Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 10-25 CCP Regular Session CITE.' COUNCIL ra( 'ENDA CITY OF '13RD Y .YN CENTER October 25, 1982 7:00 p.r.i. 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 bo removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal_ sequence on the agenda. 6. Request by LEAP for Change in the Name for the Access Road Into the CEAP Building 7. Resolutions: a. Accepti.ng.Bid and Approving Contract 1982- -M (Palmer Lake Basin Site Improvements) *b. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1982 -N .(Lift Station No. 3 Replacement) *c. Accepting Bid and .Approving Contract 1982-P (Municipal Garage Soils Correction, Lions Park Tennis Court Soils Correction) d. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Purchase of One -Ton Truck for Public Utilities Division e. Approving Specifications acid Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Jet Rodder for Public Utilities Division *f..' Recognizing the Brooklyn Center Town Baseball Team as Winners of the 1982 State Amateur Baseball Title g. Establishing Procedures for Initiation of Alley Improvements 8. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General T,icez;si_rAg Recr --This ordinance amendment would provide the fee scliedule for licenses required by Chapter 1, of the City Ordinances Regarding Animals. The ordinance is reco- .icmended for a second reading this evening and a public hearing on the ordinance is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 25, 1982 b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter. 8 of the City Ordinances Regarding Food Establishments -This ordinance amendment would provide a reduced license fee for food establishments with a quality assurance program to prevent food borne illnesses. The ordinance is offered for a first reading. It is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance amendment be scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on November 22, 1982. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations -This ordinance amendment would provide the fee schedule for licenses required by Chapter 8 of the City Ordinances Regarding a Food Sanitation Code. It is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance amendment be scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on November 22, 1982. 9. Planning Commission Items (8:00 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 82038 submitted by Melvin Maas for a special use permit to conduct a small engine repair home occupation in an 8' x 20' screened -in porch alongside the garage at 5907 Halifax Avenue North. The.Planning Commission recommended. approval of Application No. 82028 at its October 14, 1982 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application-No. 82039 submitted by John Clifford for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of a garage along the existing building line of 34' rather than 35' required by the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82039 at its October 7.4, 1982 meeting. *10. Approval of Additional Standby Election Judges for November 2, 1982 General Election 11. Discussion Items: a. North Hennepin Community and Convention Center Citizens Committee b. Consideration of Minnesota Constitutional Amendments *12. Consideration of Specified Licenses: a. Application for On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Red Lobster Restaurant *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment tp C ITY OF 6301 SHINGLE .CREEK PARKWAY z BROUAL ' q lf 7 N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 T 1 2J EMERGENCY- POLICE. -FIRE 561 -5720 November 4, 1982 Mr. Tom Saba 3219 Thurber Road Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429 Dear Mr. Saba: On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. As you know, the Open Forum is designed to give any citizen the opportunity to address the City Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint that is relevant to the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot wait until.the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager. Sincerely, Dean A. Nyquist Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN:dn J' "'ale .Sa�cetltucg � >l aze �� „ CITY. 1 E OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 � TELEPHONE 561 -5440 f j E , ME , R EMERGENCY - POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 November 4, 1982 Mr. Kenneth H. Miller. 10800 Lyndale South Minneapolis, Minnesota Dear Mr. Miller: On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for'taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. - As you know, the Open Forum is designed to give any citizen the opportunity to address the City Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint that is relevant to,the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot wait until the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager.' Sincerely, Dean A. Nyquist'V Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN:dn ` "? :e .SaHCCtleurg 7�Z a ze �i �• CITY. OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 _ -,... TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EN ' r hn EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 November 4, 1982 t r Ms. Mary Stebbins 5842 Washburn Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Dear Ms. Stebbins: On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for'taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. As you know, the Open Forum is designed to.give any citizen the opportunity to address the City Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint that is relevant to . the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot wait until the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager. Sincerely, r Dean A. Nyquist Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN:dn . G • • „ Ile Sookctlury male eit� 4 r e f - CI FY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY 0 K Y BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 November 4, 1982 Mr. Dale N. Barsness. 6719 Aldrich Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Dear Mr. Barsness: On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. As you know, the Open Forum is designed to give any citizen the opportunity to address the City Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint that is relevant to the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot'wait until the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager.' Sincerely, Dean A. Nyquist Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN: °Ile Saoscetli�r;� X11 aze �c'try i r Y CITY - --- f OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY "BROU"KLY 1® BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 .... TELEPHONE 561 -5440 fp ^• s E` N EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 November 4, 1982 Mr. Jim Stebbins 5842 Washburn Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Dear Mr. Stebbins: On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. As you know, the Open Forum is designed to give any citizen the opportunity to address the City Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint.that is relevant to the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot wait until the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager. Sincerely, • . t Dean A. Nyquist Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN:dn "X! .Saseetttce9 Vl eze eity CITY 5 ! OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY 'ROI"N O j BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 w._.., TELEPHONE 561 -5440 Z M1� EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE r -•--, , 561 -5720 L November 4, 1982 r Mr. Ed Commers 6206 Kyle Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429 Dear Mr. Commers : On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. As you know, the Open Forum is designed to give any citizen the opportunity to address the City .Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint that is relevant to the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot wait until the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager. Sincerely, Dean A. Nyquist< -'' Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN:dn "'ilre $atscetlri.rg �fl aze (� CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY f l BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561.5440 T EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE EIN TJR 561 -5720 November 4, 1982 Mr. Robert Becker 6433 Fremont Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Dear Mr. Becker: On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to address the Council at a recent Open Forum. As you know, the Open Forum is designed to give any citizen the opportunity to address the City Council as a whole and comment on any opinion, problem concern or complaint that is relevant to the affairs of this local government. Citizens are also encouraged to directly contact members of the City Council, the City Manager or City staff regarding problems or concerns. Please feel free to again make use of the Open Forum. If, on the other hand, you have a problem or concern that you feel needs immediate attention that cannot wait until the next Council meeting, I would suggest you contact the City Manager. t . Sincerely, Dean A. Nyquist Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DAN:dn • ,..ale .�o�cetlsitrg �jl aze city ,. . 1 «<...o••:••� �,...:. -sue ,- .*R- ....,..- .._.......,-�.�n� ... ' �., ar .: y -. .,. a pF},� .¢rr -., C� s au.�3, ..w...� — .....i... a< w..®. ..�............a+.w...m.s..�� „.r �✓ STANCE PROGRMA, INC. 723 Brooklyn Bodevord, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 (612)566 -9500 October 19, 1982 Mr. Jerry Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brcoklyn Center, Mri. 55430 Dear Jerry, On behalf of the Board of Directors of the C F�erg6ncy Assistance Program, I would like to ask the City of Brooklyn Center to place a street si(i on the road leading to the LEAP building. The Board of Directors wou1ri like to name the access to the LEAP building "CEAP Gtiiay" . Board members who are residents of Brooklyn Center would like to appear }More the City Coal at the earliest City Council meeting to make this request if necessary. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Edward T. Eide Executive Director I;TE /vl I 7 1 ,.f., / A j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: t RESOLUTION NO. �.w RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APYROVI'NG CONTRACT 1982 -M (PALMER LAKE BASIN SITE IMPROVEc f WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -25, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer on the 14th day of September, 1982, said tabulation as follows: Park C.S. Minnesota Construction McCrossan Valley Company Inc. Landscaping Base Bid Total $157,700.00 $214,986.75 $219,943.25 Add Alternate 1 Total 8,697.00 18,928.00 39,286.00 Add Alternate 2 Total (Minimum) 16,041.50 37,683.00 65,692.00 (Maximum) 22,691.00 54,308.00 85,342.00 Add Alternate 3 Total 8,520.00 9,100.00 9,490.00 Add Alternate 4 Total 5,880.00 4,572.00 8,532.00 Add Alternate 5 Total 4,160.00 2,752.00 1,770.00 4 Grand Total (Minimum) $200,998.50* $288,021.75 $344,713.25 ' (Maximum) $207,648.00 $304,646.75 $364,363.25 * Engineer's correction upon unit extension WHEREAS, the $4,160.00 bid amount for Alternate 5 by the low bidder is substantially in excess of the City Engincer's.estimate of $1,105.00 for this alternate, and the bid documents specifically allow the City to delete any portion of the work comprising the Contract and award the remaining work to the lowest responsible Bidder as may best serve the interests of the City, and; WHEREAS, it appears that Park Construction Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOWT, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center_, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into Contract, in the amount of $203,488.00, with Park Construction Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -25 according to the plans and specifications -therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1982-25 consists of the following Contract $203,488.00 Engineering 18,313.92 Administrative 2,03 4.88 TOTAL, $223,836.80 RFSOLUTLON NO. 1. Financing for Improvement Project Na. 1982 -25 shall be from the Capital Projects Fund (Division 53). 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forth- with to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 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: 'E and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. t j R a 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION 1/1 `+.. Fn. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway F-1 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561 -5448 cnoo ern canren ........ .itLM @AiIOM TO G.G. Splinter, City Manager FROM Gene Hagel, Director, Parks and Recreat 'o DATE October 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Bids - Palmer Lake Improvement Project Attached is a summary of bids received for the Palmer Lake Nature Area Improvement Project, together with a brief explanation of the Alternate Bids. All work included in the Alternate.Bids are as proposed by staff. The work was bid in this manner to provide for reduction in the project in the event that the total bid exceeded the amount budgeted for the project. A brief description of the work included in each of the Alternates follows. See also the attached letter from George Watson of Brauer d Associates. Alternate #1 This is a woodchip path extending around the westerly side of the softball diamonds at East Palmer Park. It also includes one observation point and one bench. Alternate #2 This includes the dredging of five ponds which are designed to serve a dual purpose: They act as siltation basins to improve water guality and they also provide nesting and ponding areas with islands. for wild life and. waterfowl. A woodchip path southwesterly of Penn Avenue is included, as is one observation point and path on the westerly side of the basin. Note that (Minimum) and (Maximum) refers to the estimated cubic yardage of dredged material to be removed. Estimates range from 6 c.y. to 13,300 c.y. Alterna #3 This is the pathway that has generated some controversy among the neighbors residing on Oliver Avenues North. Some residents are opposed to blacktoppi.ng the pathigay; others are opposed to any kind of pathway, preferring to leave the area as it now exists. At.'the request of the City Council the pathway was bid as a woodchip ail with the addition of bituminous as an alternate. The alternate o includes the widening of the existing sidewalk at Fast Palmer ark with a two foot concrete strip. The final determination regarding Alternate #3 was to be made by the Council at the time of awarding the bid. Alternate #4 This calls for an additional 588 plantings (Dogwood, Viburnum, Elder, and Cotoneaster.) to be distributed at various locations in the Basin. Alternate #5 This is a proposed restroom facility similar to the one included in the Central. Park project. It is not being recommended for acceptance due to the bid being excessively high. It would be our intention to contract for this separately at a later date. September 16, 1982 Mr. Sylvester Knapp Engineer- Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Palmer Lake Basin Site Improvements City Project #1982 -25 City Contract #1982 -M Mr. Knapp: I have checked the bids received at the September 14th opening for mathematical and technical errors and have tabulated the totals for each bidder. The summary of bids are shown on the attached sheet. -The base bid work includes the construction of: .parking lot, entry drive and lighting, .four observation points, .benches, bike racks, trash receptacles, signage, over 1,800 l.f. of asphalt path, .over 2,400 l.f. of woodchip path, .planting of trees, and seeding and sodding. Additional work to be performed in Add Alternate 