Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 09-16 FTFA0 MEETING NOTICE FINANCIAL TASK FORCE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 7 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL 1. Presentation by Brooklyn Center Auditor • 2. Presentation by Councilmember Cohen ENCLOSURES: Minutes of August 28, 1991 meeting Executive Summary of 1989 Community Survey List of Task Force and City Council meeting dates 0 A T ust 1989 40 Decision Resources Ltd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 501 randomly selected residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers between March 3, 1989, and March 22, 1989. The average interview took thirty-eight minutes. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of Brooklyn Center residents within + 4.5 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Brooklyn Center is a mature, stable community with a social conscience. Most residents have lived for at least ten years in the community and intend to remain there for the duration. They are proud of their community and tied to their neighborhood. But, at the same time, residents are aware of the problems of modern urban society and willing to do their share to ameliorate them. This caring attitude toward others, then, markedly differ- entiates the community from many other suburbs. Demographically, Brooklyn Center is the typical inner-ring suburban community. Fifty-three percent of the residents have lived there for at least ten years. The median longevity is a high 11.1 years. Sixty-nine percent do not see themselves moving during the next ten years. While the city has relied upon Minneapolis in-migration in the past, more recent arrivals moved to Brooklyn Center from other suburban communities and from outside the state. Today, only forty percent of the residents moved to the community from Minneapolis. Twenty-six percent of the interviewed households reported the presence of school-aged children in their homes. This figure is lower than "boom areas" like Eagan and Woodbury, but higher than many other inner-ring communities. Nineteen percent of the households contained senior citizens; twelve percent, exclusively seniors. Pre-schoolers were found in fourteen percent of the contacted homes. These figures suggest a modest increase in the contribution of Brooklyn Center children to their schools during the next five years. Seventy-two percent of the respondents owned their current residents. The remaining twenty-eight percent could be found in both apartments, to a great degree, and single family dwellings. Apartment and condominiums provided residences to about six percent of the community. The average age of an-adult resident was 43.9 years old. 3128 Dean Court 9 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 0 (612) 920-0337 One-third of the population was under the age of 35, while thirty-seven percent were over 55 years old. Married couples in "empty nests" are the typical household composite in the city. The largest occupation group in Brooklyn Center was Blue Collar households, at thirty percent. Retirees were next at twenty-two percent. Upper socio-economic status occupations, such as Professional-Technical and Owner-Manager, accounted for an additional thirty-four percent. This occupational structure is reflected in the educational achievement of residents: fifty- two percent of the respondents had not attended any college. Dual income households also dominated: fifty-eight percent of married couples. indicated that both spouses worked outside of the home. The median yearly household income proved to be $32,870, almost $5,000 less than the suburban average. This latter result is not surprising, given the older and Blue Collar tint of the city. Current in-migration suggests that the occupational structure of the city will become increasingly White Collar. Newer residents tend to be owner-Manager and Professional- Technical job-holders. This trend should also slowly increase the median household income over time. Brooklyn Center residents are generally content with their city. Ninety-two percent approved of the quality of life there; twenty-eight percent' approved very strongly. The most prized characteristic of the city is that it is "complete": residents do not have to travel miles to see grass, parks, shopping, and other amenities. The location of the community within the Metropolitan Area highway network at the intersection of two expressways was also viewed in a positive light. Finally, the strong neighborhoods and small town atmosphere of the community was pointed to by about one-quarter of the sample. Brooklyn Center, then,' affords residents a unique combination of qualities: nearby convenience to necessities, rapid access to the Metropolitan Area, and strong connectedness and community identity. While a majority of residents were either unable to isolate one characteristic they disliked about the community thirty- one percent maintaining there was nothing they disliked two interrelated problems arose. Ten percent complained about the condition and crowding of roads and highways in the city. Another nine percent pointed to the adverse effects of growth and