINAL COST DETF,R'MINATION -2- January 8, 1985 AND SAMPLE RESOLUTION I have attached to this explanation several items for your information: 1. If you have not as yet passed a resolution of ;participation the attached is a sample form which you may use. 2. Accurate as to Uhis date, a list of all participating jurisdictions. Additions and deletions to the list will occur in the next several weeks and you will be updated. 3. The final page contains an estimate of the amount owed by your individual jurisdiction. The data on number of employees has been gathered from a number of sources. I am sure you will advise us if we have credited you with too many. We sincerely hope you will adjust accordingly if the estimate is too low. As you are aware, the study has already commenced and many of our employees are actively involved in developing the initial survey materials. Each month all jurisdictions will receive a monthly update on the status of the project. If you require any additional information please feel free to contact the author at the City of Golden Valley, 545 -3781. WSJ:hfc cc: Joint Comparable Worth Personnel Committee Attach. PARTICIPATING IN JOINT COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY Albert Lea Maplewood Alexandria Mendota Hei(phts Anoka 1, 1innetonka Apple Valley Minnetrista Bemidji Moorhead Benson Mora Blaine Morris Bloomington Mound Brainerd Mounds View Breckenridge New Brighton Brooklyn Center New Hope Brooklyn Park New Ulm Burnsville North St. Paul Champlin Northfield Chaska Oakdale Circle Pines Orono Cloquet Ortonville Columbia Heights Plymouth Coon Rapids Prior Lake Cottage Grove Ramsey Crookston Redwood Fa;.ls Crystal Richfield Deephaven Riven Falls Delano Robbinsdale Eagan Rochester East Grand Forks Roseville Eden Prairie Rosemount Edina St. Anthony Elk River St. Cloud Excelsior St. James Farmington St. Louis Park Fergus Falls St. Paul Park Forest Lake St. Peter Fridley Savage Golden Valley Shakopee Hastings Shoreview Hopkins So. St. Paul Inver Grove Heights Stillwater Lakeville Thief River Falls Lino Lakes Wayzata Litchfield West St. Paul Little Falls White Bear Lake Mankato Winona Maple Grove Woodbury 1/8/85 = 88 Cities Ui'ILITIES PARTICIPATING IN JOINT COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY Anoka Mora Brainerd New Ulm Buffalo North St. Paul Chaska Owatonna Elk River Princeton Grand Marais Shakopee Hutchinson Thief River Falls Marshall Virginia Moorhead Wells 1/8/85 = 18 Utilities OTHER ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN JOINT COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY Metropolitan Airorts Commission 1/8/85 = 1 Other Organization to Metropolit Area fill ge ont Affo � � ciotEOn of thF Tv i A rea January 8, 1985 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: The fee assessed to your jurisdiction for participation in the Joint Comparable Worth Study of the Metropolitan Area Management Association and conducted by Control Data Business Advisors, Inc. is as follows: BASE FEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000.00 125 Employees* x $35.00 per employee .$ 4,375.00 Search and screening of consultant . . . .0 200.00 TOTAL DUE . . $ 7,575.00 This fee is due upon receipt of this statement. YOUR CHECK SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY AND FORWARDED ALONG WITH A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT TO: Mr. William S. Joynes, City Manager Chairman, MAMA General Labor Relations Committee City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 *If'the number of employees in your jurisdiction is incorrect please make the appropriate adjustment and extension to the statement fowarded along with your check. • CITY OF _ N 1 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533 -1521 January 4, 1985 Jerry Splinter, Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 The city managers of New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale have been studying the need for better senior transportation ser- vices for our five communities. This letter is a statement of understanding that has been reached between the cities on a course of action and a recommenda- tion on specific steps that must be taken if a formal senior transportation pro - gram is to be implemented. After much study and an analysis of a report by Tom Bublitz of Brooklyn Center, the five city managers have reached the conclusion that there is indeed a gap in the transportation services for our communities and that a significant portion of our senior citizens are being denied transportation that adequately meets teir needs. At a meeting of the city managers on December 20, 1984, the conclu- sion was reached that the managers would recommend to their cities that an ex- perimental or trial program be set up in order to meet these perceived needs. Essentially, the managers came to the following agreement: 1. The program objectives are to serve seniors who participate in: a. Recreational and social service programs. b. Congregate dining. c. Major shopping excursions. 2. That an experimental or trial program be set up for a period of one to two years. 3. That the cities join together through a joint powers agreement. 4. That any transportation services be provided through a contract with a transportation vendor. 5. That the transportation services be provided through a fixed route system. 6. That seniors who use the transportation service be required to pay a fare, on a per ride basis. The meeting on December 20, 1984 was concluded with the understanding that the City of New Hope would meet with the representative of the West Metro Coordinated Transportation Program and petition for a $10,000 grant for the program. The meeting was held with Mark Ryan of the West Metro Coordinated Transportation Program on December 27,1984. I informed Mr. Ryan of the managers'decision to proceed with the program. I obtained from him assurances that the $10,000 grant being held by his program was still available. Mr. Ryan stated that he would family Styled Village For Family Living 2 - January 4, 1985 Jerry Splinter, Manager City of Brooklyn Center inform his Board and that he saw no problem in holding the monies as long as we seriously proceeded with the formation of a program in the next 3 -4 weeks. Mr. Ryan and I further discussed what had to be done in order to get the five city program up and running. Essentially, we agreed that he and his staff would be available on a consulting basis. The first thing the five cities would need to do is hire or appoint a staff person to put the program together and get it started. Two important components of this process would be developing an RFP, in order to obtain contract transportation services, and the development of a joint powers agreement. The meeting was concluded, and I informed Mr. Ryan that by the third week in January, all five cities would have made definite decisions as to whether they were committed to the program or not. It appears that we will have $10,000 to use during 1985. As always, there are a few strings attached. The money can only be used for the actual delivery of transportation services. It cannot be used for the acquisition of capital goods nor can it be used for the development of the program. We cannot pay a staff per- son wages for one or two months, in order to put the program together. There also appears to be a good chance of receiving $5,.000 to $8,000 if the program goes into 1986. Any future funding by the West Metro Coordinating Transportation Program would be determined on a year by year basis depending on their objectives. There also exists a good possibility for future funding through the new regional trans- portation board (RTB). I would like to ask you to do two things in the next couple of weeks. The first is a motion by your Council indicating their willingness to join the program on a trial basis and second, agreement