1 will include the construction of approximately 350 l.f. of woodchip path, one observation point and one bench. U - Additional work to be performed in Add Alternate 2 will include the dredging of ponds, construction of one obser- Zn vation point, and furnishing and installation of sod. Additional work to be performed in Add Alternate 3 will . O include the substitution of an asphalt path for a base bid woodchip path. 7901 Flying Ciotad Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 Mr. Sylvester Knapp -2- September 16, 1982 Additional work to be performed in Add. Alternate 4 will include furnishing and installation of approximately 590 shrubs. - Additional work to be performed in Add Alternate 5 will include the construction of a concrete slab, and wood screen fencing for a portable restroom facility. A minor mathematical error was made by one of the bidders: Bidder Na Total in Err Correct Total Park Construction Add Alt. 2 (minimum) $16,041.50 Company Total $16,041.00 No technical errors were made by the bidders. Park Construction Company, the low bidder, has performed similar construction work for the City of Brooklyn Center. Their work has been of high quality and timely. They have also exhibited the ability to coordinate complex work. I would recommend that the award of the base bid and alter- nates 1, 2, 3 and 4 for a total contract value of $203,488.00 be made to Park Construction Company, however, that the award be delayed until all governmental permits for the project have been received. I expect both the permit from the Department of Natural Resources and the Corps of Engineers to take an additional 45 days for processing. The owner has the right to delay the award of this contract for a full 60 days from the time of the bid opening without effecting the contract price. The City should, in all fair- ness to the contractor, extend the date of completion for the project. BRAUER SSOCIATES LTD. or e Wm. Watson mt Attachment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Palmer Lake Basin Site Improvements City Project #1982 -25 City Contract #1982 -M SUMMARY OF BIDS Base Bid Add Alt. i Add Alt. 2 Add Alt. 3 Add Alt. 4 Add Alt. 5 Bidder Name Total Total Total Total Total Total Grand Total Minimum Maximum Minimum (Maximum) Park Const. $157,700.00 $ 8,697.00 $16,041.50 $22,691.00 $8,520.00 $5,880.00 $4,160.00 $200,998.50 $207,648.00• C.S. McCrossan 214,986.75 18,928.00 37,683.00 54,308.00 9,100.00 4,572.00 2,752.00 288,021.75 304,646.75 MN Valley Land. 219,943.25 39,286.00 65,692.00 85,342.00 9,490.00 8,532.00 1,770.00 344,713.25 364,363.25 Engineer's Est. 159,946.00 10,205.00 29,256.00 47,531.00 6,200.00 9,384.00 1,105.00 216,096.00 234,371.00 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CIO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1982 -N (LIFT STAT NO. 3 REPLACEMENT) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -26, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and the City Engineer on the 14th day of October, 1982, said tabulation as follows: Deduct Bidder Bid Amount For Alternate Northdale Construction Company, Inc. $46,500.00 No Bid Orvedahl Construction, Inc. 58,200.00 No Bid Acton Construction Company, Inc. 59,170.00 1,400.00 Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Company 60,693.00 910.00 Nodland Associates, Inc. 60,750.00 1,000.00 Erwin Montgomery Construction Company 61,950.00 500.00 Kirkwold Construction Company 62,120.60 1,285.60 Widmer Brothers, Inc. 63,720..00 600.00 Julian M. Johnson Construction Corporation 69,700.00 1,000.00 x Hayes Contractors, Inc. 75,700.00 700.00 Park Construction Company 76,350.00 1,000.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Northdale Construction Company, Inc, of Osseo, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Mayor. and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into Contract, in the amount of $46,500.00, with Northdale Construction Company, Inc. of Osseo, *•iinnesota, in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -26 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -26 is ,amended according to the following schedule: As Ordere As Bid Contract $59,340.00 $46,5.00.00 Engineering 5,340.00 4,185.00 Administrative 590. 465.00 i TOTAL $65,270.00 $51,150.00 RESOLUTION NO. e 2. Financing for Improvement Project No. 1982 -26 shall be from the Public Utilities Fund. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forth- with to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 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 r voted in favor thereof: t and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Y TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 22, 1982 RE: Evaluation of Bids Received for Contract 1982 -N (Replacement of Lift Station No. 3) Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received and opened on October 14, 1982, for the replacement of sanitary sewer Lift Station No. 3 located on West Palmer Lake Drive at Urban Avenue North. Upon review of the proposals, it has been determined that the lowest bid was submitted by Northdale Construction Company, Inc. Upon review of the project requirements with the Contractor, it has been determined that the Contractor made an error in the process of determining his proposal. As the Contractor prepared his bid, he mistakenly used a designated alternate pump system (Hydr- O -Matic pumps) in leiu of the designated "base bid" pump system (Flygt). The Contractor informed the staff that he understood Section B- 8.1.A.1. of the Special Provisions to indicate that the two pump systems -were considered equal, and therefore, their use was approved as base bid items. Our interpretation of the noted Section is that the City would accept the pumps without 'prequalifica- tion of their ability to perform. No mention is made about the pumps being considered equal, nor is any mention made regarding the bidding process. The section in question is stated as follows: B- 8.1.A.l. The Owner will accept either of the following pumps for installation in the lift station without prequa.lification submittals. Alternate A FLYGT Model CP -3101, 4 inch discharge, equipped with No. 433 impeller, 5 H.P. 1750 R.P.tN -, 230/460 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle motor capable of delivering 250 G.P.M. at 27.5 T.D.H. Alternate B IIYDR- O -MATIC 1 10 del 54N, 4 inch di.scharc*e, . equipped with trimmed impeller to meet design conditions of 250 G.P.M. at 27.5 T.D.H. The motor shall be 5 H.P., 1750 R.P.M., 230/460 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle. Further examination of the Instructions.to Bidders, Section 10.B., clearly shows it was the City's intent to receive proposals based upon Flygt pumps as a base bid item and Hydro- O -Matic (or pre - qualified equal) pumps quoted at an add /,deduct. Section 10.B. is excerpted below: 10.B. The bid prices ce.s in( l c: tod on the Proposal Form shall be in writing and in figur E;, aid in c« >e of conflicts, the former sh«1? apply. The Ir(_)posal . 1.oxr7 is based upon a lump sum all?ount fo co!- w,�1_e� on of lTIl ?D.l " "oC£.'T;ent Proj(� No. 1982 -26 as p1 ^v? Ci :d heroin b t> 'cl li, ">OYl U�2'.' i.n ;'t.i:31 -1 J­ of }' ''lyc plllnl an�J necess )ry accc'S:�u Lcs (seo Sp_- c.�.a1 Provisions) . The y October 22, 1982 Page 2 Proposal Form doc�.� :rovid > for an z ),d.c1 /deduct to the lump I. 1. an basec'l u,_ can use of Hydr 0 - 1 pump, and necessary accessories, or an a1Dprovc,C1 (prequalified) equal. 1. A11 Bidders mast submit a I?r_oposal Form which includes a lump aura proposal for installation of the Flygt system. a e H dr -G- Submission of an �3_�.ci / <<c�_tuct ,... �. proposal for use o y Matic pumps and accessories is optional. Finally, upon review of the Proposal Form, one can see it is again clearly stated that the base bid proposal comprehends use of Flygt pumps and that there is space available for an add /deduct for use of an approved alternate pump system. The pertinent sections of the Proposal Form are excerpted as follows: Based on the above, the Bidder proposes to complete Improvement Project No. 1982 --26 in accordance with the provisions stated herein and on the Plans, providing Flygt pumps and necessary accessories at a lump sum price of: DOLLARS AND CENTS $ As an alternate to the lump sum price bid above, the Bidder proposes to complete Improvement Project No. 1982 -26, providing pumps and necessary accessories at an add /deduct as provided below: Pump manufacturer and model Add /Deduct DOLLARS AND CENTS $ The Contractor does consider Section A -4.1. of the Special Provisions to substantiate. his claim that the Special Provisions take priority over the Proposal. Upon review of Section A -4.1., one can see that no priority is specifically established, and if it was, the order listed is based upon ascending order of,priority. Section A -4.1. reads as follows: A--4.1 Execution, Correlation and Intent of Documents A. Work under this Contract shill be governed by all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances and the Contract Docuuents,, listed as follows: 1. General Conditions of Contract 2. Special Provisions 3. Addenda 4. Proposal 5. Contract Document October 22, 1982 Page 3 The staff is negiotiating with the Contractor regarding his reluctance to use Flygt pumps and additional information will be provided at the October 25th meeting. In conjunction with the negotiation the staff has interviewed three references regarding the Contractor's ability to do the work.. Summa of R The staff has interviewed three references regarding the Contractor's ability to perform the work. A brief summary of the interviews follows 1. City of Plymouth (Fred Moore, Director of Public Works) The Contractor has been involved in a significant number of utility projects completed in Plymouth in the last 3 or 4 years. The City has found the Contractor to be cooperative and easy to work with. Mr. Moore has no reservations in recommending we accept the proposal of Northdale Construction Company, Inc. 2. City of Brooklyn Park (Chuck Lenthe, City Engineer) The Contractor has been (and is presently) involved in utility projects of significant scope within the City of Brooklyn Park. The Contractor has the equipment and manpower necessary to complete the work; however, it is advised that the staff work very closely with the Contractor to insure the timely completion of the work in accordance with the Contract provisions. Mr. Lenthe continues to work with the Contractor on Brooklyn Park projects and recommends we accept the proposal of Northdale Construction Company, Inc. 3. City of Elk River (Jeff Roos, Consulting Engineers' Diversified) The Contractor has completed numerous utility projects for the City. Mr. Roos confirms that the Contractor will be able to complete our project; however, he advises that we work closely with the Contractor to insure the timely completion of the work in accordance with the Contract. Mr. Roos continues to work with the Contractor on numerous projects and recommends we accept the proposal of Northdale Construction Company, Inc. Based upon the references listed above, it is evident that Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has the ability to complete the work. The staff recognizes that if the proposal is accepted, we must impress upon the Contractor the of the project its impact on the neighborhood. SK: jn d 3 # e Ae ..`,.__i i 7 89i -. -, . ! To., O a , �. n. 5369 (612)425 October 21, 1982 Mr. Jim Grube City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Reference: Lift Station Imp. Project #1982 -26 Dear Jim: On the above referenced project it is our intention to use equipment manufactured by Hydra -Matic in the lift station. It was our understanding per Special Provisions B -8.1 Subsection A that Hydro -Matic Model 54N and Flyght Model GP-3101 were equal and for approved use. was your intention to have FL ht It appears according to the pr oposal it u $ I Y PP g P P Y as base bid and Hydro -Matic as an alternate. This is not the way we understood the project, and in accordance with Special Provisions A -4.1 we feel the Special Provisions out govern the proposal forma Jim, we used Hydro -Matic in an effort to give the city the best possible product at the least cost to the owner. We. feel we have done this. Since our bid is based on the use of Hydro -Matic equipment, if we are unable to use this equipment, we would request our bid and bid bond returned. Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you would like to discuss the above matter we are readily available to do such. Yours truly NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Thomas J. Schany TJS:lt Nole Prxstcxic�k C (- T.xsxundum 7e Member .introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1982 -P (MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE SOILS CORRECTION, LIONS PARK TENNI CO URT SOILS CORRECTION) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project Nos. 1982 -20 and 1982 -28, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer on the 14th day of October, 1982, said tabulation as follows: Bidder Bid Amou Julian M. Johnson Construction Company $ 90,487.50 U.D. Contracting, Inc. 97,496.55 Veit & Company, Inc. 112,751.50 Buesing Brothers Trucking, Inc. 118,846.00 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 127,622.00 Imperial Developers, Inc. 128,513.05 Park Construction Company 133,008.00 Widmer Brothers, Inc. 159,900.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Julian M. Johnson Construction Company of Blaine, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into Contract, in the amount of $90,487.50, with Julian M. Johnson Construction Company of Blaine, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project Nos. 1982 -20 and 1982 -28 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project Nos. 1982 -20 and 1.982 -28 consist of the following: TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1982 -20 Contract $18,801.50 Engineering 3,692.14 Administrative 188.02 TOTAL $20,681.66 MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE SOIL CORRECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -23 Contract $71,686.00 Engineering 6,451.74 Administrative 716.86 TOTAL $78,854.60 S RESOLUTION NO. 2. Financing for the work shall be according to the following: Improvement Project No. 1982 -20 Capital Projects Fund (Division 88) - $20,681.66 Improvement Project No. 1982 -28 Public Utility Fund - $47,312.76 Capital projects Fund (Division 40) - $31,541.84 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forth- with to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Date Mayor ATTEST: ti 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. TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 22, 1982 RE: Evaluation of Bids Received for Contract 1982 -P (Municipal Service Garage Soils Correction, Lions Park Tennis Court Soils Correction) Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received and opened on October 14, 1982, for soil correction at the municipal garage and for the Lions Park tennis court. Upon review of the proposals, it has been determined that the lowest responsible bid was submitted by Julian M. Johnson Construction Company, the Contractor whose present contract with the City provides for water main installation through Central Park and Kylawn Park to the Twin Lake North Apartments. To date, the Contractor has performed in a responsible fashion, completing the work in a professional manner. The staff did interview Mr. Jeff Roos (Consulting Engineers Diversified) regarding the Contractor's ability to undertake a project of this scope (soil corrections) and was assured that the Contractor did have the means to complete such a project, as evidenced by his work in the North Star Industrial Park in Blaine. Based "upon the information provided above, it is recommended the City Council accept the proposal of Julian M. Johnson Construction Company. Summary o f Contract Co sts Improvement Project No. 1982 -20 (Lions Park Tennis Court Soils Correction) Estimated Construction Cost $19,800.00 Contract Cost as Bid 18,801.50 Net Difference $ 998.50 The City Council rejected the bid of $28,85.50 from C.S. McCrossan, Inc. (under Contract 1982-J) at its September 13, 1982 meeting. In so doing, the City realized a savings of $10,184.00 ($28,985.50 - $18,801.50) in the proposed cost of the work, with the proposal submitted by Julian M. Johnson Construction Company being approximately $1,000.00 less than the initial engineer's estimate. Improvement Project No. 1982 -28 (Municipal Service Garage Soil Correction) Estimated Construction Cost $90,300.00 Contract Cost as Bid 71,686.00 Net Difference $18,614.00 The $18,614.00 difference in estimated costs and bid prices is a result of an overestimation of bid prices for the following work comprehended under the Contract: soil correction storm sewer extension water main extension Sy Knapp Mcmber introduced the following resolution all and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TRUCK CAB AND CHASSIS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has received a quotation from Superior Ford of Plymouth, Minnesota, for the purchase of a truck cab and chassis; and WHEREAS, the quote of Superior Ford is considered to be the best competitve quote; and WHEREAS, the quotations submitted are as follows: Superior Ford $7,883.00 Iten Chevrolet $8,172.00 Brookdale Ford $8,374.00 Midway Ford $8,484.