urban sprawl. While concern has not reached the levels registered in outer ring communities, these problems were referred to often enough to merit further attention. Residents were very proud of the appearance of their neighborhoods. Eighty-nine percent rated their neighborhoods as either "excellent" or "good." The preservation of the attractiveness of these areas underlies the support for many potential actions by the City, which are discussed later in this report. . There is a strong sense of connectedness between residents and their government. A very low twenty percent felt that they could not have a say about the way the City of Brooklyn Center run things. Even more impressive, a record high of seventy-one percent felt they could have an impact if they wished. City government, then, is seen as responsive to the needs of most residents. When asked about their residences, ninety-three percent of the sample felt that they met the current needs of their households. Seventy-seven percent also thought their residences would continue to meet their needs during the next decade. Of the twenty-one percent who took exception, one-in-four thought their current residences could be improved to meet future needs. The remainder were searching for other types of accommodations: moving from a rental unit to owned housing, moving to a townhouse or condominium, or searching for more affordable housing. The latter two groups were especially pessimistic about finding their needed new residences within Brooklyn Center; the former residents, those searching for starter homes, were more confident. But, it should be noted for future development, that a fairly sizable unmet demand for condominiums and townhouses exists within the community. A very high value is placed upon the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation System: Eighty-six percent of the sample rated it as either "excellent" or "good." And, eighty-two percent of the sample were satisfied with the current range of opportunities located within it.. City parks and city playgrounds were very important to most residents. The community center, pedestrian trails, and bicycle paths also registered substantial support, about two-thirds of the sample per facility. The swimming pool was felt to be very important by fifty-five percent. Only the golf course, which possesses a much more limited participant profile, was -deemed as "somewhat important" rather than "very important" to most residents. In general, the park and recreation system outstandingly meets the needs of the citizenry. Recreational programming also received very high grades. Twenty-seven percent of the sample reported participating in organized city-sponsored activities; softball drew the largest audience. Satisfaction with the programming was unanimous an astonishing achievement! In fact, the only reason given for not participating again in the future was age either children were now too old or seniors felt they could no longer take part. Eighty-six percent also felt that programs for adults and seniors met their needs. , But, seven percent thought more varied opportunities for seniors should be explored. Ninety percent felt that programming for youth and children were also adequately meeting community interests and demography. It is also a testimony to the effectiveness of the city-sponsored recreational activities that ninety-nine percent stated that no current programs should be discontinued! Respondents were asked their opinions of two potential • expansions of the park system and its programming. While sixty- five percent of the residents supported the construction of a city-wide off-street bikeway system, only forty-one percent still favored the proposal if a property tax increase were required to fund it. This project should be viewed as having substantial support, but lacking a clear mandate. But, fifty-eight percent supported the City spending funds to provide for the winter-time maintenance of trailways for walking, cross-country skiing, and other purposes. Since fifty-two percent of the sample reported spending their leisure time in outdoor activities, these support levels are consistent with the general orientation of residents. City services were awarded generally solid ratings by residents of Brooklyn Center. Exceptional services, rated as "excellent" or "good" by over eighty-five percent of the residents, included fire protection, snow plowing, police protection, park maintenance, and sewers. City street repair and maintenance and animal control were rated highly by almost seventy-five percent of the sample; but the former attracted "only fair" and "poor" ratings from twenty-five percent of the community, while the latter was criticized by twenty percent. Only water quality was rated lower: sixty-four percent favorably; thirty-three percent, unfavorably. Designated problems included the bad taste of the water, upkeep of the streets and recurring potholes, and loose animals. Overall, however, in comparison with other communities, Brooklyn Center 18 serves its residents very well, indeed. Public safety was explored in more depth. Residents saw three major problems facing the community. Drugs