HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 10-30 FCAA Jvwx
C~ C R p ~ CE~R
C~ OF B 1995
October 307'00 p Session
Special ~°rk
Call to Order
1.
Roll Call am Plesen~~°n
2• ent ProgrCapital IMPTovem
3.
4. Ad~on.~ent
0
•
0 MEMORANDUM
October 27, 1995
TO: Mayor Kragness
Councilmember Carmody
Councilmember Hilstrom
Councilmember Kalligher
Councilmember Mann
FROM: Cam Andre, Interim City Manager
SUBJ: Capital Improvement Needs and a Potential Bond Issue
Ron Boman, Charlie Hansen, Scott Kline, and Diane Spector have been working for some time
to review upcoming major capital outlay needs and develop a recommended strategy for meeting
those needs. Much of the information in this report has been presented to City Councils
previoulsy.
In recent months a recurring theme has emerged as the Council, staff, and community review the
future of Brooklyn Center. That theme is the need to take positive steps to foster a renewal and
reinvigoration of the City. It is important to bear in mind that Brooklyn Center is at a particular
stage in its municipal life when not only must it consider renewing housing, commerce, and
programs, but it must also consider reinvesting in its public facilities. We are beginning a part of
that goal by implementing a comprehensive, systematic street and utility rehab/replacement
program, our Neighborhood Improvement Program.
At the same time, most of our municipal buildings were built about 25 years ago, and are in need
of remodelling, refurbishing, or expansion. Some of this need stems simply from age, such as
wom out or obsolete mechanical systems. Some of this need stems from changing programmatic
needs, some from simple growth. Regulations, building code, and safety requirements change
over the years, and public buildings and facilities are not exempt from these requirements.
Most of the major facilities in our parks were constructed or rehabilitated fifteen years ago.
While we are working to incorporate park improvements into the Neighborhood program, some
residents have expressed a desire to refurbish the parks "ahead of schedule," and indeed, some of
the park facilities won't last the twenty years it will take to address all our street and utility
needs.
0
NEEDS
Each of the major need items have been identified for consideration in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). The needs descriptions identifies those items which are mandated improvements;
these are projects which the City must do. The "Driving forces" identified for each item shows
that while many of the listed projects may not be mandated, there are code, gender equity, and
health issues at stake. Simple age and maintainability is the reason other improvements are up
for consideration. Very few of the items on the list would provide for an expansion of our
programming.
•
•
Page 2
•
•
•
City of Brooklyn Center
Major Capital Outlay Needs
1. City Hall underground storage Two tanks located under City Hall front steps and
tank removal & accessible drive must be replaced by 1997. Used to store fuel
entrance (tank removal mandated) oil for generator and alternative fuel source for
burners. Substantial operating cost deduction for
heating for being on interruptible service. Accessible
entrance an ADA need.
2. Remodel wading pool Health Department regulations require each pool to
(mandated) have its own filtration system. Also, surface around
pool not constructed to current regulations. Mandated
by 1997.
3. Garage fuel tank replacement Underground storage tank regulations require that three
(mandated) current fuel tanks must be removed and replaced by
1997.
4. Police improvements (jail Several concerns: jail improvements mandated, cannot
improvements mandated) be accommodated by remodelling in existing area.
General space needs. Improved facilities for female
officers.
5. Civic Center HVAC Aging system needs replacement, would improve
energy efficiency. Replacement could be rolled into a
Police addition, but if a new building is built off-site,
would be required in addition.
6. Replace playground equipment Parks where playgrounds have not yet been replaced
include: Bellvue, Grandview, Happy Hollow, Garden
City, Brooklane, Kylawn, Wangstad, West Palmer,
East Palmer, Riverdale, and Marlin.
7. East Fire Station needs Basic needs include: additional apparatus space;
additional office/training space, additional storage,
additional sleeping quarters; improved facilities for
female firefighters.
8. West Fire Station needs Basic needs include: additional apparatus space;
additional office/training space, additional sleeping
quarters; improved facilities for female firefighters.
9. City Hall roof Existing roof is 25 years old, leaks, has low insulation
value. Needs replacement.
Page 3
•
•
•
10. Miscellaneous park Major items include: replacement of ballfield/rink
improvements lights at Evergreen, Grandview, and Kylawn($250-
300,000); replace bleachers ($50,000); renovation of
Plaza pond/boardwalk ($50,000); upgrade various
tennis & basketball courts ($200,000); add trail lights,
expand parking, replace park signs, arboretum ponds,
improve landscaping (est cost
11. Warming houses & picnic Consider new warming houses at Northport, Kylawn,
shelters Willow Lane, Evergreen. Remodel existing at
Grandview, Garden City. Replace houses with or add
picnic shelters at Bellvue, Happy Hollow, W Palmer,
E Palmer, Nature area, Orchard Lane, Riverdale
12. Community Center Small addition to locate new elevator, relocated stairs,
accessibility improvements also remodel relocated restrooms for accessibility
13. Replace phone/data Replace aging, obsolete phone system and recable
buildings for phone/data
14. Upgrade radio system Upgrade both police and public works radios to 800
trunk service. Public utilities would contribute funding
for SCADA and INTRAC replacement
15. Upgrade Council Chambers Improve lighting, sound, cablecasting equipment
16. Addition to Community Add space for additional community rooms for small
Center meetings, parties, and senior activities.
17. Ice arena/youth activities In cooperation with school districts, participate in the
center construction of an ice arena which would also include
facilities for youth activities.
18. New park facilities Develop the Joslyn site with ballfields, playgrounds,
and picnic areas; complete the Twin Lake trail loop (or
the BC portion)
19. Family pool Construct an addition to Community Center; add a
zero depth/water play area to the pool
e:\eng\projects\bondishu\cipmemo
Page 4
4 0 0
Listing of Major Capital Improvement Needs and Driving Farces
Component
Estimated
Total
Need
Driving Forces
1
City Hall underground storage tank removal & accessible $ x
entrance
2
Remodel wading pool
$
3
Garage fuel tank replacement (excludes $50,000 contribution $ x
from public utilities)
4
Police improvements
$
5
Civic Center HVAC
$ x
6
Replace playground equipment
$ z
7
East Fire Station needs
$
8
West Fire Station needs
$
9
City Hall roof
$ X
10
Miscellaneous park improvements
$ z
11
Warming houses & picnic shelters
$
12
Community Center accessibility improvements:
Elevator, $
restrooms
13
Replace phone/data
$
14
Upgrade radio system (excludes $100,000 contribution from $
public utilities)
15
Upgrade Council Chambers
$
16
Addition to Community Center: meeting rooms
& senior $
center
17 Ice arena/youth activities center $ 3,000,000 Gender equity
18 New park facilities (Joslyn, Twin Lake Trail) $2 - $3 million Expansion of recreation programming
19 Family pool $1 - $3 million Expansion of recreation programming
100,000 Tank removals mandated by EPA; must be removed by 1997; entrance: ADA
50,000 Existing pool does not meet Health Dept standards; must be remodelled by 1997
275,000 Tank removals mandated by EPA; must be removed & replaced by 1997
4,000,000 Jail improvements mandated, variety of space, code, gender equity, health issues
350,000 Age, maintainability, energy inefficient
500,000 High priority for Park and Recreation Commission
1,600,000 Variety of code issues, gender equity issues, health issues
1,300,000 Variety of code issues, gender equity issues, health issues
125,000 Age, leaking, energy inefficient
500,000 Age, maintainability
800,000 Age, maintainability
500,000 ADA
200,000 Age, maintainability
650,000 Possible future requirement, no more available frequencies, age of equipment
250,000 Age of equipment, functionality, image
500,000 Expansion of recreation programming
$ 17,700,000
TOTAL to $20,760,000
26-Oct-95
FINANCING OPTIONS
Two major financing options are available. First is the use of our existing Capital Improvements
Fund created to finance replacement projects, but its current resources are limited when
compared to the need. The second major option is the proceeds from a general obligation bond
issue or a general tax levy.