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Manager be authorized to purchase one (1) 10,000 truck. for the Public Utilities Department in the amount of $7,883 from Superior Ford. 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. Yrf CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY I fu 3 ,T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 '* EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 56 -5720 MEMORANDUM TO: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works FROM: Craig Hoffmanneo'4. Superintendent of Public Utilities DATE: October 12, 1982 SUBJECT: Replacement of Vehicle #639 Cab Unit or Truck We are currently in need of a close look at truck #639. This is our one -ton dump truck. Although the dump box is in excellent condition, the cab section and motor are very questionable. The current cab has rusted away from the frame. The cab mounts do not have enough surface area for rewel.ding. Find- . ing a used cab to fit our 1969 frame in very good shape may be difficult. The motor of truck #639 is also showing signs of age. It is currently burning oil (1 quart per 200 miles) and is in need of a new steering sector. Replacement of the cab and rebuilding the motor may save money now, but we may be spending more in the long run. The cost of the used cab replacement would be approx- imately $700 to $1,000 without the labor or reinstalling it (as per Wolinski Auto Parts). They noted that the availability of the cab unit may be question- able becauE.e of its age. The cost of the reinstallation of the unit plus the reinstallation of a flashing light, body work and painting would add close to $600. The motor overhall plus the addition of the steering sector and the replacement of the floor boards could add an additional. $700 for parts and labor. (price quoted from Bob Holmes, Service Garage Clerk). The overall cond- ition of the brake, exhaust, transmission and other vehicle systems would be questionable after $2,000 in expenditures. The one -ton dump truck has a multiple of uses in the Utility Department including carrying of hydrants, valve boxes, manhole castings and water and sewer main pipe which would damage the interior- of pickup trucks. With the existing hoist, it enables the crew to load these materials into the box without heavy hand lifting. Manhole rings and castings are lowered into place with this unit during manhole repair work. The loading of heavy well pump motors and the pulling and loading of lift station pumps (from deep within lift stations) are two additional tasks that a standard pickup truck would riot handle. The dump unit has been very use- ful. for loading and unloading rock and sand for . main breaks. When hand shoveling from the box is necessary (for exact placement of materials) the low profile-of this dump box makes it ideal. - The conversion of utility trucks from larger 3/4 MemorancJum October, 12, 1982 Page Two ton pickups to 1/2 and 1/4 ton pickup increase the need for maintaining a one ton dump truck. This truck is almost always in use for the above mentioned or for other similar type projects. The need for a .low profile dump truck with a hoist will become increasingly significant when the City crews begin a comp- rehensive sewer cleaning program. Bob Zimbrick, Utilities Supervisor. and I obtained a price quote for a new one ton truck from Chuck Eckel_ of Brookdale Ford. We asked for a quote with dual rear mud tires, heavy duty suspension, heavy duty heater, heavy duty battery and wide load mirrors. Our cost for a 1983 truck would be just over $8,600. Hank Davis, Street Department Superintendent, figured that with the additional costs for mounting the box, painting and repairing the box, mounting the hoist, adding a flasher and small incidentals, we would be talking another $1,000. The current condition of our other utility vehicles is listed in an attached page. As noted, this is the only utility vehicle that is in need of rebuilding or replacement this year. I am requesting that we replace vehicle 4639 with a new one "ton truck. We would then be reasonably sure of having a sound working vehicle. Recommended for Approval: Approved: COH:pk cc: Bob Zimbrick, Public Utilities Supervisor AUGUST 13, 1982 . PUBLIC UTILITIES TRUCK CONDITION REPORT TRUCK # YF:I}.R S IZE CYLIi MAKE, M ILEAGE CONDITION 643 1978 3/4 Ton V -8 Ford 44657 Fair 641 1980 1/4 Ton 4 Chev 15861 Good 640 1980 3/4 Ton 6 Chev 24582 Good 638 1980 1/4 Ton 4 Ford 13952 Good 623 1976 3/4 Ton V -8 Dodge 65221 Fair This truck needs some body work and possibly a new paint job this winter. 639 1969 1 Ton 6 Ford 43359 Poor The major problems are the cab. The floor boards are gone and the cab mounts are rusted away. This truck also needs a new steering sector, spindle bolts and bushings. It also uses about 1 quart of oil per 200 miles which means a motor overhall soon. The reason for the poor condition is age versus miles. This truck was parked outside the first 3 or 4 years and has been in cold storage since. The ice and salt had a chance to get in tight places and eat away all winter. With the replacement of this truck, we should be in good shape for the next 2 or 3 years. REZ:jn 7 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BI DS FOR JET RODDER MACHINE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City to provide for a proper level of sewer maintenance through purchase of a jet nodding machine; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that said jet rodding machine may be purchased at an estimated cost of $50,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The specifications for the jet rodding machine are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such impr6vement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than three (3) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 2:00 P.M. on November 16, 1982, at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will.then be tabulated and will be considered b the City Council Y Y at 7:00 P.M. on November 22, 1982, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. 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 fallowing voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 21, 1982 RE: Recommendation To Purchase Seder Cleaning Equipment The City's sanitary sewer system now has 98.6 miles of sanitary sewer mains, while our storm sewer system has 38 miles of mains with 1,500 catch basins. During the past 4 years we have experienced numerous stoppages and backups in both systems and it has become increasingly evident that our existing sewer cleaning program is in- adequate. Following is a summary of the number of stoppages in our sanitary sewer lines during the past 4 years: Found by Manhole Damage Claims Yea Found by Backups Inspections TOTAL Filed 1979 32 34 66 4 1980 18 39 57 1 1981 40 33 73 4 1982 41 32 73 7 (to October 15th) Accordingly, it is my opinion that dramatic improvements are needed to provide a proper level of service and to reduce the potential for liability resulting from damages caused by sewer backups. The sewer cleaning equipment currently owned by the City consists of a "mechanical rodder" and a "bucket machine ". The mechanical rodder is a useful machine for clean - ing out roots but is very ineffective for cleaning out sand, rocks, grease and other solids. The bucket machine is an antiquated machine intended for use in removing solids. However, it is extremely slow and ineffective for most situations. With this limited amount of equipment it is impossible to organize an effective preventive maintenance program. Modern sewer cleaning is principally accomplished with the use of two machines, i.e.: a "Jet Rodder" which uses water at pressures up to 2,000 p.s.i. to clean sewers with a jet action. This is a very efficient machine which, with a 2- person crew, can clean up to 6,000 lineal feet of 8 to 12 inch diameter sewers per day. However, on a "first- time - through" basis, the average production would be in the order of 2,500 to 3,000 feet per day; and a. "Vacuum Cleaning Machine" which removes solids and /or liquids from manholes and catch basins, both those which are naturally deposited within these structures, and those which are pulled back into these structures by the jet rodder. Theses machines can remove in minutes those accumulations which would take hours by other methods. October 21, 1982 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 Although few cities buy new mechanical rodding machines, most cities keep their old ones for the purpose of cleaning out roots in very bad areas. In addition, chemicals are sometimes used to retard root growth. Recommended frequency for cleaning of a sanitary sewer system is to clean all sanitary sewers at least every 2 to 3 years, and to clean trouble spots on an needed "b t restaurants need cleaning a as d "basis. Areas with certain types of restauran s may g s frequently as once every 2 or 3 weeks. Areas where grades are flat and flows are very low may require cleaning monthly or quarterly. Storm sewer cleaning is required primarily in smaller pipes (up to 24 inches in diameter) and particularly in catch basins, catch basin leads and manholes. Survey of Other Suburb Cities A survey of other cities in our area shows the following: Number of Number of Citl Vacuum Machines Jet Rodders Anoka 1* 1* Bloomington 2 2 Brooklyn Park 1 1 Burnsville 1* 1* Columbia Heights 1* 1* Coon Rapids 1* 1* Crystal 0 1 Eden Prairie 1 1 Edina 1 1 Fridley 1 Golden Valley 1 1 Maple Grove 0 1 Minnetonka 1 1 New Brighton 1 1 Plymouth 1 1 Robbinsdale 1* 1* Roseville 1 1 St. Louis Park 1 1 Wayzata 1 1 * indicates those cities which have a "combination" jet rodder and vacuum cleaning machine. October 21, 1982 - G.G. Splinter Pagc .3 Other cities also report use of these machines for a variety of other duties including: - use of jet rodding machines to de -ice frozen catch basin leads and culverts - use of the vacuum cleaning machine to clean traps and sumps - use of the vacuum cleaning machine to dewater wet holes - such as at a water main break - use of the vacuum cleaning machine to dry out wet potholes to allow patching (limited to severe conditions only) - use of vacuum cleaning machine for emergency cleanup of spills (liquid or solid) - the jet rodder can be adapted to use as a spray truck on skating rinks (We would propose to use this as a standby unit to replace our old spray truck. However, we would need to keep our never street flusher and use it as our primary unit for skating rinks) Options Available Several options are available in both types of machines. And several options have been considered in the method of procuring these machines. Following is a summary of the alternatives we have analyzed: Alt ernate No. 1 : City to purchase and operate a "combination" Jet Rodder/ Vacuum Cleaning Machine Estimated cost = $100,000 to $135,000 (depending on type and accessories) Advantages: - One unit, with one or two motors (instead of two units with 4 motors) - Ideal for are where large amounts of solids must be removed. - Requires less storage space - Less congestion on street (than when two units are set up at same location) . Disadvantages: - Units are very large and difficult to use off- the -road. - Not able to perform both functions in two different areas (other cities report that the two units are.needed together only about 15 to 25 percent of the time.) - Much more likely to freeze up during cold winter months than the separate jet rodding machines. Evaluation: This is a viable alternate but is not as good as Alternate No. 2. Alt No. 2 : City to purchase and operate two units, - a jet rodder and a vacuum cleaning machine, both full sized, truck - mounted units. Estimated cost= $115,000 to $125,000 ($45,000 to $50,000 for jet rodder and $70,000 to $75,000 for vacuum cleaning machine) October 21, 1902 - G.G. Splinter Page 4 Advantages: - Jet rodder can be used year -round because components and hoses are enclosed, (Note: other cities report "routine" sewer cleaning while temperatures are above OoF, and use of jet rodder for emergency cleaning under almost any temperature conditions.) - Two units can be used on separate jobs i.e.: "et rodder can be p jobs, J cleaning sanitary sewers while the vacuum machine is being used to clean catch basins, etc. etc. - These units are more manuverable than either the combination unit or the trailer - mounted units (i.e. - Alternate No. 3) Disadvantages: - Two units require approximately 50% more storage space than a combination unit - When both functions must be performed at the same time, in the same manhole, it becomes more congested - (both within the manhole and the congestion of two vehicles parked in the street) - Two units to maintain (however, total cost of maintenance is approx- imately equal to the cost for a combination unit). Evaluation: This is the ideal alternate in terms of providing the right equipment for the job. Implementation of this alternate would assure a high - quality sewer cleaning program, operable on a year -round basis. A lternate No. 3 : City to purchase and operate trailer mounted units (in lieu of truck- mounted units) Estimated costs = $50,000 to $70,000 ($20,000 to $25,000 for jet rodder and $30,000 to $45,000 for vacuum cleaning machine) Advantages: - low cost - good for small cities with less than 50 miles of sewers Disadvantages: - Units are not big enough for high- production work. - Trailer mounted jet rodder must be hooked up to hydrant for water supply (many problems with traffic, cold weather, etc.) and doesn't have adequate pressure to do good job. - Difficult to manuver - Requires use of tow trucks (so total value of equipment used on- the -job includes trucks) Evaluations: This alternate is not suitable for the City of Brooklyn Center because the equipment is too small and inefficient, the job would not be done properly. October 21, 1982 - G.G. Splinter Page 5 Altern No. 4 : Contract Cleaning Estimated cost = 25/ to 75% ,Wore than with City owned and operated cleaning system' We have obtained a preliminary proposal from a sewer cleaning contractor to clean our entire sanitary sewer system on a one -time through basis. Their estimate of cost was $283,500. For comparative purposes, we estimate that with the proposed equipment we could accomplish that same task in 2 years with a 2- person crew. Accordingly, we estimate that our costs would be: Personnel - salary for 2 employees x 1.4 (for benefits, etc.) $112,000 Depreciation of jet rodder (5 year life) = 50,000 x 2/5 $ 20,000 Depreciation of.vacuum cleaning machine (10 year life) = 70,000 x 2/10 $ 14,000 Equipment operation & maintenance costs = $ 40,000 Misc. and contingent costs = $ 10,000 TOTAL 2 YEAR COST =. $196,000 This indicates a 45% cost savings. In addition, by having our own equipment and staff we will also be able to do the required cleaning of our storm sewer system, to have the ability to respond to emergency conditions, and to have the flexibility needed to provide preventive maintenance on those trouble spots which require frequent attention. Advantages: - No capital, maintenance, or storage costs - No staffing costs (except supervision and monitoring) Disadvantages: Lack of direct control may mean lower quality - Slower response to emergency situations - Cost Note: The City of Robbinsdale tried contract cleaning for several years, then purchased their own equipment. The major reason they cite are cost and quality control. Evaluation: The quantity of work which is required in Brooklyn Center makes it more economical to purchase our own equipment and do the work with our own forces. We estimate that, for the next 3 to 4 years we will need to operate a jet rudder approximately 1,200 to 1,400 per year. - f October 21, 1982 - G.G. Splinter Page . 