to spend initially between $500 and $1000 in order to pay for the services of a staff person to define and implement the program. I would recommend that we do not get any more formal than this at the present time. I will continue to serve as the contact person and coordinate the initial effort. Please review the letter and if there are any changes that need to be made or if you have any concerns, please get hold of me as soon as possible. Also, look over your staff and let me know if you have a candidate who we could hire to put this program together. I will be contacting you within the next few days. i Dan Donahue City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE dd /j sb MEMORANDUM t � TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 1, 198 SUBJECT: Rough Draft of Senior Citizen Transportation Report Transportation services, and particularly transportation services for the elderly, has been an issue which has been disucssed for many years in the Northwest Suburban Area. While numerous transit services exist for the elderly in northwest Hennepin County many senior citizens and agencies serving the elderly in northwest Hennepin County have expressed a concern that there are still many unmet needs in the area of transportation services for senior citizens. The City Manager's of the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, and Crystal met recently to discuss the issue of transportation for senior citizens. This report is an effort to answer some of the questions about transportation raised at the City Manager's meeting. Over ten years ago the Citizen's League published a report - titled "Building Incentives for Drivers to Ride ". In that report the Citizen's League made several statements about the existing situation of transit in the Twin Cities Metropolitan urea. Although the report is over ten years old several of the statements still appear to be true. Three of those observations made in the 1973 Citizen's League report are 1. The Twin Cities metropolitan area has become reliant upon the personal car, almost to the exclusion of any real alternatives for most people. 2. So far the metropolitan area has had a very narrow definition of what constitutes an alternative to the single occupant car. Mainly the definition has been a forty passenger vehicle operated by the MTC on permanent, regular scheduled, published routes. 3. But the metropolitan area has given the MTC a job it can't begin to handle itself, although, without question, the MTC type transit is indispensable as part of the total. These statements are still essentially true for the metropolitan area and, although there are numerous transit programs in the metropolitan area other than the MTC fixed route program, the bulk of transit is still oriented towards the forty passenger bus. The focus of the MTC's fixed route system is still the central business district area of St. Paul and Minneapolis. The MTC fixed route system is primarily a "spoke and wheel" model where the buses travel on the spokes from the suburban area to the hub of downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. Although the MTC is the most visible transit program in the metropolitan area there are numerous other transit programs operating in the metropolitan area. Available transportation services for the elderly focus primarily on trips of a medical or essential nature. Also, some of the programs have restrictions for rider eligibility. Metro Mobility services only those people who cannot use the regular MTC service because of a handicap as certified by Metro Mobility requirements. All riders on Metro Mobility must receive Metro Mobility certificates. Metro Mobility is a statewide program with eleven contracts in the metro area. Two of the contracts in the metropolitan area are with the MTC, one for central dispatch to decide which service provider is most appropriate to provide the transportation service. The MTC also provides 34 buses with lift equipped services. Metro Mobility contracts with a variety of agencies including cab companies, private for profit businesses and private non - profit corporations. NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON THE NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY In June of 1983 the final report of the Task Force on Needs of the Elderly in Northwest Hennepin County was compiled by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. The aging task force began meeting in December of 1982 with the goal of examining the recommendations contained in the Metropolitan Council's study titled "Study of the Needs of the Elderly in Hennepin County". The task force focused on the needs which are "ultimately the responsibility of local municipalities ". The following excerpts were taken from the 1983 task force report and are those references in the report pertinent to the issue of transportation for the elderly. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE The 1970 Census data, compared with more recent (1979) data from Medicare registration indicate the following changes in the county's older population: One in every 10 people in the county is now over 65. , Between 1970 and 1980, the number of people age 65 or over in Hennepin County increased 9.8 percent, from 92, 953 to 102,062. During the same time period, the non- elderly population of the county decreased by 3.2 percent, while the county's total population decreased by 2.3 percent. According to the 1980 Census, much of the growth in the elderly population has occurred in suburban Hennepin County. Between` 1970 and 1980, the suburban elderly population increased by 62.6 percent, from 27,692 to 45,032; while the elderly population of the city of Minneapolis decreased by 12.6 percent from 65,261 to 57,030. Although the majority of the county's elderly population still lives in Minneapolis, the proportion has decreased from 70 percent in 1970 to 56 percent in 1980. The dramatic increase in the number of persons over age 75 suggests a large increase in the number of women living alone, since two- thirds of all persons over age 75 are women. STUDY COMPOSITION A joint study conducted by Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council surveyed a total of 485 agencies with 386 (80%) completing the survey form. To limit the scope of the study, several types of agencies and programs were excluded from the resource data collection effort. Inpatient medical care, nursing homes, private physician care, income maintenance programs and special housing projects were not surveyed. Of the 386 agencies, 200 indicated that older people are of their primary client groups. These agencies provided the basis for the analysis of services available to older people in the county. FINDINGS About 30 agencies provide transportation and escort to 20,000 older people, spending about $2 million in federal, United Way and municipal funds. PHYSICAL ACCESS TO SERVICES The importance of transportation for those who either live in areas not served -by public transportation or who cannot use regular transit service has led to the development of several transportation programs in the county (Metro Mobility, special dial -a -ride programs in the suburbs and social service transportation programs). However, these programs still, apparently, do not provide adequate coverage and /or service levels for older people in all parts of the county. Transportation is seen as essential to maintaining a'sense of independence. PHYSICAL ACCESS SERVICES: TRANSPORTATION AND ESCORT "Physical access" services provide physical mobility and enable older people to get around to shop, visit friends and obtain needed services. Transportation is considered the greatest unmet service need for older people in Hennepin County. It was identified as the highest priority need by nearly all groups in all parts of the county (both urban and suburban areas). The