The Capital Improvements Fund(CIF) was created by Resolution 68-246 (attached). It has been
the vehicle for carrying out four major (two in conjunction with bond issues) and a multitude
of minor projects since then. In 1992, the City Council directed the Financial Commission to
develop a policy to govern the use of the CIF. The Commission worked for a year and first
reported the attached Capital Improvements Fund Expenditure Policy to the City Council on
November 8, 1993. It was adopted by unanimous vote of the City Council on January 10, 1994.
The Financial Commission had a number of objectives in developing the policy which should
be expanded upon for the understanding of the City Council. The CIF fund is to be used for
major, permanent, facilities. Minor projects could be handled through the General Fund budget
and other needs could be financed from other funds such as MSA, utilities, or the EDA. The
Commission wanted to emphasize planning through the five year capital improvement plan.
Finally, the Commission wanted to maintain a minimum balance in the CIF. The purpose
behind this was to provide a flow of future investment earnings to enable some capital projects
to be undertaken in all future years without the need for frequent bond issues. Secondly, this
minimum balance would be an insurance policy against catastrophes such as natural disasters
which would put a great strain on city resources.
During the course of operating over the last 25 years, the CIF has accumulated a substantial
unreserved fund balance, as shown on the attached History of Fund Balance report. This report
shows the unreserved fund balance, but excludes funds appropriated, but not yet spent on
projects and amounts loaned to other funds. In years the balance increased, capital outlays were
less than revenues. In years the balance decreased, capital outlays exceeded revenues.
We estimate the CIF will end 1995 with an unreserved fund balance of about $4,858,500. The
policy identifies the minimum balance which will be about $3,278,000 at the end of 1995. This
allows $1,580,500 which could be spent on city needs immediately. With investment earnings,
CIF moneys of up to $2,800,000 are available over the next five years.
Selling a bond issue would be an appropriate way to supplement the resources of the Capital
Improvements Fund. A general obligation bond supported by the property tax would require
approval of the voters in a referendum election. Principal and interest payments on the bonds
would be structured so that the bonds would mature in fifteen years. The City's Financial
Management Policies specify that 50% of the principal of a bond issue be retired within ten
years. The purpose being to pay off one bond issue, before the need for the next one arises.
0
A recent change in state law affects the way the tax levy would be spread among taxpayers. The
City's operating tax levy is spread on the basis of assessed value. A commercial property with
a market value of $100,000 has a higher assessed value and pays higher property taxes than a
residential property with a market value of $100,000. But when a bond referendum is approved
by the voters, the resulting tax levy is spread on the basis of market value. A commercial
property with a market value of $100,000 would pay the same property taxes as a residential
property with a market value of $100,000 for a bond tax levy.
The staff has developed some scenarios with bonds sales of $5,000,000 or $7,000,000 or
$9,000,000. For each $1,000,000 of bonds sold with maturities of fifteen years, the typical
$73,000 residence in Brooklyn Center would pay a property tax increase of $.70 per month.
The $5,000,000 bond issue would generate a tax increase of $3.50 per month, the $7,000,000
bond issue a tax increase of $4.90 per month, and the $9,000,000 bond issue a tax increase of
$6.30 per month.
Without a bond issue, another more limited option exists. A bond issue would increase the
city's total property tax levy by several hundred thousand dollars a year. In the absence of a
bond issue, the City Council could decide to levy a property tax to go directly into the Capital
Improvements Fund. The amount levied would be smaller than the one for a bond issue. It
would ensure that the City could continue to do a greater level of projects each year after the
current surplus in the CIF has been used, but wouldn't provide the amount that a bond issue
might generate. In many cases, mandates or the physical deterioration of buildings might
. require earlier funding.
The combination of some level of bond sales along with the resources available in the Capital
Improvements Fund could begin to meet a significant number of the identified needs of the city.
Given the support revealed by the survey conducted by Decision Resources for a bond issue to
build either police or fire facilities, it would seem to be advisable to proceed with some level
of bond referendum.
For example, the City Council may decided it is important to include meeting all the police
station needs, full improvements at both fire stations, and completing playground replacements
in a bond issue. Or, the bond issue might be expanded to include City Hall and Community
Center improvements.
Once decisions such as these have been made, it is appropriate to bring in an architect to
begin preliminary planning and design and to provide better cost estimates, and to develop
the strategic planning process of "packaging" the promotion of a bond issue.
0
25
Member John Leary introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 68-246
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CAPITAL
PROTECTS FUND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has determined
that there are certain major, permanent facilities that are currently needed or will
be needed in future years by the City of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it prudent to finance these facilities
to the extent :possible from sou- ces other than long-term borrowing; and
WHEREAS, from time to time there are ceriain surpluses from various
City funds and from other sources of revenue which become available to be
used for purposes which may be designated by the City Council:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that there is hereby created a fund to be known as the CAPITAL
PROJECTS FUND;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the purpose of the CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
is to provide funds and to account for the 'expenditure of such funds for major
capital outlays (which shall include, but not be limited to, construction or
acquisition of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life); and/or
to reduce debt incurred for capital outlays;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources of revenue for said CAPITAL
PROJECTS FUND shall consist of ad valorem taxation, transfers by the City
Council of surpluses of other City funds, issuance of bonds, interest earnings
of the fund, and from other sources of revenue whi h from time to time the City
Council deems to be available for transfer nd. /
October 14, 1968
Date Mayor
ATTEST: 1~:
ClerC46~
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Earl Rydberg , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Earl Rydberg and
Howard Heck;
and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
fmcomm\cappolcy
• CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND EXPENDITURE POLICY
POLICY OBJECTIVE:
The City of Brooklyn Center makes unrestricted capital expenditures through one of two funds.
Generally, small capital expenditures are funded through the general fund and planned for as part
of the annual budgeted process for the general fund. Large unrestricted capital expenditures are
funded through the capital improvements fund based on resolution 68-246, which was approved
in 1968. Capital expenditures are also made through other funds such as the M.S.A.
construction fund, the special assessment construction fund, the water fund, the sanitary sewer
fund, and the storm drainage fund. These funds each have restrictions in place to guide their
expenditures.
The objective of this policy is to clarify funding for all unrestricted capital expenditures by
specifically defining which capital expenditures are eligible for funding through the capital
improvements fund. Unrestricted capital expenditures not meeting the criteria for the capital
improvements fund must be made from the general fund operating budget.
Specifically excluded from this policy are capital expenditures that are to be reimbursed by
insurance proceeds. These may be accounted for through the capital improvements fund at the
discretion of the Director of Finance.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
The sources are ad-valorem taxes, issuance of bonds, state and federal grants, transfers of
unrestricted balances from other funds and investment earnings.