6 A lterna te [Io. 5: Sharing Equipment With Another City Estimated cost: - Capital costs are reduced - Operation and maintenance costs may be slightly higher due to travel time and use of equipment by different crews. .Advantages: - Reduced capital costs - Increased cooperation with other cities - i.e. - sharing one or two pieces of equipment may encourage sharing other equipment and pooling staff resources. Disadvantages: - Won't work if there's too much work to do, leading competition for machine - Difficulty in scheduling equipment (both cities may want to do some work at same time) - Availability for emergencies, etc. Evaluation: Brooklyn Center has enough work for the jet rodder to keep one machine in use most of the year. Accordingly, we do not consider it feasible to share one of these machines between two cities. However, because we would expect to operate the vacuum cleaning machine fewer hours (we estimate our needs at 500 to 800 hours per year) it may be possible to reach agreement with another City to share ownership of one of these units. At the same time,.it may be possible to reach agreement to share jet rodding units with another city - i.e. - each city would own its own jet rodder, but agree to assist the other for standby and emergency purposes, and for balancing work loads between the two cities. Reco mmendation : After evaluation of all alternates, I recommend: 1. that we proceed to purchase a truck - mounted jet rodder immediately. The estimated cost for a new unit is $50,000. Note: We are also -aware that there are some excellent used units on the market now. A definite advantage is that these units would be available immediately instead of waiting 6 to 9 months for delivery of new trucks and equipment. Accordingly, we propose to allow bidders to submit alternate - bids on new equipment and on late -model used equipment. We would then be able to select the best bid to meet our needs. 2. that we attempt to negotiate a joint -use agreement with another-city for sharing the costs of purchasing and maintenance of a vacuum cleaning machine. If this becomes unattainable, we must then consider the purchase of such unit by the City of Brooklyn Center. October 21, 1982 - G.G. Splinter Page 7 3. that staffing for our sewer cleaning program be provided by supplement- ing our existing public utilities staff (i.e. - 1 Foreman, 1 Maintenance Worker I, 4 Maintenance Worker II's and 2 seasonal employees) as follows: a. by assigning the equivalent of one full -time Street Department employee to sanitary sewer cleaning (Note: the adopted 1983 budget provides for reimbursement of the General Fund from the Public Utilities Fund in this amount); and b. by hiring one additional seasonal employee for approximately 9 months per year during our "first -time through" cleaning program (i.e. - 2 or 3 years); and c. by using existing personnel from both the Street and Public Utilities Divisions to operate the Vacuum Cleaning Machine. This will be possible, without reducing other services, because we will be reducing the hours spent on manhole inspections and on manual cleaning of catch basins. A resolution approving specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for a jet rodding machine is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp SK:jn Member introduced the following resolution and 7� moved its adoption: RESOLU'T'ION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTA11DING ACHIEVEMENT OF -THE BROOKLYN CENTER TOWN TEAM 1 -982 CLASS A A MATE UR BASEBALL CHAMPIONS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is represented by the Town Team in State amateur baseball competition; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Town Team was victorious in the 1982 State Class A baseball championship; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the achievements of the Town Team should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE .IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Town Team is hereby congratulated as winners of the Class A State Baseball Championship. 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 followin g �} voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOI:,UTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING'PROCEDUR.F:S FOR INITIATION OF ALLEY IMPRO WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish uniform procedures for the initiation of proceedings regarding drainage and surfacing improvements to alleys within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Council will consider requests or recommendations for drainage and /or surfacing improvements to alleys within the City when: 1. A petition for the improvement is submitted which bears the signatures of at least 30 percent of the number of owners whose properties abut the proposed improvement; or 2. when: a. a petition for the improvement is submitted which bears the signatures of less than 30 percent of the number of owners whose properties abut the proposed improvement; and b. the City Engineer reports to the City Council that existing conditions within the alley.are'such that significant safety or health hazards exist, or that existing conditions within t the alley endanger private or public properties or improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all proceedings regarding proposed alley improvements will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, and that the construction standards and cost assessment policy shall be in accordance with Resolution No. 75 -89. 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. m t , CI � OF BIZOOh :i,Yi1 CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of October, 1982, at 8:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Ordi.nancos. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARD GENERAL LI CE:NSIL'1G REGU LATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -010. LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, notwithstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. Type of Required by License Fee (annual, License Section Expires unless other- wise stated) Dog License 1 -102 and License shall be Male or Female 1 -103 valid for the dura- . . . $5.00 tion of the effective Neutered Male period of the dome's . . . $3.00 rabies vaccin Spayed Female . $3.00 (upon pr tion of proof thereof) Delinquent 1 -10 N.A. $15.00 Dog License Dup licat e_ 1 -103 N,p,. $2.00 Dog License Commercial Kennel 1 -102 and October 1 (subject $50 together with License and 1 -103 to_ any time li.mita- reimbursement for Renewal Licen tion set by the City legal, planning, z Co uncil engineering, and administrative costs Private Ke nnel 1 -10 and October 1 (subject $30 together with License an 1 -103 to any time limita- reimb for Rene Li cense tion set by the Cit legal, planning, ^� Council engineering, and administrative costs i nILL,urdiLic 1-103 N.A. $25.00 Pen __ 011 ?INANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal pulhli.cation. Adopted this �^ day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted) M1111M."ES 0_1 . THE PRO ,CE EMIT"GS, OF TEE P COMT. OF TIIIJ C'ITY OF BPOOEILYJAI I.N' 'BE' 00'U1 OF IIENNEPIN LND THE . OCTOI R 1 1982 CALL TO ORDIR "omirtission met iya regul�_ session arid was called to order by Chairman George Luchl at 7: Di.m. R0'Ir,L CALL C 31. L""Cht, Con Mlal_ly Mz),Iecki, 14,ary Sintmons , Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donlaid. Vers Also present were Director of Planning and, Inspoctkic, P Warren and I'larining Assistant Gary Shallcross. APP)�',OVAL 01' MINUTES - _S(,!pte .1-6, 1982 aIj6IS'C.*C0_IM S-Ilc(:�,nded 'ay Conffro"_Ssioner SI. to approve the minutes of the Se 16, 1982 P'lanning IR.�E! as submitted. Voting in favor: Ch a, L rmar, Lucht, Cormniissioners Simmon. Sandstrom and Versteecr. 'r,7ctiy1g none Not voting Coirc 1 eared Ainas < . The motio.n. passed. APPLICATILON NO, 82037 (Nort Prope 7cl - T, R T --( 1E i -- m a - s - a , - --a - t: L o r, , the S L l e t a r y i n - L x o d 1 -1 c e d t first item of Lusiness, a req _sty '( re,7zone - ."ram R1 to Cl the land at 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard 1-z.hcre the 1,iort,1 -Medical Clinic is located. He reviewed the contents u the staff report (see PI.FU"IIj'3.IIg Commission in Sheet for Apjpiicazt�*Lon No. 82037 attached) . The Secx:etary rejcdnded. the that th new P! a,.q recorii � 'crided service of-fice ix l �e(' land from the Brooklyn Law Center offices at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, on t?le nul down to and in.cluding the Northport Medical Cllinlc at 5.415 Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south. ('01ra"o-issio-'ner sil"I'mons nol_:ed that the P_-JJ. rea-son behind the re— zoning request is to 9i:,.arantec the aA-ght to rebuild the Clinic if it were burned down. She asked whether the owner could sell the property under Jit cu ?,�onirlq. The Se( answered& t1lat the property could be sold and con"Itinue I L - :o be u _­ as a medical (. under t'Ale. use Provisions of tho CIACY Ordinance. Coin S S 4 P ; ' d be. used I o­ any r � C _ r Simmons asked. whether tILiz. buil-ding cou thinci other t-1han a clinic um.d­r its carrent zoning. The 4 'J poss, be for ­L - 1 cou Secretary s that the J lb� -, 1 JL something lest intense, such as ai real estat(_:� office, because of parking requiroments, etr— He stated that a yt intense use would not be allowed. Coiiu Mlalock.i aske-d u a change of ownership was br i �L I D abou-t: l the rezo reqlaest, The Sec re tary ansx that he did not think. so. Coiiuiiissioner Manor, arrIved at 7:�°0 p.m. Cor. S'andstrom ask.ed 4 >h.c privztt cove:.nants would pro-- bibi coratiorciz.0- U.Se on the proT,)ertv in quest­cn. The Secretary an3wered tha he was not avzarc of any privatIC' the use of the sj,tc-. althou('V _ ho , �,� aS Lt poSS �b i I i L_y . 1 ex plained, that the City's r.i(A-.t to zonr-� or rczone. property is not affected by priT, covenants. 4L Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant. ,1)-L ant. Mr. Carl Larson, representing Northport Medical Clinic, stated that he had nothing further to add and agreed w1th the Secretary ' s report. PUBLIC HEARING C'hal_rman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished - to speak on the application. Hearing no comments from those pres-ent, Chairman Lucht called-for a motion to continue the public hearing to a later meeting. ACTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION NO. 82037 Motion -- 'j�� - y — ConEjF-ss — io'ii — eT - )�5-n Malecki' to continue the public hearing on Applicat=ion No. 82037 to a later meeting when the application is reti.irned to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING APPLICATION NO. 82037 AND REFERRING IT TO THE SOUTHWEST 'NEIGRIBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Motion by Coilimissioner 1"s by Commissio.ner Simmons to table Application No. 82037 submitted by Northport Properties and refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 8"2.038 (Melvin Maas) The Secretary then int]� =ced the next item of business, a request by Mr. Melvin Maas for a special use permit to conduct a small engine repair home occupation in an 8 x 20' screened-in porch alongside the garage at 5907 Halifax AVenuc North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82036 attached). Commissioner Malecki asked whether this would be a full-time job. The Planning Assistant answered that this would be a part-time endeavor, that the applicant has a full-time job working in the evenings. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Patrick Hankey, the owner of the premises, spoke on behalf of Mr. Maas who was unable to attend - the evening's meeting. He stated that he had nothing to add to the Secret.ar report. Chairman Lucht asked how long Mr. Maas had lived with the Hankeys. Mr. Hankey responded that he has lived there for about two years. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr. Hankey whether he understood the condition regarding a 5 lb. extinguisher to be installed in the area of the home occupation. Mr. Hankey responded in the affirmative. Tn j-_ to a question from Commissioner Manson regarding the porch arid ventilation, Mr. Hankey explained that the porch is not simply screened in, but that it also has combination windows which can be opened for ventilation. PUBLIC HEARING Uh Lucht then opened the meeting for a pLiblic hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on 'thc Hearing. none, he callc d for, a motion to close the public hearing. 10-14`32` -2- CLOSE PUY"LIC HF:1%_R1NC i b (2ora, 'an lecki by Conmissioner Sands trom to close the public hearing. The rnotion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom suiqgj(,�sted ti.;a tbcre r,. be a noise factor -4 4 'omae occupation. Commi s s i one r wi th the rt-totors being tested in th � s h Aims stated that he di(,;, noiC_ cypect that, the noise would be more than pex gra ,s cutting,, Malecki also pointed out that the pOrC) area where the vii would, be done was to the inside of the lot from the d,-ta(_-h(-. garage, a-v. from neighboring property. ChairmE-in Lucht staJ_ that any home occupation can pro- duce noise, and that such no—.se has to be controlled under the provisions of the Zc;ning Ordlyl; If a problem arises, he stated, the special use permit can be brought in for review. Comr. Manson asked how many hours Mr. Maas would be working at the home occupation. Mr. Han)-,ey stated that it would generally be frow. about 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., that the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. were requested to cover maximum contingencies. Com- missioy, er n.arkson E.--sked whether, on the average, the home, occupation would be about 20 hours a week. 1 THankey responded In the affirma- tive. The Secretary also noted that the h.ou would be during the day with no work on the weekends and that there should, therefore, be less disturbance from the, home occupation. Commissioner Siroomo'ns noted that Mr. Ma. is \�,-orked during - Che evening. She asked whether there Y7as a likelihood that h-i-s hou-i would shift to daytime, pushing the home occupation into evening hours. Mr. 1 stated that that was not at all likely. ACTIO'' RECO1%1' APPROVPl OF %a,PPLIICAQ`10N, NO. 82038 (ME-lv. n_Maas) com-i I nson to w reco<ucnd approva App ly No. subject' of Ap 82038, bject' to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permi 4S L, subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulat-ionts and any violation thereof shall he grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of ope-ratiori s1,a11 be from 8:00 a.m. to, 6:00 p.m. Monday thi:.'ough Friday. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be, off - street on imp-roved ,space on the property. 