following components are recommended for the organization and provision of transportation in Hennepin County: 1) Metro Mobility should continue to provide service to eligible older people; 2) a "social service" transportation system should be developed to serve older people who cannot use or are ineligible for the Metro Mobility system, or who live in areas not served by Metro Mobility; 3) a county- wide coordinating agency should be designated to work with new and existing resources to obtain the maximum use from available social service transportation resources; 4) community or multi - community level transportation services should be developed to provide additional transportation needed, particularly in the suburban areas of the county; and 5) expanded funding from a variety of sources is needed. In September 1981, the community task force received letters from several agencies and organizations in Hennepin County expressing interest in either coordinating or providing transportation. The task force gave its support to Senior Citizens Centers of Greater Minneapolis, Inc. to be the coordinating agency and apply for Title III funds to coordinate existing and develop new transportation services. This funding was granted and this agency is now implementing the model agreed upon by the task force. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AGING SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY As part of the 1982 joint study conducted by Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council, seniors, senior workers and agencies were surveyed and asked what service delivery problems were seen as "important ". The service delivery problem ranking highest both among seniors and senior workers ( 52.9 %) and agencies (67.60 was lack of transportation services. The problem of lack of transportation services by agencies location showed that the northwest area ranked highest with 77 %, the West Human Service Council area ranked second with 69 %, and the South Human Service Council area ranked third of the three with 63% of the agenices rating the issue of lack of transportation services. The following recommendations were contained in the 1982 study: RECOMMENDATION 76 "Suburban cities should use their funds to ensure access to service for their older residents, including the funding of community level sites and transportation. They should provide social and recreational opportunities, promote the development of housing alternatives, offer crime prevention activities for older persons, and share in the cost of providing some in -home services needed by their older residents, e.g. home nursing, home health, homemaker and chore services. (The level of need and thus the priority and level of funding of each service could be different in each municipality.)" "Suburban cities should fund the following services for older people: 1. Facilities and staff for the community level site serving their area. 2. Transportation. 3. Social and recreational opportunities. 4. Development of housing alternatives and related services, including chore /home maintenance services." CENSUS AND SURVEY DATA The summary of census data and survey information on the following pages was compiled by the staff of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. OVERVIEW OF THE CITIES IN THE NORTHWEST AREA BY AGE, ISOLATION, POVERTY STATUS AND VEHICLES NOT AVAILABLE: 65 +, BELOW 65 +, POVERTY & HOUSEHOLDS WITH 60 -64 65 -74 65+ 75+ LIVING ALONE, % of total h'sholds % of 65+ NO VEHICLE AVAILABLE Brooklyn Center 1,271 1,295 1,962 667 434 /3.6% 108/5.5% 681 Crystal 1,135 1,167 1,779 612 334 /3.7% 23/1.4% 401 Golden Valley 1,120 1,223 2,118 895 887 /4.4% 100/4.7% 263 New Hope 569 691 1,773 1,082 342/4.5% 40/2.3% 598 Robbinsdale 962 1,491 2,473 982 704 /12.3% 114/5.0% 748 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TYPE OF AGENCY PROVIDING PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE ELDERLY IN HENNEPIN COUNTY BY SERVICE GROUP (PHYSICAL ACCESS SERVICE TO INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION AND ESCORT SERVICES 1. PUBLIC: 18.8% 2. PRIVATE NON - PROFIT: 75% 3. PROPRIETARY: 6.2% DISTRIBUTION OF CLIENTS UTILIZING PHYSICAL ACCESS SERVICES BY PLANNING AREA MINNEAPOLIS: 35% SOUTH: 21.7% NORTHWEST: 14% WEST: 10.4% NON- HENNEPIN• 18.9% DEMOGRAPHICS AND SURVEY DATA RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION NEE IN THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE ELDERLY: HENNEPIN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZEN POPULATION AGE 60 -64 65 -74 65+ 75+ SENIOR CITIZENS, 65 +, LIVING ALONE 38,275 56,150 102,060 45,910 33,020 or 320 of the 65+ population in Hennepin County _A GE 65 + Northwest 12.2%, South 15.4 %, West 10.4 %, Minneapolis 56.5% (by Planning area) NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL TELEPHONE SURVEY RANKINGS BY CITY: (THE FOLLOWING IS THE NUMERICAL RANK OUT OF A POSSIBLE 28 THAT EACH CITY ASSIGNED THE ISSUE OF LACK OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ELDERLY IN THEIR CITY Brooklyn Center 8 Brooklyn Park 12 Champlin 7 Corcoran 3 Crystal 13 Dayton 1 Golden Valley 10 Hanover 3 Maple Grove 4 New Hope 8 Osseo 11 Robbinsdale 15 Rogers 2 From 1970 1980, the largest increase of 65+ population was in "South Hennepin (76.9 %) and Northwest Hennepin at 65.5% AGE GROUPS BY CITY - 1980 CENSU CITY 55 -64 65 -74 75+ TOTAL Brooklyn Center 2,985 1,295 675 4,955 New Hope 1,413 691 1,082 3,186 Robbinsdale 2,008 1,491 760 4,259 Crystal 2,742 1,167 612 4,521 Golden Valley 2,803 1,223 895 4,921 TOTALS 11,951 5,867 4,029 21,842 0 MUNICIPAL PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS Information on senior citizen social and recreational programs was obtained from staff persons responsible for development of programming for senior citizens. Each city has a somewhat different approach to providing this type of staff assistance with some cities spending relatively more time than others on programming senior activities. However, most have at least some type of regular meeting hours for senior citizen clubs or events and most have special events scheduled throughout the year such as trips and other special activities. The persons responsible for senior citizen recreational programming were interviewed at each of the cities. The following is a summary of the information obtained through these interviews. GOLDEN VALLEY The City of Golden Valley has made use of various transit programs in the past, ranging from a program run by the Jaycees to the Red Cross program, both of which are no longer in existence. Currently, Golden Valley makes use of North Memorial's senior ride program. They use North Memorial's vans on the second Monday of each month at noon and fourth Monday of each month in the evening for recreational and social use.. However, this program cannot always be counted upon since the priority for the North Memorial program is medical type trips. There are four high rises in Golden Valley with approximatley 85 to 125 units, each with a significant number of senior citizens. The City of Golden Valley provides service to senior citizens at these four high rises. The City contracts with Medicine Lake Lines for trips from the high rises to the Senior Center. Golden Valley contains several independent living apartment buildings such as Covenant Manor which has its own bus, Calvary Apartments and Calvary Co -op run by the Ebenezer Society which has a van, and Dover Hill which is a mid -rise subsidized housing project that also has transportation for its tenants. When the Red Cross program was working Golden Valley ran between 50 and 60 single rides per month to shopping, doctor, dentist visits etc. The North Memorial senior ride program is currently working at capacity and cannot handle additional requests for service. There are approximately 1,400 people in Golden Valley's senior programs for ages 