USE OF FUNDS:
The following defines general expenditure criteria for the utilization of the capital improvements
fund balance.
A.) Major: Any capital expenditure that exceeds $25,000. Capital expenditures of less than
$25,000 are to be made through the general fund operating budget.
B.) Permanent: Any capital expenditure that has an estimated useful life of 10 years or
longer.
C.) Facility: Buildings, improvements to real estate, the acquisition of land for city
purposes. This definition excludes the acquisition of land for development or resale and
excludes vehicles.
Additionally, the capital improvements fund may be used to provide loans to other funds
maintained by the City. However, loans from the capital improvement fund may only be made
to proprietary funds which have the ability to generate revenue and repay the loan within 10
years at prevailing interest rates.
AUTHORITY TO SPEND:
Expenditures meeting the above criteria may be funded through the capital improvements fund
based on the following authority limits:
A.) Expenditures from $0 to $25,000: Not eligible for funding from the capital
improvements fund. Funding is required through the general fund operating
budget.
B.) Expenditures from $25,001 to $200,000: The City Council may, through
simple majority, approve these expenditures.
C.) Expenditures over $200,000: Following a public hearing, City Council may,
. through a 4/5th's majority, approve expenditures in this category.
SPENDING LIMITATION/FUND BALANCE REOU REMENT:
The objective as described above and previously defined in Resolution 68-246 requires the
capital improvements fund to be a permanent source of funding for planned major expenditures.
As such, the following criteria is established to comply with that intent:
A.) Planned Expenditures: If the proposed capital expenditure is in excess of
$200,000 it must have been included in the five year capital improvements plan
for at least two years.
Additionally, the five year capital improvements plan must be approved by the
City Council at a public hearing on an annual basis.
B.) Fund Balance Requirements: A minimum fund balance shall be maintained with
a beginning balance of $3,000,000 as of January 1, 1993 and increased by the
Consumer Price Index each year thereafter.
POLICY AMENDMENT:
Amendments to this policy require a 4/5th's majority by City Council vote.
0
ROLE OF THE FINANCE COMMISSION:
If a review of an expenditure is requested by the City Council from the Finance Commission,
the Finance Commission will respond on the basis of the following questions:
A) Does the expenditure comply with the Capital Improvements Fund Expenditure
Policy?
B.) Is the expenditure appropriate considering the financial condition of the City?
•
go
t
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
HISTORY OF FUND BALANCE
•
Go
Unreserved
Year
Fund
Major Factors in Change From
Endinq
Balance
Prior Year's Fund Balance
12/31/72
$0
12/31/73
$101,760
Transfer Spec Assess Debt Service
12131/74
$109,719
Interest Earned
12/31/75
$190,733
Interest Earned
12/31/76
$212,546
Interest Earned, Revenue Sharing
12/31/77
$327,255
Projects underbudget
12/31/78
$429,559
Interest Earned, Insurance proceeds
12/31179
$353,836
Transfer to MSA Fund
12/31/80
$529,166
Interest Earned, Transfers In
12131181
$554,548
Interest Earned
12131/82
$454,577
Capital Outlays
12131/83
$941,598
Interest Earned, Transfers In
12/31/84
$2,948,660
Interest Earned and Transfers from
Spec Assess Debt Service funds
12/31/85
$2,624,702
Capital Outlays
12/31/86
$1,859,591
Capital Outlays
12/31/87
$3,488,309
Interest Earned, Sale of land,
and Transfers from Special
Assessment Debt Service funds
12131/88
$3,492,874
Interest Earned
12131/89
$3,725,817
Interest Earned
12/31/90
$4,100,273
Interest Earned
12/31/91
$5,375,337
Interest Earned and Transfers from
Spec Assess Debt Service funds
12/31/92
$5,405,997
Interest Earned
12/31/93
$5,607,744
Interest Earned
12131/94
$5,368,743
Capital Outlays
Est 95
$4,858,568
Capital Outlays
f\bdgt.ch\cphistfb 10/26/95
•
Component
•
Scenario: Capital improvements Fund Only
Estimated Funding
Total Available
Need '96201 1996
1 City Halt underground storage tank removal & accessible entrance
(tank removal mandated) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
2 R model wading pool (mandated) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
3
e
Garage fuel tank replacement (mandated) (excludes $50,000
contribution from public utilities)
$
275,000
$
275,000
4
Police improvements (jail improvements mandated)
$
4,000,000
$
1,000,000
5
Civic Center HVAC
$
350,000
6
Replace playground equipment
$
500,000
$
125,000 $
7
East Fire Station Needs
$
1,600,000
$
300,000
8
West Fire Station Needs
$
1,300,000
$
-
9
City Hall roof
$
'125,000
$
125,000
10
Miscellaneous park Improvements
$
500,000
$
100,000 $
11
Warming houses & picnic shelters
$
800,000
$
55,000
12
Community tenter accessibility improvements: Elevator, restrooms
$
500,000
$
-
13
Replace phone/data
$
200,000
$
200,000 $
14
Upgrade radio system (excludes $100,000 contribution from public
utilities)
$
650,000
$
550,000
15
Upgrade Council Chambers
$
250,000
16
Addition to Community Center: meeting rooms & senior center
$
500,000
$
-
17
Ice arena/youth activities center
$
3,000,000
$
-
18
New park facilities (Joslyn, Twin Lake Trail)
$2
- $3 million
$
-
19
Family pool
$1
- $3 million
$
-
$ 325,000 $ 180,000 $ 145,000
$ 125,000
$ 17,700,000
to;2Q,7Q0,OQ ; 2,980,000 ; ° 575,000 ; .1,600,000 ; 18Q,000 $ 200,000 300,000 $ 125,000
TOTAL
30-Oct-95
The City should be able to keep up with mandated capital improvements to an extent.
Space needs issues for Police would not be resolved, but a small addition could be made to City Hall to take care of jail facility requirements and to provide some additional space
Park improvements would be minimal and trade-offs would have to be made between playgrounds, shelters, lights, courts, and other facilities.
Space needs issues at the fire stations could not be totally resolved, but a small addition at the east station could reduce some pressures. If park improvements are made in 1996, fire
station improvements could not be made until 1999-2000. Nothing would be done at the west station.
125,000
100,000
1997
$ 275,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 55,000
200,000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001
$ 300,000
No improvements would be made at the Community Center.
These improvements would attempt to meet very basic needs, and would be confined mainly to "technical issues" such as removing underground storage tanks; the public would see very
tittle benefit. Very little funding available for park improvements.