5. A 5 lb. fire ex.1 she r shall be installed in the c 'ireF of the home occupation prior to the issuance of the permit® 6. Permit approval Ais exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor, Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sir-ations" Manson, Ainas, Sandst-rom and Verstceq. Voting against.- none.. The motion passed. APPLTICATtON NO. 82039 'John Cl..* item of business, a request 10-14•82 -34 for a variance from Sec 35-400 of the E'()ninq 01­01,inance to allow expansion of a garage along ;.he exist-ing building line setba ck of 34' rather than 35 as require(It by the ordinance. The Secr,�tary reviewed the U Conte 11 - of , '_ L-I,C st- - af o f report (e se Plax.aiing Cozrui:i8sion _, Information Sheet for Application No. 82039 attached) The S"�-_'cret.ary stressed the fact that past precedent had essont altere'd the ordinance in such a way that denial of the proposed variance would raise questions as to e ;hc%tt the applicant was receiving equal protection compared to previous applicants. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. John Clifford explained that he had contracted the Sussel. Company to expand his garage and that, in preparing information for a building permit application, the survey was used which he had done in 1956. That survey showed the front setback to be only 34'. Commissioner Ainas noted that the applican c.(, that to meet the setback would be excessively expensive. He asked the applicant whether he had got a quot e as to what the cost would be of jogging the garage back one foot. Mr. Clifford answered that he had not ob- tained a quote, but estimated that difference in cost would be roughly $1,000.00. ComnLissioner Simmons asked the a.pplicant whether he would have to alter the overhang at all. The applicant stated it was his understanding that it would not be necessary, that over- hangs in front yards are not regulated under the ordinance. Com- missioner Ainas briefly discussed 'Wit.h the applicant the structural complications of building a second garage stall one foot behind the first. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Tom Bennett of 2106­541th Avenue No3 stated that he was not concerned aboutthe front yard setback, but about how far from the side property line the garage had to be. The Secretary explained that garages are allowed to be built to within three feet of side property lines. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUIILIC HT Malecki seconded by Commi. Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion - passed unanimously. Commissioner Simmons stated that it seemed that precedent outweighed the fact that the standards are not all met in this case. She stated that the proposal seemed to meet standard (c) tentatively and standard (d) definitely. She coraruented, howevar, that previous variances did not seem to meet standards (a) or (b) either. She stated that she felt this was a reasonable approach to the - ,problem. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that lie felt 'the variance question had as much merit as the previous four which were approved. Commissioner Ainas stated that precedent should not really be con- sidered in making a decision to grant or deny a variance. He stated that he was sympathetic � the applicant, but that not all - the standards were met. lie. stated - that, it i-i varliance is granted, the ordinance has to be changed. He stat.(�d that to continue (fraritincr such variances is like trying to determine how miany 1:)eople shlould be allowed in a lifeboat. Coi Simmons agr� ,, ed. She stated the fact that this was the fifth such variance suggests that a change 10-14-82 -4- is needed. 'ty that the 1956 aR ar a�;ked about s ij) i j survey _ J i c e . co 16i bc in (_-nClror and that a WI r slot even ne(. t t done, by a professional ha tdi- siarvevor ai-,d th,al' hte has, 1.- re.localted the property Stakes and att,-..,z,.t sl'-Irvey Cow.- r stated. tha the veariance. She pointr-d oult 'C_'hot the vie-,'V ZI.c -e t wouId not Chang EUS it re-lilIt- Of -,qt-i no building line. Comm-is sionex agreed. Sh.e -;t thFtt. shC COUICII. 1jot see- denying tyr L_ C) FPPI the variance with JL 't existS ' or this e- f cati on . - that thc-,' f did. not s eill to al' be Iflet but agreed to chanc-c t ordinance to C;C?I"fl°® sumuriar.i pre):�.end th(,. se kinds of s, i lia L_ Otis C h _a zed his 4 - xe -, but that '":he Coim"Ll-A�­;-5;11�01,1 to grant the variai also to the ord'Ll-t,,1cc o rc _- j ­ , p c - , -. tl--,.•, po" is that has, in cffe_c`C_ Iv e(-_�n adq­,)tcd in th past. The SecIretarv, stated the cot-ijdl he changed or that the �o e variances Pl,anning k Cc-,­n_,-mJ_ssion , couId n , r r to grant a 11 y of I G.y ndi st.:Lck to tI d.eu on. lle� st-ated that to de.ny the I aT� U cuim.-�nt vari.i wcuId the City lip to a. poslsi ble ,, s It on Uie g_rOialel(ls that si had been granted- in the past. AC 10 I'll 7�,jl 1TJ'CPITIO,,:.T ohn C 1 i f f (..) r d) a.�o3q to -- y Conim l -53 r recom appr(PI�al ( 82039 on the grounds that - there Is cons a.dE�.U, le pr(� 'ICJ th, of simi1ar varianCes aa d he nc�t I a i n I- a i effect on, neighlboring rC _ j - \,,, a , , -F] - di.scussion -d rty. th,(.-, MCI-LO, _oor, ensue issioner Almas regoardling - :- - lie basis -Fo-c . g r a n t in g U fL v a r _J a 111 c COOUM C xp)" es P; e d his O'pinion thaIC the Commd, scion should try to igno-ro prece yit un - should rost or Q '0 F o'xd i '-nance change slio ur r _o nq property. 1-:1 stz�'AC'ed i" be to -mir-imizing the :l r- surroimdinq property. He sta,t-e(I that if no great - val.ue C a,s, beIng pr'.7 by keeping tIve 1 -Ls, it shouId be changed to all.ow people a reasorabll.e use olf - Lhc-'.L'r prol-ert The S d if the direct. to the stafJE wzaE: to cl-anio.c �A t e S IL a n cl -a .ir d s for a Variance, th,7. could nol I do�ne� hccalase� thf-, Stcandi, for a Varialic CoMe e r ified f roiia the State one.b."Lin-g C i s s i o n - , Ainas that he d, not irtean to c 11 - }wee the f, cy r a Variance Chair- wan L st..ated - Ithat - . ::hie main. -for 9-1 the variance i t C is � perty would be that it is rot ' imenl- ' -,' pro 0 -miss omer Vei­s teeg asked whether s t Li ii d ar d ( J) of S e c 1 --i o 11 3 5 - 2 4 0 Cco.�, the acccssory stri_ woi: Ld 'sili scthacks Chai- an Lucht o t h tha thc-i aa woutld 31 "IT be three - feet away :Er ra side p1 line. which i or"'I'i s t an d e_ ds Voting in fa of granting the for Tipp' ll. No. 820 'ons, Manson, Ainas, Chairr lu-clit, siir'mi� Sandst'rom Em Votl.ng agai-i-nst: none. The motior, passed un an imoii s IV ACTION DT MP.T�'JFIF TO ():RFj'.rN\IkN_IC CHANCE ' oner Malecki to y c�m i ,D direct st to fcr an. ord-inance change to Commissioner of ':it ­ co f o.­r,, strilctur Mal c1a, t1it uin6er th( proposed. W should not be harmful to - the neighborhood. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the ordinance change should uphold stanfards that are aesthetically sound and will not allow encroachments that are detrimental to surrounding property. Cusaissioner Sandstrom asked whether the brdinance would avoid future variance requests. The Secretary stated that it could be designed to do that. Voting in favor of the motion to direct staff to investigate a change in the Zoning Ordinance: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons,Wanson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion pasood unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary asked the Planning Commission to consider an appli- cation for a special use permit to allow live entertainment at the Lynbrook Bowl at its October 20, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. By consensus it was agreed that the matter would be taken up. Chairman Lucht stated that he would talk to the Chaml of Commerce regarding what its proposal would be regarding billboards. The Secretary explained that the ChaRher had recoilu.,iem'Jed that the Planning Commission consWer a change to allow billboards, but did not have anything specific in mind. He stated that, for his own part, he would rccowm::nd Tic) chz_'�nye in the curront regulations to allow billboards. He explained that a billboard is an off-site sign which is prohibited under the ordinarce, with the exception of real estate open house signs, some promotional signory allowed by admin- istrative land use permit for a limiteQ period of time, and licensed courtesy bench signs. Connissioner Sandstrow stated that lie would prefer not to open the ordinance up to large billboards. AD J 0 U R IN T Following further brief d0cussion, of the billboard issue and the procedure for discussing it, there- was a notion by Cozmissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissicnor Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The notion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at-9:11 p.m. F. ission Information Sheet Planning COMA Application No. 82037 Applicant: Northport Properties Location: 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Kzoning The applicant requests that the land at 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard be rezoned from RI to Cl. The parcel in question is the location of the Northport Medical Clinic and is hounded by Northport Elementary School an the west, a single-family home on R2 zoned land to the south, Brooklyn Boulevard to the east and a private access road to the school on the north. The parcel is approximately two-thirds of an acre in area, less than required by Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed zoning is consistent with the existing use and with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted a written request (attached) in which he explains that the primary reason for the rezoning is to ensure that, if the building were d6stroyed, it could be rebuilt at its present location. No expansion or change of use is proposed at this time. The applicant argues that the existing clinic meets a neighborhood need and that the surrounding land.uses have changed since its original construction, Therefore, he implies, the land should be rezoned to Cl to continue an existing, necessary function at this localican. The clinic was built on this site in 1960. It appears to be substandard as to its front yard setback (about 43' rather than 50' as presently required). The site has 26 parking stalls (22 are required). There is a 25' wide greenstrip on the south side of the property (15' is required). There is vegetative screening along the westerly portion of this property ' line. The rest is open. The parking lot is not striped or curbed. These structural deficiencies are typically dealt with at the time the owner wishes to expand or seriously alter En existing structure. As was the case with Howe Fertilizer, destruction of an existing structure would not guarantee the right to rebuild at a substandard setback. Rezonings are to be evaluated in light of the guidelines established in Section 35•- 200 of the Zoning Ordinance (attach2d). Gencrally, staff feel these guidelines are met in this case. Of special importance is the fact that the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. As with all rezonings, it is recommended that the Planning Commission table the matter and refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 10-14-82 Planning Commission information SheY, Application No. 82038 Applicant: Melvin Maas Wcation: 5907 Halifax Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests approval of a spec use permit to conduct a home occupation repairing bikes and small engines in an 8' x 20' screened-in parch alongside the garage of premises at 5907 Halifax Avenue North. The property in question is zoned Rl and is surrounded by other single-family homes. The property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Han0y, Mr. Maas, the applicant, is the husband of Mrs. Hankey's late sister and resides at the Hankey home. He, therefore, is considered a family member through a marriage relation. As a "family member," he is eligible under the ordinance to conduct a home occupation on the premises. The applicant has submitted certain informaKon regarding the proposed home occupation. He explains that the home occupation would involve only hand tools and a power drill. Hours of work would he from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There is a 20' x 100' driveway to provide parking space for customers. The applicant also intends to erect a sign 15" x 24" which is the maximum size permitted and :r the ordinance. The Building Official has inspected the premises and recommends simply-that a 5 lb. fire extinguisher be placed in the area where the work is performed. The area to be used is in v screened-in porch ofKa detached garage. It will be heated by a portable kerosene heater when work is done in the cooler months. Altogether, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The permit Ts issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space on the property. 5. A 6 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the area of the home occupation prior to the issuance of the permit. 6. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery i'J is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10-14-82 Planning Commission Information SheR Application No. 82039 Applicant: John Clifford Location: 2100 - 54th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Suction 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of an existing garage along a building line set back 34' from the front property line, rather than the required 35'. The property in question is zoned R1 and is surrounded by other single-family homes. Facts of the Case The house in question was built with a single-car attached garage in I954 under building permit #2580. It was corns tr .ac tad at the same time as the two houses to the east and one to the west on the north side of 54th Avenue North. The setback for all four of these houses was listed on the permits as 35' 6". A survey prepared l for Mr. CifFord in 1956 shows that at Icast three of the four homes are set back 34' from the front property line rather than 35' 6". (Note: In 1954, an ordinance provision was in affect which allowed homes to be built at less than 35' from the front proper" ty line if homes on either sida were built at less than 35'. However, such an allowance, if applicable in this case, would have been noted on the building permit) . It appears, therefore, that an error of V 6" was made the footing inspection. The applicant now wishes to aid an additional stall to his garage along the existing 34' setback line. To expand a nonconforming structure is not permitted under Section 35-111 of the Zoping Ordinance, but has been permitted in the past by variake. Such a varianco, is therefore, being sought in this case. Precedent Cher? are at least five cases since 1968 which have dealt with the same issue of expanding a structure along an existing building line which is nonconforming as to setback. Four of these applications were approved (71067, 74026, 76060 and 77047); one was denied (74054). in all these prWous cases, the extent of the existing encroachment is greater (both in actual distance and in percentage terms) than in the present case. in at Wast one case (76060), the existing nonconformity resulted from a surveying error which the Building Official did not seek to have corrected. The Council's approval of that variance specifically cited the previous error and accepted the proposed addition since it vointained the same building line. Application No. 71067 was a variance request to allow an addition to the rear of an existing family room which had a sidayard setback of 7' (sideyard setback re-- quirements for living space were then 1Q. The addition was to follow the established setback line. In approving this application the City Council and Planning Commission noted the fact that there i s, sufficient precedent for approval of an addition in line with the existing building. Application No. 74026 was a request to allow an addition