55 and over. The Senior Center is located in the Brookview Golf Course area located between Highway 55 and Highway 12. In Golden Valley senior citizens pay for their own rides for special event type trips such as choir trips, hiking, movies etc. The transportation for functions at - the Senior Center is paid by the City. The annual cost to the City for transportation to the Senior Center, not including evenue is a roximatle 1 800 p ear. This g � PP Y $ , A Y averages out to two trips per month to senior club meetings and one trip per month to special event meetings at the Senior Citizens Center. People in their own homes do not have the access to transportation as do the seniors who live at the high rises or the independent living apartments. There are also problems with transportation for seniors who want to go to various classes during the day or to attend congregate dining. Barbara Bailey, the Senior Program Coordinator for the City of Golden Valley made an . interesting point and noted that senior citizens have become somewhat skeptical of transit programs since it appears that in the past transit programs have started then ended, resulting in a loss of service and a loss of confidence on the part of users. CRYSTAL The City of Crystal operates its senior programs out of Thorsen Community Center and has approximately 325 members. The senior center at Thorsen is open on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of each week from 1 :00 p.m. to 4 :00 p.m. Also, there are between 40 and 80 people attending congregate dining at Thorsen Community Center. Jean Fackler, the staff person in Crystal in charge of senior programming noted that she receives about two calls a day looking for rides. She also stated that many services exist for people who need rides to hospitals and medical clinics but it seems few services are available for seniors to attend recreational and social events. ROBBINSDALE Robbinsdale has two senior clubs, one meeting on the second and fourth Wednesdays in the afternoons with a membership of approximately 70 and the other senior club meeting on the first and third Wednesdays with a membership of approximatley 120. In conversation with Gretchen Blank, with the City of Robbinsdale she explained that Robbinsdale does not have access to the North Memorial vans for recreational trips. She pointed out that the hospital has indicated that they are at capacity with their medical rides. Ms. Blank also pointed out that the predominant age group in the senior clubs are people in their 70's and 80's. The groups meet at the Community Center and at City Hall. Robbinsdale's Community Center is located at 42nd and Regent. BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center's senior program has a mailing list of approximatleY 375 to 500 people. The Wednesday Leisure Time program meets from noon to 3:00 and averages between 75 and 80 people. On the first and third Friday night of each month from 7:00 to 9 :30 p.m. approximately 40 seniors meet at the Community Center. The actual membership of this group is somewhere near 90 but because driving after dark is particularly difficult for some elderly people the membership is reduced. The other regular program for seniors in Brooklyn Center is the Tuesday morning Senior Aqua Excursion which averages between 15 and 40 participants. As in most other cities Brooklyn Center's senior programs are open to those people 55 and over but the predominant age group participating are in their 70's and 80 In conversation with Kathy Flesher, Program Supervisor for the City of Brooklyn Center's recreation department, she noted that even short trips may be difficult for elderly people who have some mobility impairment. As an example she explained that elderly people living in Shingle Creek Towers, which is a high rise apartment building located approximately 2 blocks from the Community Center, had difficulty in walking to events at the Community Center and had to be transported if wind or rainy conditions existed. Ms. Flesher noted that in her experience with senior citizens she believes if transportation services were provided they would have to be provided on a regular basis so that people can accomodate them into their schedules and count on them. NEW HOPE Connie Wanner with the City of New Hope indicated there are approximately 50 members in the New Hopes senior citizens club and that 35 of these members are active in the club. The group meets twice a month at the New Hope Ice Arena for cards, trips etc. There is also a monthly activity scheduled for seniors at Northpark Plaza, a high rise located across from City Hall. Ms. Wanner stated she receives calls from persons interested in participating in club activities but lack transportation. MTC ROUTES i As stated earlier the MTC fixed route system follows the model of a spoke and wheel with the hub of the wheel being the downtown business district of Minneapolis and the spokes extending out to the suburban areas. As a result the MTC system has not focused on lateral travel within suburbs or travel between suburban cities. As an example, if an individual living at 65th and Unity in Brooklyn Center wanted to attend the senior club meeting at the Brooklyn Center Community Center beginning at noon and ending at 3:00 p.m. on each Wednesday of the week the following route would have to be followed: Get on the bus at 65th and Unity at 10:34 a.m. Travel on the bus to Brookdale and arrive at Brookdale by 10:49 a.m. At Brookdale wait until 11:05 a.m. for the #8 bus. Take the #8 bus going west on Bass Lake Road until you get to Shingle Creek. Get off at Shingle Creek and take the 8E bus north to City Hall for an arrival time of 11:09 a.m. For the return trip: Take the #8 at 2:29 p.m. from City Hall to 57th and Shingle Creek. Transfer at 57th to the 5D at 2 :54 p.m. Take the 5D to 65th and Unity for an arrival time of 3:05 p.m. For an individual traveling from 53rd and Lyndale Avenue North to the Brooklyn Center Community Center he or she would have to walk to 53rd and Bryant Avenue North (about 4 blocks) and at 12:15 catch the 8K to get to 65th and Shingle Creek. Walk south on Shingle Creek over the freeway to City Hall ( approximately 4 blocks) for an arrival time of approximatey 12:25• For the return trip to 53rd and Lyndale walk back to 65th and Shingle Creek by 3:25 and catch the 8F bus back to 53rd and Bryant for an arrival time of 3 :40. As these examples point out travel within municipalities is possible however, the trips take considerably longer than a direct route and require the rider to transfer and become quite familiar with the bus route system. POTENTIAL SERVICE AREAS Earlier this year Mr. Gary Kelsey, Program Manager of the Hennepin County Transportation Coordination Program reviewed the senior programs available at the various cities and compiled the schedule on the following page which gives an idea of the times and types of senior activities in a typical week. SAMPLE SENIOR TRANSPORTATION SCHEDULE TRANSPORTATION TIN PROGRAM MONDAYS *12:30 3:30 New Hope Senior Program Ice Arena *12:00 - 3:00 Golden Valley Senior Club (Once a month) 11:30 - 1:00 Congregate Dining - Thorsen /Calvary 7:00 - 9 :00 PM Crystal Senior Program - Thorsen *7:00 - 9:30 PM Golden Valley Senior Club (once a month) TUESDAYS 9:00 - 10:30 Brooklyn Center Senior Program - Community Center 11:30 - 1:00 Congregate Dining - Thorsen /Calvary 1:00 - 4:00 PM Crystal Senior Club - Thorsen 7:00 - 10:00 PM Robbinsdale Senior Club (Twice a month) WEDNESDAYS 11:30 1:00 Congregate Dining - Thorsen /Calvary 1 - _ Community Center 2: 00 3:00 Brooklyn Center Senior Program Y 1 :00 - 4:00 PM Robbinsdale Senior Club (Twice a month) 6:30 - 8:30 PM Crystal Senior Club (Once a month) THRUSDAYS *10:30 - 1:00 Shopping to Brookdale *11:30 1:00 Congregate Dining - Thorsen /Calvary 2:00 - 4:00 PM Grocery Shopping 12:00 - 3:00 PM Golden