was rated as the greatest or second major problem facing Brooklyn Center by forty-six percent of the residents. Juvenile crimes and vandalism and burglary were similarly rated by about thirty-seven percent of the sample. Following from these perceptions, the DARE Program was ranked the most important public safety service by eighty-six percent of the community. Almost as strongly rated, the Advocacy Program and expanded drug enforcement topped the eighty percent mark. Neighborhood Watch, an anti-burglary program, was well-received by seventy-eight percent. A concern for the welfare of children both from drugs and abuse together with the desire for household security sets the general tone of these responses. Sixty-eight percent of the community rated police patrolling in their neighborhood as "about right." But, twenty-three percent felt that it was currently insufficient. Concern was not centered in one part of the community; however, residents living in households with annual incomes over $62,500 were more critical about the current level of police protection. Thirty percent of the residents reported contacting someone who worked for the City during the past twelve months. Complaints, questions, water-related and recreation queries were the usual reasons for the contact. Unlike many other communi- ties, Brooklyn Center residents were able to identify the • Department they first contacted; in other words, there is a much greater knowledge of the organization of the city staff on the part of residents. An impressive four-to-one ratio stated satisfaction with they way their inquiry was handled. Dissatisfaction stemmed from both process and treatment, with the former more often specified. The City Hall staff, then, is doing a very fine job in handling the requests of its residents. Brooklyn Center residents are clearly not reflexively "anti- tax." As long as residents feel a need has been demonstrated and that the funds will be used effectively, majorities will support increased funding requests. Fifty-five percent of the sample would support a property tax increase to maintain city services at their current level. This result, in part, follows from the generally high ratings they currently receive. In addition, a majority of residents feel that property taxes in the city are about average for most suburbs. For many people, though, this feeling is based upon generalities rather than specifics: forty- eight percent were unable to estimate the percentage of their property taxes that the city takes. And, among those who ventured a guess, the average was a somewhat high 18.6 percent. The City could substantially increase its reservoir of good will among residents by more broadly communicating the very cost- effective way it provides its well-regarded services. The work of the'Mayor-and Council was comparatively well- known to Brooklyn Center residents. Forty-one percent knew either a "great deal" or "fair amount." Seventy-six percent of the community approved of their job; only four percent disapproved. The nineteen-to-one ratio of approval-to- disapproval is one of the strongest in the Metropolitan Area. In probing these judgments, no specific policy decisions were. mentioned; instead, confidence in the general direction of the city was the basis of the ratings. One systematic complaint among the small number of dissenters was noted: lack of communications. The City Staff received similarly favorable ratings. Twenty-four percent of the residents indicated they had "quite a lot" or "some" first-hand contact with city staff. Sixty percent of the sample rated the staff as either "excellent" or "good"; nine percent rated it less highly. The six-to-one favorability ratio is also comparatively solid. It should also be noted that about half of the lower ratings were attributed to "no special reasons" or to hearsay. In any case, the staff is certainly aiding the very positive image that the community has of its City. Wide support for actions to maintain the quality of housing were evidenced. Sixty-nine percent of the sample favored a systematic program for acquiring run-down homes incapable of rehabilitation and razing them. Eighty percent supported ordinances setting a stringent community standard on property appearance. Eighty-nine percent favored increased and rigorous enforcement standards on all rental units. Sixty-six percent supported regular inspections on the outside of all owner occupied housing. Only on the regular inspection of the inside of all owned occupied housing was exception taken: by a forty percent to fifty-five percent margin, the sample opposed these actions. There is a clear and consistent mandate for pro-active steps to insure the quality of residential neighborhoods in the community. Support was also expressed for programs helping the more vulnerable elements of society. By sixty-four percent to twenty- seven percent, residents supported a program to provide economic assistance for housing the poor. Support was also evident for the acceptance of group homes in Brooklyn Center, to house the mentally retarded and the non-violent mentally ill. In the former case, eighty three percent of the residents