0 0
Scenario: Capital Improvements Fund Plus Additional Levy Per Year
Component
Estimated Funding
Total Available
Need '96-101 1996
1 City Hall underground storage tank removal & accessible entrance
(tank removal mandated) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
2 Remodel -fin of (mandated) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
V r-
3 Garage fuel lank replacement (mandated) (excludes $50,000
contribution from public utilities)
$
275,000
$
275,000
4 Police improvements (jail improvements mandated)
$
4,000,000
$
1,000,000
5 Civic Center HVAC
$
350,000
6 Replace playground equipment
$
500,000
$
150,000 $
7 East Fire Station Needs
$
1,600,000
$
300,000
8 West Fire Station Needs
$
1,300,000
$
-
9 City Halt roof
$
125,000
$
125,000
10 Miscellaneous park improvements
$
500,000
$
225,000 $
11 Warming houses & picnic shelters
$
800,000
$
225,000 $
12 Community Center accessibility improvements: Elevator, restrooms
$
500,000
$
-
13 Replace phone/data
$
200,000
$
200,000
14 Upgrade radio system (excludes $100,000 contribution from public
utilities)
$
650,000
$
650,000
15 Upgrade Council Chambers
$
250,000
16 Addition to Community Center: meeting rooms & senior center
$
500,000
$
-
17 Ice arenalyouth-activities center
$
3,000,000
$
-
18 New park facilities (Joslyn, Twin Lake Trail)
$2
- $3 million
$
-
19 Family pool
$1
- $3 million
$
-
$ 17,700,000
TOTAL ' to $20,700,00 $ 3,300,000 $
30-Oct-95
The City should be able to keep up with mandated capital improvements to an extent.
150,000
• 11
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
$ 275,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 300,000
$ 125,000
125,000 $ 100,000
100,000 $ 25,000
$ 200,000
$ 50,000 $ 50,000
$ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ 250,000
625,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 175,000
Space needs issues for Police would not be resolved, but a small addition could be made to City Hall to lake care of jail facility requirements and to provide some additional space.
Park improvements would be confined to basic Improvements to the larger, high use parks, and would be addressed very slowly over the next five years.
Space needs Issues at the fire stations could not be totally resolved, but a small addition at the east station could reduce some pressures. Nothing would be done at the west station.
No improvements would be made at the Community Center.
These improvements would meet very basic needs, and would be confined mainly to technical improvements such as removing underground storage tanks; the public would see very few
benefits except for the slow replacement of some playground equipment and park facilities.
•
Indicates funded from bond proceeds
•
. 5 rnitlion bond funding Plus CIS
Scennrio. 5
E51imp1ed
T01a1
` Need
onent oval & accessible entrance $
Com .
storage tank rem $ t Mali underground led) $50,000
Funding
Available 1996
,gam'
100,000 $ 100,000
50,000 $ 50,000 $
y 275,000
}
5
Ci moval man andated) excludes $ 27' poa $ 4,000,000
(tank re i tm mandated) ( $ 40000()() 2 350,000
Remodel wading Poo lacement t
$ 350.000 $ 350.000
3 Garage fuel ►anK rep
ubtic utilitiecovements mandated) $ 500,000 300,000
contributio Gov is (Jell imp $ 1, 60D,OQQ $ 1,
4 Police imp C $ 1300.000 $
5 CIVIC Center NVA ulPment 125,000 $
lace piaYgfaund eq $ 000 $
6 Rep Station Needs $ 0
7 East fire eeds $ 800,000 i
8 West file station ~ 500,000
City t1at1 roof ark improvements $
9 tianeous P alters Elevato(, restcooms $ 2pp pt30 $
10 Misce & }cnic sh rovements%
public
11 Warming houses t P ce essib}11ty imp from
12 Community Caner a 00 contribution
13 Replace Phonetdata excludes $100'0
14 Upgrade radio system t
center
utilities) Chambers rooms & se ci, 15 nior Upgrade Court Not, Center: meeting
16 Addrhon t Community
17 ties center
ouch activi
to arenatY . Ales (aoslyn. Twln hake Trail)
$ 650,000
$ 250,000
$ 500,000
t $ 3 000,000
$2 _ $3 r iliion
3 million
125,000
200,000 $
350,000 $
200,000
$ 650,000
$ 100,000
$
$
$
~
__1949 2000 2001
1997 C: 1998.s
$ 100,000
50,000
$ 275,000
100,000 $ 100,000
4 350,000 $
150,000 300,000
$ ;,1 50,000
$ 125,000 $ 25,0 $ 50,000 $
$ 125,000 $
125,000
125,000
$ 200,000
$ 300.0()o
.000
$ 350104.000
$1'$ s.:
50,000
0 $
200,00
$ 250.040
v 00 $ . 6,600,0
300,0p0
16 New pack facie ► 450,0
17,700 000 8,060,000 . $ use parks, and
19 Family pool 20700,Ofl $ high
.~t0 S 30.0ct 95 could be made to the target,
Park lmp(ovements
Addressing
,
eat all the pollee and fire needs
CIF would finance other improvements,
the
TOTAL Center. be sufficient to m
improve one fire station, Community
to the ads would not
new police facility and ent could be ma The bond Ponce
rovem CIF , not bonds).
would finance ; ~ 4 years a minor imp d from the
$5 mtilton 1g961 h iunda
made In ajws (althoug d of the decade.
could be made in the P
. lash" could be arks woutd wait until the en
An immediate sP alter P
the community center and smaller
Scenario: $7 Million Bond Funding Plus CIF
}
indicates funded from bond proceeds
Estimated
Funding
Total
Available
Component
Need
'96-'01
1996
1997
1998 1999
1
City Hall underground storage tank removal & accessible entrance
(tank removal mandated)
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
2
Remodel wading pool (mandated)
$
50,000
$
50,000
$ 50,000
3
Garage fuel tank replacement (mandated) (excludes $50,000
contribution from public utilities)
$
275,000
$
275,000
$
275,000
4
Police improvements (jail improvements mandated)
$
4,000,000
$
4,000,000
$ 4,000,000,
5
Civic Center HVAC
$
350,000
$
350,000
$
` .35.0,000
6
Replace playground equipment
$
500,000
$
500,000
$ 150,000
$ 350,000
7
East Fire Station Needs
$
1,600,000
$
1,300,000
$
1,300,000
8
West Fire Station Needs
$
1,300,000
$
1,000,000
1,000,000
9
City Hall roof
$
125,000
$
125,000
$
125,000
10
Miscellaneous park improvements
$
500,000
$
550,000
$ 125,000
$
50,000
$ 200,000 $ 100,000 $
11
Warming houses & picnic shelters
$
800,000
$
800,000
$ 125,000
$ 300,000 $ 300,000 $
12
Community Center accessibility improvements: Elevator, restrooms
$
500,000
$
500,000
$
500,000
13
Replace phone/data
$
200,000
$
200,000
$
200,000
14
Upgrade radio system (excludes $100,000 contribution from public
utilities)
$
650,000
$
650,000
$
650,000
15
Upgrade Council Chambers
$
250,000
$
250,000
$
250,000
16
Addition to Community Center: meeting rooms & senior center
$
500,000
$
-
17
Ice arenalyouth activities center
$
3,000,000
$
-
18
New park facilities (Joslyn, Twin Lake Trail)
$
2 - $3 million
$
-
19
Family pool
$
1 - $3 million
$
-
2000
75,000
75,000
2001
$ 17,700,000
-
t0 $20,700,00 $10,650,000 $ - 450,000 $ 8,800,000 $ 850,000 $ ..400,000 1
TOTAL, 50,000 $
30-Oct-95
Scenario: $9 Million Bond Funding Plus OF
'
Indicates funded from bond proceeds
Estimated
Funding
Total
Available
Component
Need
'96-'01
1996
1997
1
City Hall underground storage tank removal & accessible entrance
(tank removal mandated)
$
100,000
$
100,000
$
100,000
2
Remodel wading pool (mandated)
$
50,000
$
50,000
$
50,000
3
Garage fuel tank replacement (mandated) (excludes $50,000
contribution from public utilities)
$
275,000
$
275,000
$
275,000
4
Police improvements (jail improvements mandated)
$
4,000,000
$
4,000,000
$
4,000,000
5
Civic Center HVAC
$
350,000
$
360,000
$
rv,_350,000
6
Replace playground equipment
$
500,000
$
500,000 $
150,000
$
350,000
7
East Fire Station Needs
$
1,600,000
$
1,300,000
$
1,300,000
8
West Fire Station Needs
$
1,300,000
$
1,000,000
1,000,000
9
City Hall roof
$
125,000
$
125,000
$
125,000
10
Miscellaneous park improvements
$
500,000
$
500,000 $
125,000
; 375,000
11
Warming houses & picnic shelters
$
800,000
$
800,000 $
125,000
$
675,000
12
Community Center accessibility improvements: Elevator, restrooms
$
500,000
$
500,000
$
500,000
13
Replace phone/data
$
200,000
$
200,000
$
200,000
14
Upgrade radio system (excludes $100,000 contribution from public
utilities)
$
650,000
$
650,000
$
y 650,000
15
Upgrade Council Chambers
$
250,000
$
250,000
$
250,000
16
Addition to Community Center: meeting rooms & senior center
$
500,000
$
500,000
$
500,000
17
Ice arenalyouth activities center
$
3,000,000
$
-
18
New park facilities (Joslyn, Twin Lake Trail)
$2 - $3 million
$
-
19
Family pool
$1
- $3 million
$
-
1998
$ 14,700,000
TOTAL to $20,700,00 $11,100,000 $ 400,000 $10,700,000 $ .