Valley Calvery Seniors (once a month) 1:30 - 3:00 PM Golden Valley Education Seminars (once a month) FRIDAYS 11:30 - 1:00 Congregate Dining - Thorsen /Calvary 1 :00 - 4:00 PM Crystal Senior Club 7:00 - 9:00 PM Brooklyn Center Senior Club (once a month) Senior Coordinators can schedule van(s) during open times for shopping, special events, small senior group meetings such as card clubs, paintining classes, discussions groups, etc. *Meeting conflicts with another group. c Sponsored by Senior Citizen Centers of Greater Minneapolis, Inc. CITY OF NEW HOPE TRANSIT PROGRAM The City of New Hope has undertaken a transportation program which services three apartment buildings in the City. The program was started after a survey was conducted among senior citizens living in three apartment complexes in New Hope. The three apartment buildings were, a government subsidized apartment building across the street from City Hall which has 107 units, Northridge Senior Apartments that has 200 units and St. Therese Senior Apartments that also has 200 units. The survey concluded that there was an additional need for transportation in New Hope. In the survey people's first request were for trips to doctors appointments and other individual matters; however, the most mentioned choice after individual trips was shopping at Brookdale. As a result of the survey $500 was raised from the senior care centers and $100 was raised from the local Lions club. The bus travels every Thursday and goes to Brookdale for shopping trips. Tickets are sold at 50 cents a piece at the three apartment locations. Ticket sales determine how many buses to send for a particular trip. _ The program began on June 7, 1984 and since that time two buses were used on two occassions and four times one bus was used. Average ridership is approximately 35 people per trip. There has been approximatley $400 spent on the project as of July 11, 1984. The cost of the bus is $50 for four hours. The buses are provided by Medicine Lake Lines. DAKOTA AREA REFERRAL AND TRANSPORTATION FOR SENIORS, INC. A significant portion of the transportation services provided to seniors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area is obtained through private non- profit corporations. Dakota Area Referral and Transportation for Seniors, Inc. (DARTS) is a good example of how transportation services are provided through non- profit organizations. DARTS is a voluntary non - profit organization established in 1974 for the purpose of charitable and educational purposes. The corporation develops and administers programs and services which serve the recreational, intellectual, social, physical, health and transportation needs of older people and disadvantaged citizens of Dakota county. Presently DARTS offers five day a week service countywide (Dakota County) for medical and life essential trips with limited yet scheduled days for other trip purposes. The DARTS system is relatively large with a projected total mileage for 1984 of 228,000 miles It is expected DARTS will provide 76,000 trips in 1984 and will log 13,500 total vehicle hours in the provision of this service. DARTS statistics show that 18% of the population over 65 in their service area is soley dependent on DARTS for transportation. This means approximately 12,000 people. DARTS has nine vehicles running at all times and a maximum of 11 vehicles available. DARTS receives 65% reimbursement of its operating deficit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. As a note of interest the MTC is on a 50 -50 local and state split for operating subsidy. Originally, the DARTS transportation program began under Title III provisions of the Older Americans Act which provides operating subsidies to start up transit programs. The first year of a Title III program is a 90 -10 federal local match, the second year moves to 75 -25, the third year is 50 -50 and after the third year the local unit is on its own funding as far as the Title III program goes. For purposes of acquisition of vehicles the Urban Mass Transit Administration has funding available through its 16B2 program. This is a vehicle acquisition program. However the 16B2 program is restricted to private non- profit corporations such as DARTS. In the past there has been as much as a two year delay in acquiring vehicles under 16B2 since the application has to go first through the state and then the federal agency, and because of budget deadlines the time required to actually get the vehicle on the road can be up to two years. DARTS uses various types of vans in its transit program. The personal type van with a lift for handicapped costs between $18,000 and $20,000. DARTS uses a van with additional roof space which allows people to walk upright in the van. They use a gas engine and a standard GM chasis and mount a special body on the chasis. The chasis' are made by companies such as Bluebird, Thomas, and Wayne. These buses cost between $23,000 and $25,000. The next step up from a van is a small bus. These vehicles cost between $22,000 and $28,000. The capacity for DARTS vehicles are 11 adults and two wheel chairs. The buses average between five to ten miles per gallon. Total cost for operating the bus not including personnel costs is between 25 cents and 50 cents per mile. DARTS provides a demand responsive type service although it builds some of its programming around specific senior citizen activities. It also provides trips for senior citizens to medical appointments, radiation therapy, and personal and shopping trips. DARTS figures show that 20% of the over 65 age group in Dakota county do not have a car. With regard to vehicle driver qualifications vehicles and drivers receiving state funding must comply with state standards for vehicle inspections and driver qualifications. DARTS puts their drivers through CPR, passenger assistance, defensive driving and other training programs. DARTS pays its part time drivers $6.50 per hour and its full time drivers $7.15 per hour. DARTS operates on a demand response basis with a 24 hour notice required. DARTS also provides a fixed route service on a contract basis to local non- profit sheltered workshops and day activity centers. The report on the following page provides a summary of the DARTS program for 1983• Dakota- Area Referral and Transportation for Seniors, inc. Board of Directors Chairman Walter Bertram Vice Chairman James Day MEMO TO: Richard Graham Secretary Dorothy Troeltzsch Treasurer FROM: Mark C. Hoisser Laurence Margolis Board Members DATE: January 5, 1984 Dyer Brogmus Mildred Gignac Vance Grannis, Sr. SUBJECT: 1983 Transit Report for Program Services Committee Robert M. Johnson William Lancaster Ann Newman Robert Peterson Carolyn Rodriquez Y T D X +- Projected Phyllis Snyder J. Robert Stassen Total Rides 73 , 734 + 2 .4 Marion Votel Senior (Demand Response) 45,638 +8.7% Executive Director Handicapped (Contracts) 28,096 -6.4% Richard Graham Total Miles 211,289 Senior 142 (67.49) +4.6% Exurban 43 (20.73) +32.7% Handicapped 24,890 (11.78) -1.4% Vehicle "Hours 14,020.50 Senior 10,298.25 (73.45) +3.8% Exurban 1,961.75 (14.00) -1.9% Handicapped 1 (12.55) +11.39% Cost Per Trip $5.11 ($6.13- Senior) Cost Per Mile $1.78 ($1.96- Senior) - 211,000 Miles without accident or injury. -8% of all riders required wheelchairs. Up 166% over 1982. -64% of all trips were life essential trips. -1,680 Individual Seniors made requests in 1983. 577 riders in 1983 were new riders who did not use DARTS in 1982. -15% of all senior trips were provided to residents in the outlying; cer.,munities. (Hastings, Farmington, Lakeville, Apple Valley and Burnsville) (6,845 Trips) - Donations for rides increased by 27% to $15,633.00. Average rider rode just over two times each month. 