approved of the establishment of group homes for that purpose; in the latter case, sixty eight percent agreed. Residents were more split on accepting homes for recovering chemically dependent individuals, fifty-six percent to forty percent, and absolutelv opposed to group homes for recently released ex-prisoners. Unlike many other suburban communities, residents of Brooklyn Center possess an active social conscience. Several miscellaneous programs were also tested. While only twenty-four percent of the residents were aware of the Senior • Citizen Telephone Assurance program, the target audience of seniors was much better informed. No unfavorable ratings among those acquainted with this program were registered. Seventy- three percent of the residents also reported hearing the. Civil Defense sirens on the first Wednesday of each month. The appearance of streets and boulevards was a policy area- in which much less consensus appeared. By a narrow forty-six percent to forty percent margin, the sample supported spending funds to develop a full maintenance program for the trees lining boulevards in the city. Most residents, in fact, could think of no other actions the City should undertake to assist landscaping improvements on residential streets. A program for installing curbs and gutters on residential streets not having them was opposed by a fifty-four percent to thirty-six percent majority. Housing stock, rather than landscape, appears to be the clear priority of most residents. The City was felt to be doing a good job in the enforcement of codes. Sixty-five percent reported that enforcement was "about right." However, twenty-seven percent rated it "not tough enough." Junk cars and loose animals were the two major enforcement complaints. While only twenty-six percent of the sample reported contact with code enforcement officials during the past two years, satisfaction with that contact was unusually mixed. Those reporting recent contact split only two-to-one in rating it "satisfactory." While dissatisfaction was not substantial, it is disproportionately high in comparison with other municipal ratings. Brooklyn Center respondents favored an aggressive, but thoughtful, approach to further commercial and retail development and redevelopment. By two-to-one, they support an aggressive effort to attract new and retain existing commercial and retail development. But, the use of development incentives, such as tax breaks, was supported by a lessened forty-nine percent to forty- one percent margin. This cautious attitude, however, was not indicative of a sweeping policy concern, but a more case-by-case usage of incentives. By three-to-one, for example, residents favored using development incentives in the Lynbrook Bowl Area. But, by only a three-to-two margin were incentives endorsed for the 96th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Area. Many residents seem to cautiously factor in the current state and present needs of an area before approving of incentives. Parking and storage issues were also addressed. By a seventy-one percent to twenty-four percent margin, respondents supported an ordinance prohibiting the parking of commercial vehicles over twenty-one feet in residential areas. But, by sixty-four percent to thirty percent, they oppose the prohibition of the storage of large recreational vehicles and boats on residential property. The distinction between private and public property was critical to this difference. The imposition of group homes on the community was a very controversial issue. , As was referred to earlier, residents are • willing to accept certain types of group homes within the city. They resent, however, the ability of the State of Minnesota to dictate to community. By a seventy-four percent to eighteen percent difference, respondents favored spending money to, lobby the legislature for the ability to place some controls on the siting of group homes. In fact, forty-six percent of the sample. strongly favored lobbying the legislature. Even more relevant as an indication of strong feelings, though, was that fifty-five percent of the residents would accept a modest tax increase to cover the costs of the lobbying effort. The City may wish to consider more aggressive activities in Saint Paul to recover its jurisdiction over these decisions. Water both quality and quantity provoked some concern, but was found not to be a pressing issue. Seventy percent of the sample endorsed the use restrictions imposed during the drought of 1988. Another twenty-one percent felt the restrictions were not tough enough and would support more stringent ones if the need arose. But, sixty-three percent of the community would not favor an increase of any kind in their water rates to fund measures to reduce the need for further restrictions. Similarly, hardness of water was a very serious problem to over one-third of the residents. Again, however, fifty-eight percent were unwilling to pay higher water rates to improve the quality of water. While water may be a bother, it is not deemed serious enough to warrant further costs to the citizenry. The pick-up system for disposing of separated recyclable . materials was found