to an existing single-family home which had an existing front yard setback of 25' rather than the required 35'. The applicant wanted to continue to use the existing or established 25' setback as the front setback for the addition. The record indicates that the houses on both sides of the applicant's also had 25' subacks and appears to be a factor in the granting of this variance in that the house and the addition would be consistent with the setbacks of neighboring dwellings. Application No. 82039 continued Application No. 76060 was a request to allow an addition to an exi sti ng ' foam i ly room which had a 6' sideyard setback (10' was ten the minimum requirement). Tihis build - i n e o, , g setback was due to a 1.,,�0 survey error which the Building Official at the time did not seek to correct and the living space was allowed to be bui at less than the minimum setback requirement, The proposed addition was to follow the existing setback approval of the variance acknowledged the error and allowed the addition to follow the existing or established setback line. Application No. 77047 was a request to allow a living space addition to an existing single - family home which had a 4' sideyard setback and 29' - front yard setback. The proposal would fill in various "notchs" on the house and also encroach an additional 2' in � u to thy. front ,,aid setback. That proposal, the record indicates, would not "aggrevate the existing noncomplying" sideyard deficiency, but would continue with the 4' setback. The rationale for allowing a further enc roachment into the front setback was apparently based on the neighboring homes that also had front setback deficiencies. Application No. 74054 which was den i od was a request to add living space above an existing garage that was deficient in both front setback and s i dayard setback. The garage had been allowed to be bui by the City Council using an old averaging formula for the last time because the Council was s ;,mpath i c to the applicant's desire to have a garage. Also, the garage was to h e built i nto a bank and would not i ntrude into the open space of t ? setback. One dis botwe'en thi variance which was denied and the ones which were -ipaf;;:ved seems to he that living space over the accessory space and the encroachment into the open space of the setback. The other variances were for living spa ce additions-to already existing living space or encroachments into setbacks al ready encroached upon by neighboring properties. It should be noted that, since ce 'she controversy over Howe Fertilizer and more generally since the mid 1970's (when `here was a concerted effort to reduce the number of variances through ordi nance amendments and consistent pol the policy Of the City has been to allow expansion of nonconforming structure; provi the addition met setback requirements. Any vari from setback requirements has had to meet the Standards for a 'larianc;e contained in Section 35-240 (reviewed below) . The Applica Ca se The applicant has submitted a letter~ (attached) in which he argues that the variance request should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The proposed addition will maintain the existing 34' front yard setback established on the block. 2. The added garage space will provide covered parking for two autos and thus enhance the neighborhood. 3. To comply with the 35' setback requirement would be unattractive, render the existing garage not usable, and be excessively expensive. 4• The setback error was We at the time'of construction (1954,55). The dwelling is set back 36,2' and the Planning Director has suggested that an averaging method was used in 1955 which considered the house in general to be set back 35'. ( Staff suggested such a formula of i ntra -house as opposed to i n t er -house averaging ma _ have been in effect. In fact, it was not). 10 -14 -82 -2- Application No. 82039 continued 5. Further delay in issuing this permit will preclude construction before winter. Mr. Clifford also states that denial of the variance request would cause undue hardship because of the unique circumstances distinctive to the property under consideration and would not reflect the spirit any - intent; of the ordinance. Ordinance Provisions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifi- cations are met: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification, (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improve- ments in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Staff Reasoning We feel that it is at least debatable whether the proposal really meets all the standards for a variance outlined above. it is debatable whether constructing the additional garage stall one foot or more behind.the existing building line constitutes a hardship. It is debatable whether such a construction would be expensive or render the existing garage useless, or even look necessarily un- attractive. And it is debatable whether the situation in question is necessarily unique. The houses along this block are all set back 34 feet. The circumstance results from an error, (either on the part of the building inspector or perhaps the 1956 survey is inaccurate) not from the lay of the land. The fact that the error is consistent in the neighborhood may suggest some uniqueness. We do not suggest, however, that granting the variance will be detrimental, in any substantial way, to other property in the neighborhood or for that matter the cot muni ty. •0 -14-82 -3- Application No. 82039 cantinued The fact that considerable precedent exists for the granting of similar variances Wes the denial of this variance a ma .to onre of uqAel pro Oction than tM meeting of all of the standards. if the Commission chooses to make a favorab!2 with respcct to this Variance, it should cite W fact that there is considecabig precedent through the granting of atner similac variarces and the variance would not have a detrimental effect an neighboring proporty. The Commission, if it Feels these types oF veriances have an eroding affect on the ordinance, may well wish to discuss ways to QMly coorect the situation. However, we do not feel it would be appcoprivve to hold up this applicatiqn pending some possible policy change. A public hearing has been scheduled and noticas have been sent. 10 -14 -82 X, TO: Gerald G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Tom Bublitz Administrative Assistant DATE: October 22, 1982 RE: Standby Election Judges Due to illnesses and employment commitments, it is necessary to appoint two additional standby judges for the November 2, 1982, General Election. I would recommend that the Council pass a motion approving the appointment of the following people as standby election judges: Pat Thompson (DFL) - 6136 Regent Avenue North John V. Zimmer (DFL) - 5107 Paul Drive cb LAW OFFICES / JOHN L. WEYLAND t 7301 ZANE AVENUE NORTH SUITE 101 BROOKLYN PARK, MINN. 55443 (612) 560 -:3900 October 8, 1982 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Re: North Hennepin Community and Brooklyn Center, HN 55430 Convention Center Citizens Committee (NHC5) Dear Mr, Splinter: On various occasions in the past, I have written to ask whether or not the city of Brooklyn Center might have any contingency funds which n.-,ay be applied l�.ea toward the liquidation of a ver sma Y Pp q y ll outstanding indebtedness of the above committee. This committee, as you know, was commissioned by the mayors of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Osseo and ilaple Grove several years ago. A feasabili.ty study was conducted by a consultant, Janes Christensen, whose total fee for those services was approximately $4,000.00. That fee has been paid down to slightly over $700.00 -- largly on contribution from private individuals and donations from Brooklyn Park and'laple Grove. I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know whether or not the city of Brooklyn Center can be of any assistance. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, John L. Weyland J LW : c K Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 198 -N (LIFT STATION NO. 3 IMPROVEMENT P BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the proposal of Northdale Construction Company, Inc. to reduce its bid for replacement of Lift Station No. 3 by $500.00 from $46,500.00 to $46,000.00 in return for authorization to furnish and install an approved alternate pump system is approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute attached Change Order No. 1 to Contract 1982 -N which comprehends said bid reduction. 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. Sheet of STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CH ANGE ORDER '/ 1 Contractor NORTH DALE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. s xMW City Project No. 1982 -26 Address 975 589th Avenue North Osseo MN F. P. No. N/A ,lob Location Lift Station #3 - W. Palmer Lake Drive Contract No . ' 1982 -N In accordance with the terms of this Cori-tract, you ore hereby authorized and in s t ru c to d to perfoim the Work as altered by the following provisions: In lieu of installation of Flygt model CO-3101 submersible pumps, the Contractor shall furnish and install Hydr- O -Matic pumps (2 each) model S4N, with 4 inch discharge and equipped with trimmed impeller to meet design conditions of 250 g.p.m. @ 27.5 T.D.H. The motor shall be 5 N.P., 1750 R.P.M., 230/460 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle. As compensation for authorization to provide the alternate pump system (and necessary accessories), the Contractor shall deduct $500.00 from the base bid of $46,500.00 resulting in an adjusted contract cost of $46,000.00. ESTIMATED CHANGE IN COST ITEM NO. ITEM NAME UNIT QUANTITY CONTRACT AMOUNT UNIT PRICE k i { TOTAL $ I CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME Issued by Due to this change the Contract Time: RKlt xo( xo� X�Y'x4( , xxxxExx , xxrx City Engineer increased ( ) Working ( ) o, is decreased ( ) b y — Calendar ( ) days' Approved by b. is not changed o c 9 (X). X i�X�DC4t�X!('R City � M ana ger Dote Y . e. may be revised if the work affected the controlling operation ( ). .� Accepted by y4-- Contractor's Authorized Representative Doi* Original to Contractor Copy to Contr, .Aamiri, Engr, — Salmon Copy to Engineer — Pink A 1 � r b Copy to Dist. Director •- Green J Copy to Materials Office — Goloenrod Mayor Date Refer to Const. Manual 5-591.200 d .367 M E 14 0 R A N D U M 1 1`O s Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Tom Heenan, Supervising Sanitarian RE: Meeting with Food Establishment Licensees DATE: .Septembe.r 9, 1982 On September 7, 1982, 1 met with license holders to inform them of the staff proposal on license fees. This proposal, if adopted, would create two classes of food est licenses, those with a Quality Assurance Plan far ' ­ px"d7Vahttdh of foodborne illness and those without. Those establishments (restaurants and food stores) with a Quality Assurance Plan would be charged a fee $100 less than those without a plan. The meeting notice was sent to all current license holders. The attached list includes all who attended. We explained that this roposal was referable to a . P .� P mandatory school system in that the licensee had a choice. The system (Quality Assurance) is taught in free workshops funded by Hennepin County and presented by the University of Minnesota. The attendees asked questions related to how the program would operate and why it was needed. I noted neither wild enthusiam nor violett opposition. TLH ®jt Encl. September 7, 1982 Meeting with Food Establishment Licensees Jim Nelson Bridgemans 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Marvin Richter Taystee Bread 4215 69th Avenue North Len Bruns Chuckwagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. No. Adele Krans Good Earth Restaurant 5717.Xerxes Avenue North Barbara Gerber CEAP 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Mark Laughlin Holiday Inn Mpls /No. 1501 Freeway Blvd. ' s i i { i .E CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of November, 1982, at _ P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Ordinances which would revise the license requirements for establishments. ORDINANCE 140. Ali ORDINANCE AMLNPING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING FO ESTABLT_S1r THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 8 -100. DEFINITIONS 8- 100.30 Quali Assura Plan shall m a written plan for the prevention of foo illness to include a sel - inspection prog This plan shall meet the criteria of the U of Mi Extension Service Special Repor -`61 which is hereby incorporated in and made a m art of this ordinance. Quality Assurance Plans must be filed .ai.th and approved by the City's Public Health Sanitarian as a condition of the li Section 8 -103. LICENSE FEES. 8- 103.01. License Fees. Fees for licenses issued hereunder shall be as follows: C. Food establishment: $100 per annum plus $10 per annum for each additional facility on the same premises for food establishme with a Quality Assurance Pl an as defi in Se 8- 103.30. $200 per annum, plus $20 per a nnum for each additional fac ility — on the same premises for food establishment without a Qu ality Assurance. Plan as defined in Section 8- 103.30. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST Clerk Date Date of Publication Effocti.ve Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing . will be held on the 22nd day of November, 1982, at 8:00 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Ordinances which would revise the license fee for food establishments. ORDINANCE 14O. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING LICENS FEES FOR FOOD ESTABLISHr.JFNTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 23 -01 LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, not withstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. Fee, (annual, unless other- wise stated) Type of License Required by Section License Exp Food Establishment 8- 101.01 February 15 Basic License $100 $200 Each Added Facility $10 $20 (with an (without approved a Quality and im- Assurance plemented Plan) Quality Assurance Plan as defined in Section 8- 100.30) Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brcickets indicate matter to be deleted.) SUBJECT: A Proposal Financial Incentive For Food License Holders to Provide and Implement Quality Control Programs. In the past hundred years, attempts at regulating food service establishments have used criminal action to obtain compliance with regulations. The past sanitation regulations were almost entirely designed around cleaning rather than the attention being paid to the microbiological basis for most food poisoning. In recent years, attempts have been made to induce cooperation from food service operators on the basis of education. Schools have been made mandatory for violators of regulations and as a prerequisite to obtain licenses resulted in a higher level of knowledge on the part of restaurant operators, but in all too many cases, no implementation of this knowledge. This dilemma continues to be a difficult problem that evades a solution by regulatory agencies. In the past 10 years the Federal Food and Drug Administration has been developing in food processing plants a system called "Quality Assurance" wherein the food processor develops a plan beaed on careful attention to scientific ynowlegge of microbiology and chemistry. The result is a written program describing precisely how each food product is produced, the quality control checks that are conducted and specifications for an end product. In 1979 the University of Minnesota developed a Quality Assurance Program modeled on the FDA Food Processor for retail food service establishments (restaurants). We have been offering this program free to restaurant operators for two (2) years. This is normally a $75.00 to $180.00 program. We do not receive the voluntary cooperation of more than a small percentage of the operators. The operators that do participate tend to be the operators that do not have problems and are already operating at a high level of efficaciency and compliance. in reviewing other Health Duofacets "programs, we find that attempts have been made to induce cooperation by requiring attendance at a course or of developing.a Quality Assurance Program before they recorunend issuance of a license. The problem tends to be that these operators do the minimum required under a program of this nature and offer grudging compliance. Ede are proposing that a. program that we feel will provide voluntary and enthusiastic cooperation for the implementation and utilization of Quality Control Plans. A PROPOSAL FINAINCIAL 11-TCEN` }:'IVE FOR FOOD LICENSE HOLDERS TO PROVIDE AND IMPLEMENT QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS. 4--£32 Page 2 The proposal is to raise the food license fees by $75.00 and offer a $100.00 rebate to operators who operate during the preceding year under an approved Quality Assurance Plan. This Quality Control Plan would be approved by us and the University of Minnesota under the Hennepin County Food Service Education Project. This would also fora the basis for inspection done at the food service establishment. Ile are hoping through this method, to develop an enthusiastic and willing acceptance of Quality Control rather than to be forcing the program on operators. and as a result not having the program receive the necessary attention. We are also hopeful that this will allow us to utilize our limited resources to provide more intensive monitoring of those who do not have a Quality Control Plan and..to lessen the amount of inspections and time that is devoted to those with Quality Assurance Plan. Attached-to the memorandum'is a proposed ordinance change implementing these features. i r TLH:jt Encl. i I �~ 0BD* ��~8~�����l� '^ ' 0����� qL~��«x����������vm^�o@ ` J� . ' When propoecd amendments to the Sntecongitu(iun otherwise sound on/cnJmentbi|s. With thi are induded on a Cencro| baUot, a non-vote kaS the Lraxuc presents these capsule +umma/inso(»achof the same effect :sa''oo vote. Lacko[ familiarity with opro- coil Sd1uhoox| amendments that will be on the posed amendment can result in voter inaction, and an Novcmber2ba|lot. . Arnandnlaot Ong~~ This amendment appeared nn the l98U ballot and was APPEALS COURT: '' defeated. It would remove the present 1 J'!'C1 annual |n' PERI'4(TT)NG'. ESTAB LIGH9@ENT to/est rate ceiling on bonds for trunk highways, and F would remove the $150 million limit on bonds issued ''Oha|| the Minnesota ----- and unpaid. The S" ... limit has been in the constitution b8annrndedto allow the nraeUonnf F since 1920 and has beeo zscriouximpedimenttothe N�� L� ucoudofuppnu|o?^ ' sale of bonds \hepa�tknze\eam. The limit on outstanding highway bond debt was $75 This amendment would allow the creation of state million when the Nghwayu�ido was aUupted in 1920. court of appeals. At present, the state Supreme Court is When it was revised in 1956. the amount changed .to the on{y avenue o/ appeal for decidon»6v/ov�arcouUs. 11I million. At the present dme' |�igh�ay bon ds Under this proposed amendment, ihestate legislature outstanding total about $5SmiUion, and about 3"�cf the would determine the number of judges, the court's highway fund b u�cd for 6ob� service. organization, and provide for nevievvo( its decisions by the SupremeCourt. &rnendrnont Three ~~ judges of 'the appeals *court could serve as tcmporary p/\BETTING: TUEL BETTING: PERMITTING judges of the Supreme[ou�, afuncdon novrperKzrmed LEGISLATIVE AUTX(]R|ZAT|ON ` 6vdist/lci court judges. Appeals court judges cnu|d not ____-YE L_) [-1 ^5ha|| the Minnesota ConSU1uU�n ' � hold any other state or federal office, and the ac1vvou!d provide standards for impeachment o/ appea|s court [-1 be amended tOpe/nnit the legislature 0 0 judges. ' _--__'0x� L_] tn authorize on-track pahnnu1ue| - betting on horse racing ina nnanmar If the amendment is approved, the follow pnovi' pn8so/ibod by ��w?'' sionswU| become law: l> /\n appeals cou�vvnu|d be ' created with six judges initially appointed by]anu3ry l, This amendment would allow the legislature to 1983 and an additional six bv l984.Th«reahe�judges authorize on-track parimu\ue\ betting on horse races, will bec|ected for terms nf' s ix years. 2) Beginning in and to prescribe tile manner o/soch-h,UinO. The League 1007 the number of judges mn the court will he varied has not taken n position on this amendment,. The queS- � with the number ofappeals. By 1984L one seat nnthe ho»oYparimu|ue| betting has been aroo:d for years, but Court will be designated for each congressional district, has never been onthcbaUotbe(onc c � ' ' additional seats not res as to residence. 3) The ` number cfassociate judges oil the Supreme CouAxxOu|d Amendment FoWr— be /educed from eight tosix. RA\LRIOA0 \KXPROVI:-%1E0l: /\ majority of the League's Directors endorse this PRQyiO{NG B{)ND\0G AUTHORITY � � amendment, osi(is expected to ro|iev'econOegiun in the _____YES | | "Shall the Minnesota Con31ituUnn be »ppoa|s process. /u present, the SupvcnIo Court handles amended io provide for state bonding almost 140 cases annually, when the chief justice feels |��� F- lauthorityfortheirnprOvernentand ----- -�� a maximum of 250 cases per year can be given f nBhobUi�ub�n of railroad facilities?" xrd � proper attention. The appeals court would handle the novhnc cases now heard by <hc Suprome [oort. r,hioh This amendment Would permit the state to issue bonds ' w�u|d then have more time for cases of major import or for financing improvements and rehabilitation ofrailroad ' constitutionality. ' trackage and rights-of-way, up to a ceiling of $200 rnU}inn for bonds issued and unpaid. No interest ceiling i imposed �h bonds issued d this amendment. ����/ndr��n��wm-- M{GH�L�Y 8{l0��� u mpo�coun c n s �e/ under no ^ REL CEO7A|N REST0Cy({)0S poU{|ca| suhdiviSions of the Statc vvouid also be allowed F-1 1oembarkonmi|/oad upgrading 6v issuing bonds intile _YE8 LJ "Shall the Minnesota Constitution some manner, to the extent authorized by law. bmurnund-d\OrornoveraStdchon� F The LcaDbe's Directors are unanimous in support of cx` th� in\�/�n� /�lm Y�n arid ih@ ----- ' this proposed amendment. |� mu�u\d place the rail | anx`u0(Dflruoh highway bonds?" ' | transportation sector on the same bonding bads as { highways and aeronautics. ` � ►. `���1Nf�SOp7 1KI)(,)l(I))( t)1 1 ri)I `�j)t)1�<1110;1 OF T RP Otty c (tt 0)(M (612) 29E; 30uO September 23, 1982 Highway Bonding — Amendment 2 Dear Influential Minnesotan: We need your assistance in explaining Constitutional Amendment 2 that will be on the ballot this November. I personally support passage of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 proposes two significant changes related to potential future highway funding. These changes include: - elimination of the 5% interest limitation on Highway Bonds which was placed on them in 1920. - elimination of the $150 million limitation on the amount of bonds outstanding at any one time. • Bonds sold under this section of the constitution are repaid from dedicated highway user funds. Proposed Amendment 2 is consistent with the user pay principle for highway construction. Without Amendment 2 the only source for borrowed money is general revenu? bonds which are repaid from Minnesota's general tax revenues rather than by highway user funds. It may perhaps be more desirable to operate on the pay as you go principle rather than to borrow money for road construction. .However, during periods when motor fuel tax revenues are down, bonding becomes an important alternative funding source for consideration b the state le is Y g la�ure, When this situation arises, it is greatly preferred that highway bonds, repaid by user fees, be available. Passage of Amendment 2 would.provide that option. - an f�ur? t ;� "Iirti ±)• 1'rn)�J!ver Page 2 Influential Minnesotan September 23, 1982 We are unaware of any real question of the need for additional highway funding, however we want to be sure that everyone knows that: " Approximately 5100 (42 %) of the 12,100 mile state trunk highway network is over 35 years old. Approximately 35% of the state trunk highway network is restricted during the spring to vehicle. weights of less than 9 -tons per axle. Approximately 40% of the state road system is rated in fair and /or poor condition. Approximately 14% of the 3,508 state bridges over 20 feet in length remain deficient in either safety, load carrying capacity or dimension aspects. Today Minnesota is financially able to reconstruct or replace each mile of state highway only every 250 years. The Department of Transportation itself does not need more money to build roads. They can operate at any level. However, the public needs adequate roads to assure the economic vitality of the State. You can help by: explaining these facts to your membership • - discussing Amendment 2 at meetings expressing a position - . including information on Amendment 2 in newsletters and mailings placing posters in your place of business Those activities will help inform the voters this November. Enclosed is additional information and a list of Mn /DOT District Offices. More information is available from these offices or me on Amendment 2 or any highway issue. .Thank you, Ric and P. Braun Commissioner MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police � J)f k DATE: October 21, 1982 tJ/J SUBJECT- Background Investigation of the Liquor License Application for Red Lobster Inn Attached please find a background investigation for the Red Lobster Restaurant located at 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard. This investigation was conducted by In<<7estigato.r. Donald Sollars. Contrary to some of our recent liquor background investiga- tions, this one proved to be probably the cleanest investigation of any license holder. The Red Lobster personnel_ was most cooperative in providing all necessary information requested of them. Red Lobster management has requested that the license be effective as of November 8, 1982. At this time, the original opening date has been set back, and the new date has been tentatively set for Tuesday, November 23. In talking to Mr. Jeffers, the designated Manager, he indicates it is likely not to open before the Monday following the Thanksgiving weekend. With the assistance of my staff, I have personally met with Mr. Jeffers and reviewed the City Ordinances and State Statutes pertaining to the liquor operation of the Red Lobster Restaurant. I recommend that this license be approved. Although this license will be on the consent agenda, Ronald Gates, Assis- tant Secretary from Orlando, does plan to be in attendance at the Council meeti in the event that someone would have a question that he may be of assistance with.+ INDEX SECTION I Corporate Structure and History SECTION II Financial Background SECTION III Individual Background of Officers and Shareholders A. Joe R. Lee, President B. Robert E. Waggoner, Vice - President and Treasurer C. George T. Williams, Vice- President and Secretary- Treasurer D. Edwin Anderson, Assistant Secretary E. Ronald G. Gates, Assistant Secretary SECTION IV Individual Background of General Manager, Scott R. Jeffers SECTION V Correspondence and Supporting Documents ti Liquor License for Red Lobster 82- -14163 page 1 SECTION I Corporate Structure and History APPLICANT: Red Lobster Restaurant, General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. The Red Lobster Inns of America is a Florida corporation organ- ized on the 27th of March, 1968. The organization was incorporated in the State of Florida under the name of Red Lobster's Inns of America, Inc. See the attached copies of the Articles of Incorporation for the State of Florida. On March 21, 1979, . application was made and approved to the State of Florida to change the name of the corporation from Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. to General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. See copies of the Articles of Incorporation from the State of Florida showing the change of name. The General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. made application to the State of Minnesota on the 10th of June, 1975, to do business in the state of Minnesota and was found to comply with the corpor- ation laws of this state and is authorized to do business herein with all the powers, rights and privileges and subject to the limitations, duties and restrictions which by law appertain thereto. This application was approved and signed by the Secretary of State, .loan Anderson Growe. A copy of which is dated the 26th of April., 1982, and is attached to this resume. Red Lobster Restaurant, General Mills.Restaurant Group, Inc. made application to the City of Brooklyn Center for an intoxi- cating liquor license as well as a Sunday intoxicating liquor license to commence operation on 11 -9 -82. The application was applied for under the name of Ronald G. GATES, Assistant Secretary on behalf of General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. The proposed restaurant to be located at 7235 Brooklyn Boule- vard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, includes the construction of the building on that site, site improvements, land acqui- sition, and equipment. The application included two (2) copies of on -sale liquor application; two (2) copies of Sunday sales application; Red Lobster check in the amount of five thousand four hundred dol.l.ars 5 400.00 w s ($ ) hick included five thousand dollar. (55,000.00) for on -sale intoxicating liquor license, one hundred dollars ($100.00) for Sunday sales, and three hundred dollars ($30:3.00) for corporation investigation; two (2) copies of general, information app,lic:atiori for General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc.; and two (2) copies each of personal information Liquor License for Red Lobster 82-14163 Page 2 o applications on the following people: a. Joe R. LEE, President b. Robert E. WAGGONER, Vice - President, Treasurer c. George T. WILLIAMS, Vice- President, Secretary, Treasurer d. Edwin ANDERSON, Assistant Secretary e. Ronald G. GATES, Assistant Secretary f. Scott R. JEFFERS, General Manager two (2) fingerprint cards for Scott JEFFERS; affidavit for construction costs; letter from Red Lobster on political contributions; letter from Red Lobster on vending machines; copy of dram shop liability insurance; copy of Articles of Incorporation; State of Minnesota. Certificate of Good Standing; one copy= of site plan; and one copy of floor plan.. In addition, a list of General Mills, Inc. subsidiary companies was attached in the correspondence and supporting documents. Liquor License for Red Lobster 82- 14163 Page 3 SECTION II Financial Background The applicant, Red. Lobster Inns of America, General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc., is intending to own and operate a Red Lobster Restaurant to be located at 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard, in Brooklyn Center_, Minnesota. The proposed investment by Red Lobster Inns of America, including the purchase of land, the preparation of the land or site improvement, and the equipment is to be self- financed as a totally owned subsidiary of General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The total cost is one million two hundred sixty-four thousand five hundred and thirty seven dollars ($1,264,537.00). The investment is broken down basically as follows: 1. Land Cast $ 285,753.00 2. Site Improvement 171,884.00 3. Building Cost 498,900.00 .4. Equipment Cost 308,000.00 Red Lobster Inns of America entered into an agreement and pur- chased the land from Robert L. and Marcene S JOHNSON. The real estate broker which handled the transaction was Caldwell Banker, Whitney PAYTON was the agent. General Contracting was done by the Restaurant Development Division of General Mills, Inc. and the subcontracting consisted as follows: 1. Site work, curbs and paving were done by F. M. FRATTALONE, Excavating and Grating, Inc, located at 3066 Spruce Street, St. Paul, MN 55117, phone number 434 -0448. The amount was $91,800.00. 