125 Sixth Avenue North — South Saint Paul, Minnesota 55075 (612) 455 -1560 (612) 455.1603 HOPKINS HOP -A -RIDE PROGRAM Since 1977 the City of Hopkins has undertaken a rather unique approach to providing q Pp p g transit to its citizens. The program is called "Hop -a- ride" and makes use of existing cab companies for service. The program started out as a demonstration program in 1977 and continues to this date. The City of Hopkins contracts on a bid basis with a cab company for the Hop a ride service. The program is a demand responsive program and runs from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no service on Sunday. The service takes riders anywhere within the city limits of Hopkins and goes to some locations outside the city such as Methodist Hospital, Meadowbrook Clinic, Knollwood Shopping Center and the Opportunity Workshop. Anyone in the City of Hopkins can use the service however, statistics show that 80% of the riders are low income residents. The cost of the service for riders is a 35 cent fare for low income residents (section - 8 eligible individuals and cents g ) 9 pe r ride for other riders. Hopkins proposed 1985 budget for the Hop -a -ride program is $80,000. The state of Minnesota pays an operating subsidy equal to 60% of the operating deficit. The City of Hopkins pays the remaining 40 %. In 1984 the fare revenue for the first 6 months was $6,497. The fare revenue in the program is part of the local match. BROOKLYN PARK, CHAMPLIN, OSSEO, MAPLE GROVE TRANSIT PROGRAM A program that is just beginning to operate in the northwest area is the Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Osseo and Maple Grove program which makes use of vans provided through Prudential Insurance company. The vans are made available to the cities of Brooklyn Park, Osseo, Maple Grove and Champlin between the hours of 9:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the cities have also contributed a portion of their Community Development Block Grant funds to hire a program coordinator for the project. Since the program is just beginning at this point there are no statistics available on its operation. It should be noted that gasoline and maintenance for the Prudential vans is provided by Hennepin County. The CDBG funds from the four cities will be used for the hiring of a 1/2 time coordinator and to provide operating subsidies for the program. Also, at this point it appears that some petroleum overcharge funds may be made available to the program in the future. These petroleum overcharge funds are dollars that are required to be paid back to states by the petroleum companies for over charging customers at the gas pumps. HENNEPIN COUNTY Planning documents from Hennepin County show that there is no major transit program planned in the near future and it appears that Hennepin County will focus on maintenance of the County roadway system and Light Rail Transit in terms of its transportation efforts in the future. ESTIMATED TRANSIT PROGRAM COST Mr. Gary Kelsey, Program Manager of the Hennepin County Transportation Coordination p Program prepared a sample budget for a transportation program for the cities of Crystal, Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley and New Hope. The draft budget presented on the following pages provides for a 3/4 time coordinator, who would work with the municipal senior program coordinators, vehicles, volunteers, routes, public relations, fund raising, etc. The van drivers would be primarily volunteer but the dollars budgeted for drivers would be for back up paid drivers. Driving training would also be provided to volunteer drivers. Mr. Kelsey recommended two vans for the program, one fifteen passenger van without a lift and one smaller $ passenger with a lift. The transit program proposed by this budget reflects a group transportation system. It is intended that rides would be focused on group activities and not individual activities such as medical appointments or other individual activities. Since the bus or buses would be shared by five cities the restriction and coordination of the times of operation in each city would be one of the key elements to success of any program. Mr. Kelsey, as well as other individuals interviewed for this report, indicated that there are various sources of funding available for projects of this nature. He noted that grants are available through the Older Americans Act Title III provisions and for this particular program there could be as much as $10,000 for the first year, $7,500 for the second year and possibly as much as $5,000 for the third year. Additionally, as mentioned before, there is the federal 16B2 program available for the purchase of vehicles. DRAFT PROGRAM BUDGET t Senior Citizen Transportation Program Municipalities of: Crystal, Brooklyn N e of Organization Center, Robbinsdale,Golden Valley Date April 25, 1984 A r e s s _ T _ -__ -- -- -- -- Zip _ Contact Person Phone In -Kind Ma $ Requesting Total PERSO Prog Coordinator 9:,360 9-360 Van Dr Con ting en cy Fund 1,200 __ 1,200 F RINGE BENEFITS FICA Medical Insurance — — Unemployment Condensation 1,404 1,4 Workers' Compensation -- — PERSONNEL 6,000 6,000 Travel (mileage).— — - - - - - -- - - -- Building -Space Mu Utilities Munici Telephone 1 100 0 _1100 Postage Municipali 500 _ 50 Printing Municipalit 700 _ Supplies 250 250 Office Furniture Mu _ Office Equipment Municipa Program Vehicle 28,0 28, 000 Volunteer Training, Suppor 800 800 Recognition Less Donation Income [ 1,000 -1 TOTA $ 48,214 $ 48,214 Without vehcile(s) Expense $20,214 $20,214 DRAFT BUDGET EXPLANATION Program Budget Please explain each line item appearing in your program budget. Please distinguish which is match. Name of Organization -- PERSONNEL Program Coordinator - 30 hrs /week @ $6.00 /hr. = $9,360 Van driver contingency Fund - 300 hours @ $4.00 /hr. = $1,200 Total fringe benefits for Program Coordinator 15% or $1,404 N OIL P ,_ ERSONNEL Mileage - 12,000 miles @ $.50 /miile for gas, insurance: maintenance and repair (labor inkind) Telephone - Installation & line expenses for one line Postage - Announcements /.flyers through water bills and bulk mail Printing - Municipal print shops and /or local printer Supplies Program office supplies Volunteer Training, Support, Recognition -- Class B lisences, First Aid and passenger assistance training expenses; driver expenses, recognition events, etc. Program Vehicles - Lift equipped bus(es) or van(s) *See Vehicle Options & Expense List BUDGET OPTIONS 1) Half-time coordinator 2) Lower hourly wage 3) In kind staff support to lessen coordinator's time 4) No benefits 5) Mileage in first year may be 8,000 or 10,000 miles (rather than 12,000 projected) 6) In -kind telephone ,. VEHCILE OPTIO 4_25_84 Cost Wil Bic 0 1) $15,000 Minivan 8 passenger 1 or 2 wheelchair tie downs lift-equipped 2) $16,500 Minivan 11 -15 passenger van 1 or 2 wheelchair tie downs lift- equipped 3) S22,000 Small bus lift -- equipped 10 - 16 passengers 1 or 2 wheelchair tie downs 4) $26,500 Small bus lift - equipped 17 - 24 passengers 1 or 2 wheelchair tie downs 5) $27,600 School bus 30 passenger 2 wheelchair tie downs lift -- equipped REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD One of the biggest unknowns in making decision on transit in the suburban area is gg g an Y the Regional Transit Board. The fifteen member board is currently forming by appointments from the Metropolitan Council. Essentially, the Regional Transit Board will be responsible for planning and contracting for transit services in the Metropolitan area. When the Regional Transit Board is created the MTC will become a three member operating board appointed by the RTB. The Regional Transit Board, in the future will contract with the MTC for transit services just as they would with any other transit provider. The state law creating the Regional Transit Board separates the planning function from the operations function. The Regional Transit Board is funded by the State. The Board will be responsible for projects in the metro area including the