30-Oct-95
$
1999
2000
•
$
2001
DRAF.,
0 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Resid ?rW Survey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Methodology:
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the
City of Brooklyn Center. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the
community between July 18 and 26, 1995. The average interview took twenty-two minutes. In
general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult
Brooklyn Cana residents within t 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases.
.RaMentral DanogtVhics:
Brooklyn Center remained a very mature, inner-ring suburban community; however, it will also
begin to evidence a. greater residential turnover than in the past. The median longevity Of adult
residents was 20.5 years. Eleven percent of the sample reported moving to the city during the
past two years; whale forty-nine percent had been there over two decades. Almost sixty percent
had no plans to move, or felt they would remain in Brooklyn Center for at least tea years; but,
19% reported an intention to move during the next two years. Seventy-three percent owned their
i residents, while twenty-seven percent reported renting.
Thirty-two percent of the households contained senior citizens. Twenty-six percent reported the
presence of school-aged cbildnn; while eleven percent contained pre-school children. The
average age of adult respondents was 51.0 years old. Twenty-one percent reported ages under 35
years old, while forty-three percent were 55 years old or older. Women outnumbered men by five
percent in the sample.
The occupational structure of the comet ri ty a efie cted a split between Blue Collar households and
retirees. Blue Collar lwuseholds were 24%; while retiree-headed households were 30%. Up-
scale White Collar households - headed by holders of Professional Technical or Owner Manger
jobs comprised 25% of the sample. Clerical-Sales households numbered an additional 16%.
The median household income in the community was $37,875.00, about $5,000.00 lower than the
Metropolitan Area suburban norm.
The location of the residence of each respondent was noted Twenty-eight percent lived in
Precincts One or Two; while 29°fo resided in Precincts Three or Four. Precincts Five and Six
accounted for 23% of the respondents; and Precinct Seven and Eight were 21% of the sample.
Quakty Of Life Rating:
0 Seventy-eight percent rated the quality of life in Brooklyn Center as "excellent" or "good-,"
1995 City of f 'Brooklyn Center Residential Seuvey 2 •
twenty-two percent rated it lower. These ratings were twelve percent below the suburban norm
of ninety percent favorableness. The 13% "exedeur ratings placed the City of Brooklyn Center
within the bottom quartile of comma naties in the Metropolitan Area
Like Most and Least about the Gomm nq:
Convenient location was the most liked feature of the city. At forty-three percent it far
outdistanced all other responses. Shopping convenience was specifically mentioned by another
11%. Quiet and peacefulness ranked third, pointed to by eiglrt percent. Strong neighborhoods
and twice people followed at sevesn percent and six percent, respectively. Fewer cumbers cited
good schools, well-run community, small town ambience, parks, housing, and safety.
Examining things liked least, one factor led the list: cringe, mentioned by twenty-two percent.
Deteriorating housing was mentioned by nine percent. Apartments were cited by six percent.
Fewer residents talked negatively about city government, poor location, poor schools, businesses
leaving, declining city services, rniaorties, poor people, low income housing, and city image or
reputation. It was also noteworthy that six percent reported there was "nothing" they disliked
about the community, this "booster" segment, though, was only one half the Metropolitau Area
suburban norm. Crime, suburban rmearal, and the challenge of diversity comprise the three key
issues in the minds of most residents. 0
Most Serious Ixrue Faring the City:
Crime was cited by forty-four percent as the most serious issue facing the City of Brooklyn
Center today. Deterioration and low income housing followed, at ten percent and nine percent,
respectively. City government reform ranked next, at sic percent. Fewer residents cited high
taxes, minorities, poor people, image/reputation of the community, traffic congestion, and growth.
While crime was the paramount issue, housing stock and changing demographics were also key
concerns about the future.
Property Tames:
In comparison with other nearby suburban areas, 47% rated the property taxes m Brooklyn
Center as "about average " Thirty percent saw them as "very high" or "somewhat high" Seven
percent felt their taxes were "somewhat low." And, 16% were unsure. These results suggested a
benign tax climate a rarity across the present Metropolitan Area.
0
0 1995 City of Brookl)m Center Residential Swvey
City Services:
Police service, fire protection, storm water run-off control, snow plowing, and part- maintenance
each posted approval ratings over eighty percent. At the next level of overall satiAction,
pavement repair and patching on city streets, trail maintenance, recreational programs, and code
enforcement received over sixty perea t approval ratings. These results were generally above or
at the suburban norm. Only two services rated bothersome disapproval ratings: pavement rear
and patching on city streets, at 32%, and code enforcement, at 33%. The former rating was
actually lower than the suburban area norm and stemmed from numerous potholes; the latter,
however, was higher than the norm, and was a reaction to messy yards and dilapidated housing.
While Brooklyn Centex city services remained among the top-rated across the area, decision
makers may wish to examine the current rigorousness of code enforcement.
Value of aty Services.-
In considering the general value of city services, saveaty-eight percent £elt it was "excellent" or
"good." Just fourteen percent saw it as "only fair" or "poor." These results were among the
most positive in the Metropolitan Area and exceeded the norm by almost ten percent. Clearly,
residents placed a high value on the city services they reoeived.
•
A,ppea,mn" of Neighborhood
Nmety--two percent of the sample rated the general appearance of their neighborhood 88 either
"excellent" or "good." Only eight percent rated it lower. This rating was above the suburban
norm Lower ratings were based upon numerous messy yards, unkept houses, and rundown
commnexcial properties in the community. This rating tied to the low evaluation of code
enforomnent strongly suggested that "trouble spots" were perceived in the city that required
attention. Fortunately, the result also suggested that the more blighted areas were not
widespread.