2. The paving of sidewalks, stairs, guard posts, light pole bases, masonry fill. slab and perimeter storm work and other various phases of this work were done by Gresser, Inc., located at 1911 Seneca Road in Eagen, Minnesota 55122, phone 454 -5976. The cost was $51,319.00. 3. -The landscaping was done by'Buell Brother, located at 1.391 Charlton Street in West St. Paul, MN 55118, phone nuiaiber 457 -2800. The cost was $19,200.00. 4. Steel erection was done} by Banner Steel Erection located at 5010 Hillsboro Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55428, phone.number 533 -4454. The cost was $8,195.00. Liquor License for Red Lobster 82- 14163 Page 4 5. Carpentry, dry wall material, mild_ work, installation of windows and blinds was done by C & A Construction Company, Inc., 3143 Centerville Road, White Bear Lake, MN 55110, phone number 484 -4869. The cost was $90,325.00. 6. The plumbing was done by Roseville Plumbing and Heating, 65 South Owaso Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55117, phone number_ 484 - 4.086. The cost was $78,960.000 7. The heating and air conditioning was done by CSI, located at 6505 Taft Street, Hollywood, Florida 33024, phone number (305)620 -5414. The cost was $66,534.00. 8. The electrical work was done by Gunnar. Electric Company Inc. located at 7960 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, phone number 937 - -9262. The cost: was $33,500.00. 9. The glass and glazing was done by Minneapolis Glass Company, located at 14600 28th Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55441, phone number_ 559 -0635. The cost was $4,997.00. 10. The ceramic and quarry tile work was done by North- western Tile and Marble Company, 7449 Cahill Road, Edina, MN 55435, phone number 941 -8601. The cost was $18,633.00. 11. The acoustical ceilings were done by Twin City Acoustics, Inc., 8731 Bass Lake Road, New Hoep, MN 55428, phone number 535 -6697. The cost was $6,747.00. 12< The roofing, sheet metal and shingles were done by Walker Roofing Company, Inc., 2701 36th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406, phone number 729 -2325. The cost was $29,840.00. 13. Painting, vinyl wall covering, and waterproofing was done by Sanders and Company, Inc., located at 9530 James Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55431, phone number 884 -8128. The cost was $8,300.00. The purchase of the equipment for the restaurant .was financed, • . by self- financing through General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. The following is a breakdown of the vendor Listing: 1. The custom cabinet: work and mill work, including tables, was done by Allied Stoic Fixture Manufacturing, 4200 Liquor License for Red Lobster 82-14163 Page 5 Spring Grove Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32209, phone number (904)768 -1521. 2. The dishwasher, fryer and charbroilers were purchased from the Hobart Corporation, 5424 West Walers Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33688. 3. The chairs were purchased from L & B Products, Corporation, 3232 Lurtin Avenue P. 0. Box 53 Bronx P g NY 10469, phone number (212)882- -5400. 4. The ice machine was purchased from the Manitowoc Equipment Corporation, 2110 South 26th Street, Manitowoc, WI 54220, phone number (414)682 -0161. 5. The beer dispensing system, the bar, refrigeration equipment was purchased from the Perli.ck Company, Inc., P. 0. Box 23098, 8300 West Goodhope Road, Milwaukee, WI 53223, phone number (414)353 -7060. 6. Metal shelving was purchased from Seco Products Division, 512 First Avenue STET, Largo, Florida 33540, phone number (813)584 -7601. 7. The booths were purchased from Sigma Com Booth Plant, 4200 Spring Groves Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209. 8. The carpet was purchased from the SSC Corporation, 999 Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654. - 9. Refrigerators were purchaser) from Victory Manufacturing Company, 512 First Avenue, Largo, FL 33540, phone number (813)584 -7601. 10. Coolers and freezes were purchased from Vollrath Company, P. 0. Box 719, 8236 North 18th Street, Sheboygan, WI 53081, phone number (800)558 -7631. 11. The ovens were purchased from Vulcan Hart, c/o Bob McCormick, 8004 Cardinal, Tampa, FL 33617. 12. Stainless steel tables and sinks were purchased from Wasserstrom Company, 2300 Lockbourne Road, Columbus, OH 43207, phone number (614)443 -0511. The total equipment cost was $308,000.00. See the attached letter and list of contractors and subcontractors in the document section. Liquor License for Red Lobster 82 -14163 Page 6 SECTION III Individual Background of Officers and Shareholders A. Joe R. LEE, President, General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc., 6770 Lake Elinor Drive, Orlando, FL. Mr. LEE was born in Wayne County, Georgia on 12- 18 -40. Ile is currently married to Caroline Dale (BOVIEN) LEE, who was born on 1 -13 -41 at Waycross, Georgia. They currently reside at 6770 Lake .Elinor Drive, Orlando, FL. Mr. LEE has been employed by General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. since January of 1968 until the present. Mr. LEE's wife has not been employed out of the home in the preceding ten years. Police Record inquiries were sent to Gotha, Florida; Orange County, Orlando, Florida and responses on both Caroline LEE and Joe R. LEE indicated no arrest record. Based on the information available, there is nothing to indicate any problem in the background of Mr. Joe R. LEE. B. Mr. Robert Eugene WAGGONER, Vice - President and Treasurer, General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. Mr. WAGGONER was born to Washington, Iowa on 3.2- -5 -31. He is married to Shirley M. (LEXVOLD) WAGGONER who was born in Albert Lea, Minnesota on 3-29-36. Them current address is 110 Spring Valley Loop, Altamonte Springs, FL. Mr. WAGGONER has been with General Mills, Inc. since July of 1956. Shirley M. WAGGONER has not been employed outside the home in the previous Len years. Both Shirley M. WAGGONER and Robert Eugene WAGGONER have resided at Altamonte Springs, FL since July of 1972. Police Record inquiries were sent to Altamonte Springs, Florida and Orange County, Florida and in both cases the responses showed no arrest record for either Shirley M. or Robert Eugene WAGGONER. There is nothing to indicate that there would be any problem with Mr. Robert WAGGONER. C. Mr. George Thomas WILLIAMS, Vice - President, Secretary, and Treasurer, General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. Mr. WILLIAMS has been employed by General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. since October of 1972. Prior to that he was an attorney with Jones, Cork, Miller and Benton in Macon, Georgia. Mr. WILLIAMS is married to Dale McNhtt WILLIAMS who was born in Vidalia, Georgia on 9-20-44. They currently reside at 651 Lake Catherine Drive, Maitland, Florida 32751. Liquor License for Red Lobster II2-14163 Page 7 C. (Continued) Police Record inquiries were sent to Maitland, Florida and Orange County, Florida and the response indicated that in both the case of Mr. George WILLIAMS and his wife, Dale WILLIAMS, there is nothing to indicate any problem. D. Edwin ANDERSON, Assistant Secretary, General Mills Res - taurant Group, Inc. Mr. ANDERSON was born on 9 -16 -25 at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. He is married to Elizabeth Ann (BRANAGAN) ANDERSON, who was born in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania. Mr. ANDERSON is employed by General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. and has been so employed in the legal department since 1970. Mrs. ANDERSON has not been employed outside the home in the previous ten years. Police Record inquiries were sent to Orange County, Ocoee, and Orlando, Florida and each response indicates nothing of a criminal nature. E. Ronald Gene GATES, Assitant Secretary, General mills Res- taurant Group, Inc. Mr. GATES was born on 6 -15 -37 at Parkersburg, West Virginia. He is married to'Janet Carol (SAYRE) GA'Z'ES, who was born in Parkersburg, West Virginia on 10 -6 -39. They reside at 257 Cambridge Drive, Longwood, Florida 32750. Mr. GATES has been employed by General Mills Restaurant Group, Inc. since August of 1979 and was employed as a property manager for the G. E. Bieder. and Associates of 1458 U. S. 19, Clearwater, Florida from July of 1978 to August of 1979. Prior to that he was employed as a property manager for Housing Investment Corporation, Miami., Florida from January of 1977 to July of 1978 . Janet GATES has been employed by Frito Lay Company of Orlando, Florida from 1974 to the present as a secretary and at the Condev Corporation, Winter Park, Florida as a secretary from 1971 to 1974. Police Record inquiries ' we re sent to LonT;good, Florida and Orange County, Orlando, Florida and there was nothing in the response to indicate any problems. Liquor License for Red Lobster 82 -14163 Page 8 SECTION IV Individual Background of General Manager, Scott R. Jeffers Scott Richard JEFFERS is employed as a manager for Red Lobster Inns and has been employed thus since July 27, 1978. Mr. JEFFERS was born on July 7, 1950 in Pontiac, Michigan. Mr. JEFFERS is married to Susan Marie JEFFERS, who was born on September 3, 1950 in St. Peters, Minnesota. Mr. JEFFERS and his wife currently reside at Mundelein, Illinois 60061 and will be moving to 9793 Hemlock Lane in Maple Grove, Minnesota on or about October 25, 1982. Prior to working for Red Lobster Inns, Mr. JEFFERS was employed by the McQuay Perfex Company in Faribault, Minnesota. Investi- gator SOLLARS did go to the McQuay Perfex Company in Faribault and did interview the personnel manager as well as Mr. JEFFERS` immediate foreman. Loth people indicated that Mr. JEFFERS was a good employee and there was nothing to indicate that he would have any problems managing a restaurant which served liquor. While in Faribault, Investigator SOLLARS did have the opportunity to interview a former neighbor of Mr. JEFFERS, a Judy GOBLISH, who lived at 157 Evergreen Estates in Faribault. Judy GOBLISH had worked for McDonalds' Restaurant in Faribault at the time that Mr. JEFFERS was the manager of that restaurant and indicated that she knew of no problem that Mr. JEFFERS had which would interfere with him as the manager of a restaurant which served liquor,. Mr. JEFFERS indicated also that he is a former employee of the McDonalds Restaurants, Inc. of Minneapolis and Investigator SOLLARS did go to the McDonalds Systems, which is the main office at 8030 Nicollet Avenue South in Bloomington and inter- viewed the personnel manager. The personnel manager would not release any information concerning Mr. JEFFERS" employment there without a written release from him. Investigator SOLLARS dial obtain a written release from Mr. JEFFERS and sent a letter to McDonalds Systems, Inc. and did finally receive a letter of response from them indicating that they still needed another release of information signed by Mr. JEFFERS. It would appear that McDonalds Systems, Inc. does not intend to cooperate, with this investigation. There is, however, nothing to indicate that Mr. JEFFERS had any problems at McDonalds Systems. Investigator SOLLARS did contact several former neighbors of Mr. JEFFIt,RS in Faribault as we -11. as the manager of the trailer , par }; where Mr. J Fr FRS lived. It was Learned that Mr. JEFFERS did, upon moving from Faribault, diet the trailer which he was purchasing go back to the c` m.pany which was financing it. It Liquor License for Red Lobster E2- 14163 Page 9 was, however learned that Mr. JEFFERS' wife did remain behind for several months after Per. JEFFERS had .moved for new employ- ment and had made a good faith attempt to sell the property, and when no buyer was avail-able, they let the property go back to the mortgagee. There was nothing found to be illegal in this transaction. Aside from this information, Investigator SOLLARS found nothing in Faribault to indicate any problem with Mr. JEFFERS managing a restaurant where liquor is sold. The reports covering the interviews in Faribault will be attached in the supporting documents section. Investigator SOLLARS went to the former residence of Mr. JEFFERS in Buffalo, Minnesota and also Camelot Acres in Burnsville, Minnesota but was unsuccessful in locating anyone who could recall Mr. JEFFERS. Apparently Mr. JEFFERS lived in these locations for a very short period of time. Investigator SOLLARS went to 2447 Elm Drive in White Bear Lake, Minnesota and inter- viewed a former neighbor, Mrs. Virgil GROVE at 2457 Elm Drive, who indicated that Mr. JEFFERS n a d his wifc, had lived with the parents of Mrs. JEFFERS at 2447 Elm Drive. She was very positive in her recommendation of Mrs. JEFFERS and indicated that she knew Mr. JEFFERS only slightly. Investigator SOLLARS also interviewed Mrs. Judy DILLON, of 2439 Elm Drive in White Bear Lake, who indicated that her children played with the JEFFERS children at the time that the JEFFERS lived in the area and that she knew Mrs. JEFFERS fairly well, however was unfamiliar with Mr. JEFFERS. She was very positive in her recommendation and indicated that she knew of nothing which would interfere with Mr. JEFFERS managing a restaurant in which liquor was sold. See the attached reports in the supporting documents section from these interviews. Police inquiries; were sent to Mundelein, Illinois,; Vernon Hills, Illinois; Pontiac, Michigan; and St. Peter., Minnesota. All of which returned indicating no arrest record. Investigator SOLLARS could find nothing in his investigation of Mr. .JEFFERS which would indicate that there would be any problem with him working as a manager of the Red Lobster Inn in Brooklyn Center. Record checks were run on all the parties in this and the . previous section, which included 2000 checks from the Hennepin,, County Warrant Office as well as criminal histories and none of them indicated any arrest re-cord, Liquor License for Rena Lobster 82-14163 Rage 14 On October 18, 1982, Investigator SOLLARS met. with Chief LINDSAY, Barb PIETRZAR, and the proposed manager for Red Lobster, Scott JEFFE RS. At the time the liquor license ordinances were reviewed and questions were answered that Mr. JEFFERS had pertaining to the operation of the Red Lobster Restaurant within the perimeters of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances and State Statutes. • I . Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 25, 1982. MEC SYSTEM'S LICENSE Midland Heating 6442 Penn Avenue South Building Official a NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Twin City Vending 6845 Lee Avenue North" Sanitarianr PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Twin City Vending 6845 Lee Avenue North Sanitarian FOOD ESTABLISHME LICENSE Canteen Corporation of Minnesota 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Red Lobster /a division of General Mills Restaurant Group 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Sanitarian �> R ENTAL DWELLING LICEN Initial: United Homes Corporation 5600 Aldrich Avenue N. Pat's Action Realty 6825 - Noble Avenue N. Joan Kanz 3112 O' Henry Road Marvin /Beatrice Mohr 6026 Humboldt Avenue N. Ramesh K /Kanta Kuba 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue N. Renewal: Robert A. Gold 7217 Camden Avenue N. Patrick Menth 5302 Fremont Avenue N. Duane L. Christiansen 5400 Sailor Lane Mr. & Mrs. Michael L. Kratochvil 6131 Kyle Avenue N. Eugene W. Hess 3218 63rd Avenue N. David JensenGordon Wellens 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard Fred Johnson 5324 Bryant Avenue N. Isolda Gilles 4715 France Avenue N. Dennis Schuette /Jerry Jacobson 4408 69th Avenue N. Peter /Joan Neururer 6737 -43 Humboldt Avenue N. Harrington Properties Bernard J. Harrington' 6640, 6700 Humboldt Avenue N. 1400,01 67th Avenue North GENF,RAL APPROVAL: Gerald G.�Spisnt( City Clerk