MTC and Metro Mobility. Additionally, the Regional Transit Board is designed to provide the bulk of its planning for short range projects with the Metropolitan Council focusing on long range planning. At this stage in development, with the Board just being appointed, it is difficult to speculate on any possible changes in transit service to suburban areas. CONCLUSION This report has attempted to describe the existing transit services in the northwest area, give some idea of the number of senior citizens who might make use of additional transit services, and to provide some glimpses of existing transit systems providing services to seniors. The statistics seem to indicate that some transit needs of seniors are being met to some degree. That is, the trip specifically to the doctor, hospital or clinic. The data also tells us that there is a gap in the service and a perceived need on the part of seniors for additional transportation particularly in the area of providing transit to recreational activities, congregate dining and other "non - medical" trips. In addition to the perceived need there does appear to be a number of seniors in the northwest area without access to automobiles or with limited ability to drive their automobiles. The information also tells us that the existing MTC routes are primarily focused towards the downtown Minneapolis central business district and that routes of an intra- or inter- suburban nature can be inadequate or confusing, especially to elderly people. The answer to the question of whether or not additional transit would be used by seniors appears to be yes. However, the extent to which it would be used is an unknown and it is difficult to ascertain this with existing information. As indicated earlier the greatest unknown in this whole formula appears to be the Regional Transit Board and what direction they will be taking in the future. However, there is precedent for municipalities taking action on their own to provide transit services and it is certainly not unusual for cities to do this. If cities are to make a committment to transit the next quesion appears to be what is the best means or what is the best model to provide transit services. The transit programs in Hennepin, Dakota and Ramsey county run the gamut of private- public and private -non- profit groups. With regard to funding there are programs available but, much of this funding is either for capital costs or as money to start up a program with decreasing amounts of subsidy each year. In making a committment to providing transit it might be a wise choice for municipalities to be prepared to pay the full cost of any system they are beginning. Also, as indicated earlier in the report senior citizens have seen many transit programs come and go. In order to maintain the credibility of transit in the future cities should be prepared to maintain any committment they begin. The Citizens League Report referred to in the beginning of this report had an interesting point to make about marketing transit and that is they recommended marketing transit at the destination. If a program is to be pursued by the five cities it would be beneficial to review the Citizens League recommendation. Essentially, they are saying that transit services are best marketed at areas of concentration of people such as apartment complexes or places where residences are concentrated. Additionally, other focuses of this type of marketing is at commercial centers and other areas where groups of individuals meet for a specific function. In this sense a transit program which would focus on senior citizen programs is following this type of approach to transit. No what decision the cities make with regard to transit it would appear to be in the best interest of each of the cities to approach the new Regional Transit Board as a group. I believe the information in this report indicates some areas of common ground between the cities including similarities in elderly populations and programs for the elderly. Whether the cities approach the Regional Transit Board with requests for service or requests for funding of transit services, if that should come about through the Regional Transit Board, a unified effort on the part of northwest suburban cities would seem advisable. In July of 1983 the Hennepin County Transportation Coordination program published a survey of transportation services for senior citizens in Hennepin County. The Hennepin County Transportation Coordination program began in 1982. The agency is a United Way agency and is not affiliated with Hennepin County. They are currently involved in changing their name to West Metro Transportation Coordination Program to eliminate the confusion between their agency and Hennepin County. The Hennepin County Transportation Coordination Program provides a number of services throughout Hennepin County and they currently have 11 subcontract programs which they administer. While the program does not provide any direct service it offers assistance to governmental jurisdictions and non - governmental agencies desiring to provide transportation services. The following table shows the status of transportation services for senior citizens who live in the cities of Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, Brooklyn Center, New Hope and Crystal as described in the Hennepin County Transportation Coordination Program survey titled "Transportation Services for Senior Citizens in Hennepin County ". SERVICE AREA SERVED ELIGIBILITY TRIP PURPOSE HOURS /DAYS VEHICLES COST CALL MISCELLANEOUS American Cancer Society State of Minnesota Must be ambulatory Radiation or M - F C -NA Donations 925 -2772 No long term, 5 day /week 3316 West 66th St. Cancer patient chemotherapy 8:30 am > accepted several rides Edina 55435 treatments 4:30 pm days in Contact: Ginny Heibeler advance Last resort service 925 -2772 Transportation limited to the availability of drivers Commmity Emergency Brooklyn Park, Unable to utilize Priority dialysis, M - F C -NA Donations 566 -9600 Transportation limited to Assistance Program Brooklyn Center, other transporta- chemotherapy, radi- Prefer from accepted 3 to 5 availability of drivers (CEAP) Osseo, south fringe tion services due ation treatment 9 am - 3 pm working 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. of Champlin, Camden to disability, days in Brooklyn Center, 55429 area north of 43rd difficulty in Second prioirty advance Contact: Volunteer Ave. No. scheduling a ride, medical appoint- Coordinator (Will transport or age ments 566 -9600 approximately to these boundaries Resident of ser- Third priority Mercy Hospital on vice area all other trips North, Hwy. 18 on west, Mpls. city limits on east, Hwy. 94 on south) Minneapolis Age & Minneapolis, first Senior citizen Priority health- 8:30 am - V -AC Donations 874 -5542 Attempts will be made to Opportunity Center ring suburbs; all related trips 5:30 pm V -NA accepted 2 days p y provide transportation in 1801 Nicollet Ave. So. of Hennepin County Resident of M - F C -NA in emergencies, however non - Minneapolis 55403 for clinic members service area Social service, Limited (station advance emergency transportation Contact: Chuck Wiesen (service area de- shopping service on wagons) is a priority 874 -5525 pends on funding weekends, source) Social /recreation- 1 pm - Personal assistance provided al - rarely 3:30 pm SERVICE AREA SERVED ELIGIBILITY TRIP PURPOSE HOURS /DAYS VEHICLES COST CALL MISCELLANEOUS Metro M obility See below for speci- Anyone who is not Any 12 M -F 6 am - See belay 60t one- 644 -2122 Transfer to other vehicles 76 University Ave. fic service areas able to use regu- 11 pm way during the morn- from city and suburbs at St. Paul 55104 lar route MTC reg. hours ing of following locations: C ontact : Dave Naditch service because of Sat., Sun. & day Fairview /Southdale, VA 644 -1119 a handicap as holidays: 75C one - before Hospital, Courage Center, certified by Metro 8 am - 11 pm way during ride North Memorial Medical Mobility require - peak hours between Center, Brookdale ments. All riders Last van (6 -9 am, 6 am & must receive Metro must be in 3:30 -6:30 1 pm To cancel trip call Mobility certifi- garage by pm) 646 -2001 cation. 