Pw*eipasm in City Sponsored AcdWies:
3
Thirty percent of the sample reported they or members of their households had participated in
organized activities sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Center. Six percent had enrolled in
softball or baseball leagues; while five percent had taken part in swimming classes and four
percent each bad participated m sports programs or city events. "Earl Brown Days" had also
attracted four percent of the households. Neighborhood Watch and crime prevention programs
also were cited by three percent. City participation in organized activities was two percent higher
than the suburban norm. Among participants, 96°/a reported "satisfaction" with these programs.
0
1995 City of BrookX m Center Residential Survey 4 •
Px* and Recreational Facilities:
Eighty=three percent rated current park and recreational facilities in Brooklyn Center as
"excellent" or "good" Only six percent rated them more critically. A solid 83% felt the current
mix of reareodonal facilities in the City met their households' needs, only five percent felt they fell.
short. Similarly, 77'/6 felt the current mix of recreational facilities met the needs of the
community, again, only a small six percent took exception. The small number of critics poaunted to
three facilities: playground equipment, more fatalities for children, and an ice arena.
Tav Leases for Part System Iii provernettis and Ad0itncs:
By a 67'16-19'/o split, residents supported a property tax increase for the replacement and
improvement of dated playground equipment in neighborhood parks. Almost identically, a 646/o-
25% verdict endorsed a property tax increase for the completion of the trail system to connect all
neighborhoods across the city. A 570/o-21% judgment favored a twc increase for the acquisition of
the 3oslyn Property in Southwest Brooklyn Center. These three components of a potential bond
referendum proved very popular with residents.
One proposal, however, was greeted with more mixed reactions. Fifty-three percent would favor
a property tax increase for the reconstruction of park shelter buildings in larger city parks, thuty-
one percent opposed a property tax increase for this purpose. While a majority supported this
proposal, it scored more weakly than the other three components.
Cvxs&xction of Ice Arena/You& Activities Facility:
Sixty percent supported the construction of an ice arena/youth activities fiwMy jointly sponsored
by the City of Brooklyn Center and area school districts. Thirty-one percent opposed the
construction of this facility. Intense support was twice as large as intense opposition. As long as
residents were informed about the joint nature of the project and its need to satisfy federal
mandates, residents were generally supportive of an ice arenalyouth activities facility.
PtcbKc Safety Concerns:
Fifty percent selected "residential crimes" as the "greatest" or "second greatest" public safety
concern in Brooklyn Center. Thirty percent picked `youth gangs," while 2r/o chose "drugs."
23% pointed to "violent crime." Fewer residents selected "traffic congestion" or "business
crimes." Public safety concerns in Brooklyn Center resembled Minneapolis results rather than
other suburban communities.
0
i
• 1995 City of'Brooklyn Center Residential Survey
Sixty-four pettent felt that crime in Brooklyn Center had "°mereased" during the past five years.
While 21% felt it had "remained about the same," nine percent felt it bad "decreased"
Public Safely Services:
5
Sixty--five percent rated the amount of police patrolling the Department did in their neighborhood
was "about right." Thirty percent considered it Moo small;" while only two percent felt it was
"too much."
Only nine percent had contacted the Brooklyn Center Fut Department for emergency service
during the past few years. All of these respoMents, though, rated their response tune as
"excellent" or "4good."
C mtacdrrg Brooklyn Center Caity Hall:
Thirty-six percent reported contacting Brooklyn Center City Hall, either by telephow or m
person. In thinking about their last contact, 31% reported they had contacted the Police
Department; while 18'/0 each had consulted Utility Billing or Planning and Inspection. An
additional 15% had talked with Administration. Mm ty two percent were treeted courteously;
while 87% reported being generally satisfied with the assistance and/or information received.
Seventy-six percent felt that the =at hours of operation of the Brooklyn Center City Hall were
either "very convenient" or "somewhat convenient." Only six percent were more critical in their
evaluations. If they could make one change or improvement in City Hall operations, 19% would
have the fatty stay open later in the day.
?'ax Incncases, for QYanges and Impronments in Chy XdWwe Statums:
By an overwhelming 73°/r14% judgment, residents supported a tax increase for the expansion of
the two Fire Stations to provide more efficient storage of fire-fighting equipment and training
facilities. Just behind, at 700/o-150/9 and 70%-14% splits, residents favored tax increases for both
the expansion of Police Department office space to allow for more space and replacement of some
aging fire engines and rewue/salvage vans. A 62%49% verdict endorsed higher taxes for the
expansion of the holding cell and interview areas; while a 61%-21% judgement favored improved
handicapped accessibility in both City Hall and the Community Center. While 57% supported
completion of energy efficiency projects at City Hell; 22% opposed it. In each case,, residents
overwhelmingly supported each change or improvement proposed for City Hall or the Fire
stations.
0
199S City of Brooklyn Center Residential Survey 6 •
1frswng community Centers:
During the past year, 44% reported that household members had visited the Brooklyn Cwter
Community Center swimming pool or another activity in the Community Center. In addition,
24% said that household members visited another city's Community Center, principally the
facilities at Brooklyn Park and Crystal.
Tax Increases for Community Center Remodeling and Renovations:
Residents were somewhat more critical about tax increases for Community Center remodeling and
renovations. The only decisive favorable judgment was on the construction of a senior citizen
drop-in center. 61% supported it; while 26% opposed it. A somewhat more mixed, but favorable,
result surrounded the issue of the expansion of the competition-type swimming pool into a family.
oriented pool area, with 52% in favor and 360/6 opposed.
Three projects registered either pluralities or majorities against them. By a 44°/.-41% judgment,
residents opposed the addition of a gymnasium to the Community Center. A 55°/.-23% verdict
opposed the construction of additional community meeting rooms. And, a 59%o-24% split
opposed the construction of an indoor playground at the facility.
Residents were not as enthusiastic about Community Center changes.
Willingness to Increase Property Taxes far a Capital Imlrrovemmis Referendum:
The median resident of Brooklyn Center would support a monthly property tax of $7.60 per
month to fund a bond referendum for park improvements, ice arena and youth activities comer,
Police Department addition, Fire Stations additions, City Hall remodeling, and Community Center
remodeling. This translated into a $91.20 per year increase in property taxes on the average
residence in Brooklyn Center. But, 19% were unwilling to raise their property taxes by any
amount and 14% were unsure about their actions. It was noteworthy, though, that support was
peaked around the $8.00 per month level: this indicated very little upward support and the distinct
possibility of major losses in support if the plan were unacceptable or the cost increased.
Reactions to a Ten 11 filllon Dollar Capital Improvemmts Bond Referen&m:
We 5011a would either "strongly support" or "support" a ten million dollar proposal, 39%
would oppose it. The size of the opposition at this level strongly suggested that an aggressive
campaign would be required to guarantee success. In addition, the "quick ratio" the difference
between "strong support" and total opposition was -130%, indicative of the need for a major •
1995 City of Brooklyn Center Residential Survey 7
campaign effort to secure a majority at the polls.
Supporters pointed to a uumber of reasons for their decision: 22% felt the improvements were
"heeded;" while 13% thought it would be "good for the city." Four percent felt it was a "good
idea;" while a similagr mnbear pointed to the "need to maintain current facilities." Opponents
cited three key objections: 31% felt that "taxe"s were too high;" while five percent fish the changers
were "hot needed" and six percent regarded the proposal as "too cartravw-pnt."