to have great appeal. The projected usage of fifty-one percent of the households within Brooklyn Center is an comparatively outstanding rate of participation. Public transportation was not found to be a major problem for most residents. Twenty-four percent of the residents presently use the bus service available in Brooklyn Center. Three-in-four of the service users are satisfied. And, most of the current non-users could not be enticed to use the public transport system in any case. Residents were asked their opinion of the expansion of the City Hall and Community Center buildings. By a fifty-two percent to thirty percent margin, respondents favored the project in concept. In any proposal, three items will prove particularly attractive to residents: (1) construction of a senior citizens drop-in center; (2) addition to the City Hall, providing more space for police, fire, and general offices; and (3) and indoor walking and jogging track. In fact, of the six potential components tested only one provoked citizen ire: handball courts. Construction of a new gymnasium and expansion of the exercise and fitness room garnered narrow support. In terms of paying for the expansion, a majority of residents would accept a property tax increase of $25.00 to fund the project. With thirty-six percent of the sample unwilling to see their property taxes increase at all, though, the City may wish to place the question on a November election ballot rather than hold a special election, in order to insure a high turnout. Communications with residents was the only issue area in which a re-examination of current methods seems indicated. Most residents rely upon mailings and the park brochure for information about recreational offerings. The newspaper is the. primary vehicle for obtaining information about City government and its activities. But, it is troublesome that only eight percent of the residents rely upon the city newsletter and sixteen percent reported they had no communications channel to rely upon. Residents who receive information, then, obtain it through vehicles that cannot ordinarily be structured by the city. "The City Manager's Newsletter" was received by only thirty- seven percent of the residents, an unusually low figure in comparison to most suburban communities. . The current delivery system, then, clearly needs to be reconsidered. Twenty-eight percent of the residents reported regularly reading the publication, and most regarded the newsletter as at least "somewhat effective." This lack of readership is a very critical problem, though, since only sixty percent of the community receive and read the "Brooklyn Center Post," a low readership for a suburban weekly newspaper. In essence, substantial portions of the community are unable to inform themselves about the actions • and activities of City Hall. Since newspapers do not seem to be the answer, the City may need to substantially increase the reach and quality of its newsletter. • In summary, Brooklyn Center residents are very proud of their community. They are content with the past and generally satisfied with prospects for the future. Maintenance, rather than augmentation, is the crux of the policy agenda held by most residents. Balancing social responsibility with prudent fiscal management is also a recurring issue. Enhancing the present components of the community its retail and job-producing opportunities while preserving its livability and cohesiveness will be the key question facing decision-makers in the next decade. • 9 Quality of Life Brook yn Center Good i Decision Resources, Ltd. 0 0 Ilent 28 Poor 2 Only Fair 5 0 r 120 100 80 60 40 20 - 0 Park Facilities Brook yn Center =Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important Decision Resources, Ltd. Trail Park Play Golf Pool ComCen Bike City Services Brook yn Center 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 j Police Fire Street Water M Excellent ~ Good Decision Resources, Ltd. WOMEN i i Sewer Snow Animal Park M' ` Only Fair Poor Public Safety Issues Brook Yn Center Violent Crime Burglary Traffic Drugs Juveniles Other None Don't Know 0 Decision Resources, Ltd. 5 10 15 20 25 30 M Greatest Problem W/- Second Concern 35 Civic Center Expansion Brook yn Center City Hall Addition New Gymnasium Senior Drop-in Handball Courts Fitness Room Indoor Track Proposal Decision Resources, Ltd. i 40 80 100 0 20 60 Favor Oppose J. Group Homes Brook yn Center Retarded Chem Dep Mental III Ex-Prison Lobbying Lobby/Tax i 60 = Approve Disapprove Decision Resources, Ltd. i 80 100 0 0 0 20 . 40 r MEETING DATES FINANCIAL TASK FORCE August 28 September 1 September 3 October 16 October 28 November #1 November #2 December #1 December #2 Wednesday 7 p.m. Council Chambers 6 Monday 7 p.m. Council Chambers 0 Monday 7 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday 7 p.m. Heritage Ctr. - Stable Monday 7 p.m. Council Chambers meeting meeting meeting meeting Budget Meeting Dates • October 29 Tuesday 7 p.m. Council Chambers Work Session November 13 Wednesday 7 p.m. Council Chambers Work Session November 25 Monday 7:15 p.m. Council Chambers Public Hearing December 4 Wednesday 7:15 p.m. Council Chambers P.H. continued •