11:45 pm so last pick- 15G for Information number: up time may transfer 644 -1119 vary, not between to exceed Project ------------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- 11 -Pm - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Mobility, Project Mobility Louis Paul, St. Louis Park, Suburban k, Robbins - Same as above Same as above Same as V /B -AC Paratran- 1275 University Ave. dale, Fridley, above sit, or St. Paul 55104 Columbia Heights, St. Morely Bus Contact: Dave Naditch Anthony, parts of Company 644 -1119 St. Paul suburbs - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Same rate Suburban Paratransit Bloomington, Edina, Same as above Same as above Same as for guest or escort 5701 Normandale Road Richfield, New Hope, above (limit 3) Edina Community Center St. Louis Park, Edina 55424 Crystal, Golden Contact: Matthew Valley, Brooklyn Ctr. Peterson 926 -6228 i ! SERVICE AREA SERVED ELIGIBILITY TRIP PURPOSE HOURS /DAYS VEHICLES COST CALL MISCELLANEOUS North Suburban Crystal, New Hope, Usually limited to Priority: Medical- All times, C -NA Donations 533 -2836 General personal assist - Emergency Assistance Robbinsdale senior citizen or related trips if volun- accepted 3 -4 days ance provided as needed Response (NEAR) mildly handi- teer driver in P.O. Box 22555 to anywhere, capped; some Social service is avail- advance Robbinsdale 55422 driver willing exceptions (e.g., Shopping able between Contact: Transportation Asian Americans 9 am & Coordinator w/o English 3 pm 533 -2836 Senior Ride Program Rogers, Hanover, 60+ Priority: medical- 8 am - V -AC Donations 520 -5025 Personal assistance North Memorial Medical Hasson, Dayton, related trips 4:30 pm accepted the provided Center Champlin, Resident of Friday 3300 Oakdale Ave. No. Greenfield, service area Social /recreational M - F, no before Special transportation Robbinsdale 55422 Corcoran, Osseo, group trips as holidays for any needs should be referred Contact: Ron Jaroscak Maple Grove, Self- supported, arranged ride to supervisors office 520 -5357 Crystal, Brooklyn independent living needed (520 -5357) e.g., groups Park, Brooklyn arrangement - -in the trips Center, Robbinsdale, cluding hi -rise follow- New Hope, Golden apartments & ing week Valley, Plymouth, single family Medina, Lorretto, homes Return Maple Plain, ride is Independence, Orono, Must not be under arranged Wayzata, Medicine 24 -hour nursing during Lake, North Mpls. care or in need of initial medical assistance call during transit Prefer need of assistance from only one attendent Licenses to be approved by the City Council on January 28, 1985 AMENDED FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. r Ault Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. 0 Sanitarian GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Service Center 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. s IY City Clerk Rp ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Garden City School 3501 6th Ave. N. Sanitarian, MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Abel Heating, Inc. 266 Water Street Key Plumbing & Heating 11915 Brockton Ave. N. H.O. Soderlin, Inc, 3731 Chicago Ave. S. Stein's, Inc. 1420 W. 3rd Ave. a -q�- Buildi Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE American Vending Co. P.O. Box 380 Sears Brookdale Brookdale Center Bill's Juice Vending 3900 Beard Ave. S. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. ill's Vending g W. Broadwa Brooklyn Center Getty 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Bermel Smaby 6500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Car Wsh 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Urgent Care r g 6000 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Cass Screw Co. 4748 France Ave. N. City Garage 6844 Shingle Cr. Pkwy: Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Donaldson's Brookdale Center Earle Brown School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Herman's Brookdale Center Hirschfield's Paint 5615 Xerxes Ave. N. Humboldt Sq. Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Kar -win Auto 6846 Humboldt Ave. Keehn Brothers 3400 48th Ave. N. Maranatha Nursing Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Mentor Corp. 2700 Freeway Blvd Minnesota Utilities 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Razor Court 5740 Brooklyn Blvd. Saber Dental Studio 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Salvation Army 2300 Freeway Blvd. Skelly Service 63rd Brooklyn Blvd. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Sound of Music 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. St. Paul Book 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. Summit Properties Mgmt. 6120 Earle Brown Dr. Union 76 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Vicker's Oil 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane School 7030 Perry Ave. N. Country Club Market 5717 Morgan Ave. N. Evergreen Park Elementary 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Maranatha Nursing Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Minnesota Viking Food Service 5200 W. 74th Street LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. NSI /Griswold Co. 8300 10th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. N.S.P. 4501 68th Ave. N. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Pearl Manufacturing 6801 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Red Owl Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Snyders Brookdale Center Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Dr. Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. City Hall 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian PERISHABLEL VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. NSI /Griswold 8300 19th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Dr. Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center Sanitarian READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Fisher Food Products 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Douglas J. Bistodeau 5541 Emerson Ave. N. Jay Showalter 6742 & 6744 France Ave. N. Rick Hartmann 6800 Fremont Place N. • Terry Hartmann 6804 Fremont Place N. Rick Hartmann 6805 Fremont Place N. Terry Hartmann 6809 Fremont Place N. H.E. Homes 6819 Fremont Place N. Joe Semler 6820 Fremont Place N. Joe Semler 6824 Fremont Place N. Rick Hartmann 6831 Fremont Place N. Walt Halberg 6835 Fremont Place N. Joon K. Kim 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. Eugene Van Lith 2901 Mumford Road Charles Q. Hillstrom 1217 & 1217 54th Ave. N. Terry Hartmann 1323 67th Lane N. Walt Halberg 1326 67th Lane N. Terry Hartmann 1339 67th Lane N. Renewal: Dwight Jereezek 6319 Brooklyn Drive Guy & Patricia Reuss 5824 Camden Ave. N. Gene Anderson 5812 James Ave. N. Vernon Vendel 5651 Knox Ave. N. Thomas & Mary Harty 5837 Lyndale Ave. N. Joe Thomas 6736 Scott Ave. N. Don Pfau 6913 Unity Ave. N. Nancy & Jack Huang 3518 Woodbine Lane � C ���� 1 Nancy & Jack Huang 5419 70th Circle `f� Director of Planning r� and Inspection SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Attracta Signs, Inc. 6417 Penn Ave. S. = l Build• fficial SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT B.C. Liquor Store X61 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. B.C. Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. B.C. Liquor Store #3 Northbrook Center Burger Brothers 5927 John Martin Dr. Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. C3 Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: 4toa j Gerald G. SplinteiV City Clerk _ a