InrporAVWX of the CompoMents of the Bond Referendum:
Residents were asked to indicate the two most important bVrovements for inchWon in the bond
refhendwn. Sixty two percent ranked the "Police Department Additions" as their fast or second
priorities. Forty-three percent similarly regarded the "Fire Station Additions." Twenty-five
percent rated the "Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center" as important. Smaller numbers felt
identically about "Park Improvements," "Community Center Remodeling," and "City Hall
Remodeling."
They were then asked about the two components they would most ddu defy oppose. Twenty-
three percent indicated opposition to the "Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center." Seventeen
percent would not support "City Hall Remodeling;" while fifteen percent felt the same way about
"Community Center Remodeling." Less than ten percent each opposed the other three
oomponkents.
Looking at net effieots, the strongest components were "Police Department Additions" and `Fire
Station Additions.- Both `l'ark Improvements" and `Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center"
registered small positive impacts; while "Community Center Remodeling" was a small net
negative. `city Hall Remodeling" had a moderate negative influence on residents.
Sources of Informadon:
The "Post" was cited as the principal source of information about City government and its
activities by 361/o. Newspapers, generically, were relied upon by 15% of the sample. Twelve
percent cited the "Sun." Similarly, 12% mentioned the "City Newsletter." The "grapevine„ was
also pointed to by nine peroe nt. Smaller numbers also cited meetings, mail, cable television, and
the "Star-Tnbune."
If they could choose, 52% said they preferred to receive information about City government and
services in a'5 nailed newsletter." `Local newspapers" were also popular with 17%. Cable
television ranked third at four percent. Eight percent stated they liked the status quo.
0 The city newsletter proved to be a key communications vehicle, then, within the community.
1995 City of Brooklyn Center Residential Swvey 8 9
Sammaiy and Conclusions:
Several general conclusions can be reached from the results of this study:
A. Residential opinions about the Brooklyn Center, in general, reflected a pessimism similar
to results in the core cities. Crime and fear of crime were dominant issues in the
community; dilapidation and diversity were related lesser concerns.
B. City services were rated high in comparison with other shurban communities. In
particular, both fire protection and police protection were very well regarded.
C. The widespread antipathy to property taxes evidenced in many other suburbs was greatly
mitigated in Brooklyn Center.
D. Residents would support a carefully crafted Capital Improvements Bond proposal;
however, a tea million dollar proposal would prove diffic a t to pass.
E. In constructing an acceptable bond referendum, the following preference hierarchy should
be kept in mind:
Fire Stations Additions
Police Department Addition/City Hall Remodeling
Senior Citizen Drop-In Center
Park Improvements
Jointly-Operated Ice Arena
Expansionsllmpmvements at the Community Center
Difficulty in passing a capital improvements bond increases as projects from the lower
categories are added to the mix.
•
0
Decision Resources, Ltd.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
FINAL, DRAFT VERSION
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of
Brooklyn Center to speak with a random sample of residents about
issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your
city council and staff are interested in your opinions and sug-
gestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses
will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire
sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years have
you lived in Brooklyn Center?
2. As things now stand, how long in
the future do you expect to live
in Brooklyn Center?
LESS THAN ONE YEAR.....3t
ONE OR TWO YEARS 8t
THREE TO FIVE YEARS ...lit
SIX TO TEN YEARS 130
11 TO TWENTY YEARS 15*
OVER. TWENTY YEARS 491k
REFUSED ................0%
LESS THAN ONE YEAR St
ONE TO TWO YEARS lit
THREE TO FIVE YEARS:..16%
SIX TO TEN YEARS 74
OVER TEN YEARS 36t
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....22$
3. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT .............13%
:life in Brooklyn Center ex- GOOD ..................65t
cellent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR .............18t
POOR ............4%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... it
4. What do you like most about living in Brooklyn Center?
DON'T KNOW/NOTHING, 8%; LOCATION, 43%; PEOPLE, 6%; SHOP
PING/CONVENIENCE, lit; SCHOOLS,.3$; WELL-RUN, 4%;
QUIET/PEACEFUL,' 8t; SMALL TOWN, 0; PARKS, 2t; NEIGHBOR-
HOOD, 7t; HOUSING, 2t; SAFE, 2k; EVERYTHING, 2?s.
5. What do you like least about it?
DON'T KNOW, 23%; NOTHING, 6%; TRAFFIC, 5%; CRIME, 2216;
TAXES, 2%; APARTMENTS, 696; CITY GOVERNMENT, 4%; LOCATION,
3t; DETERIORATING, 9t; SCHOOLS, 2k; BUSINESS LEAVING, 3%;
CITY SERVICES, 3t; MINORITIES, 2t; POOR PEOPLE, 3t; LOW
INCOME HOUSING, 3n; REPUTATION/IMAGE, 3t; SCATTERED, 3t.
•
1
1•
• j
6. What do you consider to be the most serious problem facing
the City of Brooklyn Center?
DON'T KNOW/NOTHING, 14%; CRIME, 44%; TAXES, 2%; MINORI-
TIES, 3%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 6%; DETERIORATION, 10%; POOR
PEOPLE, 3%; IMAGE/REPUTATION, 4%; TRAFFIC, 1%; LOW INCOME
HOUSING, 9%; GROWTH, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%.
•
Moving on....
7. In comparison with nearby suburban
areas, do you consider property
taxes in Brooklyn Center to be
very high, somewhat high, about
average, somewhat low, or very
low?
VERY HIGH........ ....10%
SOMEWHAT HIGH......... 20%
ABOUT AVERAGE 47%
SOMEWHAT LOW........... 7%
VERY LOW ...............0%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....16%
As you may know, the City share of the property tax is about
twenty percent, or about $19 per month for a typical Brooklyn
Center home.
8. when you consider the property
taxes you pay and the quality of
city services you receive, would
you rate the general value of city
services as excellent, good, only
fair, or poor?
EXCELLENT 16%
GOOD ..................62k
ONLY FAIR .............11%
POOR...... ...........3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 9%
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each •
one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the
service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXC
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
DKR
9.
Police protection?
20
66%
7%
0%
2%
10.
Fire protection?
28%
60%7
2%
0%
10t
11.
Pavement repair and patching
on city streets?
at
59%_
21%
11%
29;
12.
Storm water run-off control
and flooding in your
neighborhood?
171k
63t
12%
6g
396
13.
Snow plowing?
41%
54%
5°s
it
Oa
14.
Para: maintenance?
20%
63%
6%
2%
10%
15.
Trail maintenance?
15%
52%
5%
1%
28%
16.
Recreational programs?
I6%
52%
40
It
28%
17.
Code enforcement, such
nuisances as junk cars
or poorly kept up houses?
7%
56%
22%
1159
5%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #9-#17, ASK;
2
0
18. Why did you rate as (only fair/poor)?
(N=232)
NOT ENFORCED, 29*; POTHOLES, 28k; 3 OR MORE COM-
PLAINTS, 10; RUN-OFF/FLOOD CONTROL, 13%; PLOWING,
2t; POTHOLES/RUN-OFF, 31; POTHOLES/CODES, 4%; PARKS
AND TRAILS, 2W; RECREATION PROGRAMS, 2*;
SCATTERED, 3!k.
19. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT .............30%,
appearance of your neighborhood GOOD ..................62s
excellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR ..............7%
poor? POOR ...................Vk
UNSURE .................0%
20. Why did you rate your neighborhood appearance as only
fair or poor? (N=31)
DON'T KNOW, 3W; YARDS, 36%; HOUSES, 397s; RUN DOWN
COMMERCIAL, 10k; CARS, 3*; SCATTERED, 10%.
Moving on....
21. During the past year, have any members of your household
participated in organized activities sponsored by the City
of Brooklyn Center? (IF "YES," ASK:) What were they?
DON'T KNOW, 70%; PARADE, 2%; SOFTBALL/BASEBALL, 61c; EARL
BROWN DAYS, 4%; SWIMMING, 5%; CLASSES, 2%,; NEIGHBORHOOD
WATCH/CRIME PREVENTION, 3%; SPORTS, 4a; 'EVENTS, 4$;
SCATTERED, 2*.
IF "YES," ASK:
22. Were you generally satisfied SATISFIED .............96t
or dissatisfied with the pro- DISSATISFIED 3%
gram(s)? (N=121) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... It
23. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT .............23%-
reational facilities in Brooklyn GOOD ..................604;
Center excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR ..............St-
fair, or poor? POOR...... ...........1$
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 11*
24. Do you feel that the current mix YES ...................83t
of recreational facilities in 'the NO .....................5t
City meets the needs of members of UNSURE ................13!k
your household?
25. And, do you feel that the current YES ...................77b
mix of recreational facilities in NO .....................6!k
the City meet] the need of the UNSURE ................17!k
community?
3
IF "NO" IN EITHER OF TWO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS, ASK:
26. What additional recreational facilities would you like
to see the City of Brooklyn Center offer residents?
(N=35)
DON'T KNOW, 20%; BALLFIELDS, 3%; PLAYGROUND EQUIP-
MENT, 10; NOREF FOR KIDS, 20%; ICE ARENA, 11%;
SENIOR, 9t; SCATTERED, 23k.
The City of Brooklyn Center is considering a multi-purpose bond
referendum for facility needs in the community. Part of this
referendum proposal might include additions and improvements to
the park system. I would like to read you a short list of poten-
tial components of the bond referendum. For each one please tell
me whether you would strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat
oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax increase for that
purpose. If you have no opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE LIST)
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
27. Replacement and improvement
of dated playground equip-
ment in neighborhood parks? 23% 44$ 9!k 100 14%
28. Reconstruct park shelter
builditgs in larger city
parks? lit 42% ist 130 16-t
29. Acquisition of the Joslyn
Property in Southwest
Brooklyn Center adjacent to
Twin Lake for development of
trails, athletic fields, and
preservation of wetlands? 25t 32% 100 11%, 22!k
30. Completion of the trail
system to connect all neigh-
borhoods across the city? 26%- 38W 10 lit 12t
The City of Brooklyn Center and area school district are consid-
ering the construction of an ice arena/youth activities facility.
The arena would be used jointly by the City and by the school
districts serving Brooklyn Center. As you may know, there is a
need for more ice sheets in this area because of federal mandates
requiring equal opportunity for participation by both boys and
girls.
31. Would you favor or oppose the con-
struction of an ice arena/youth
activities facility in Brooklyn
Center, to be used jointly by the
City and school districts? Do you
feel strongly that way?
FAVOR/STRONGLY 35a
FAVOR .................25%
OPPOSE . .......14t
OPPOSE/STRONGLY 17k
DON'T ftOW/REFUSED....10!k
•
•
is
4
h ,
Turning to the issue of public safety in the community....
I would like to read you a short list of public safety concerns.
32. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest
concern in Brooklyn Center. If you feel that none of these
problems are serious in Brooklyn Center, just say so. (READ
LIST)
33. Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the
city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining problems are
serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE FIRST CHOICE AND RE-
READ LIST)
GREATEST
SECOND
Violent crime
14%;
90
Traffic congestion
0
6%
Drugs
12%
16%
Youth gangs
12%
18%
Business crimes, such as
shoplifting and check
fraud
8%,
8%;
Residential crimes, such as
burglary, theft, and
vandalism
34%
1611W
ALL EQUALLY
10%
11%
NONE OF THE ABOVE
4%
12%
• DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
39.
4%
34. Do you feel that crime in Brooklyn INCREASED .............64%
Center has increased, decreased, DECREASED 9-1
or remained about the same during REMAINED ABOUT SAME 21t
the past five years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 6%
35. How would you rate the amount of T00 LITTLE 30%
police patrolling the police de- ABOUT RIGHT 65%
partment does in your neighbor- T00 MUCH ...............2%
hood too little, about right, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 3%
or too much?
36. During the past few years, have
you or members of your household
had the occasion to contact the
Brooklyn Center Fire Department
for emergency service? (IF
"YES," ASK:) How would you rate
their response time excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
YES/EXCELLENT 7%~
YES/GOOD ...............2%
YES/ONLY FAIR.......... 0%
YES/POOR ...............Oa
NO ....91%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
37. During the past year, have you had YES ...................36%
any contact with Brooklyn•Center NO ....................64%
City Hall, either by telephone or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... la
in person?
5
IF "YES," ASK:
Thinking about your last contact by telephone or in
person....
38. Which Department did you con-
tact - the Police Department
Utility Billing, Assessor's
Office, Planning and Inspec-
tions, Engineering, or Ad-
ministration? (N=144)
POLICE DEPARTMENT 31*
,UTILITY HILLINC....... 1$%-
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 4W
PLANNING & INSPECT 18!k
ENGINEERING 8%
ADMINISTRATION 15t
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6%,
39. Were you generally satisfied SATISFIED .............87*
or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED 13%r
assistance and/or information DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Ilk
you received? (N=144)
40. Were you treated courteously, YES ...................9296
or not? (N=144) NO ............4t-
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4*
I
41. How convenient for you are the VERY CONVENIENT 37%,
current hours of operation of City SOMEWHAT CONVENIENT...39k
Hall very convenient, somewhat SOMEWHAT INCONVENIENT..4t
convenient, somewhat inconvenient, VERY INCONVENIENT 2!k
or very inconvenient? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 18k
42. If you could make one change or improvement in the hours of
operation or location of City services, what would it be?
DON'T KNOW/NONE, 73t; STAY,OPEN LATER, 1916; SATURDAY, 3!k;
OPEN EARLIER, 1t; SCATTERED, 4%.
The City is also reviewing space needs in the Civic Center and
the two Fire Stations serving the community.
Let's talk about changes and improvements in City Hall and the
Fire Stations first. I would like to read you a list of
components which might be included in a bond referendum proposal.
For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property
tax increase for that purpose. If you do not have an opinion,
just say so.... (ROTATE LIST)
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
43. Improved handicapped access-
ibility in both City Hall
and the Community Center? 27% 34% 13%* 8k 20%
•
6
STS SM SMO STO DKR
•
•
44. Expansion of Police Department
office space to allow for more
space for detectives, locker
rooms for female police offi-
cers, space for programs such
as DARE, senior TAP, crime
prevention, and other pro-
grams?
31V 39t 9%_ 6% 16k
45.
Expansion of the holding cell
and interview areas, to per-
mit separation of adult and
juvenile offenders, men and
women, and victims and the
accused?
25% 37} 105 9k 21W
46.
Completion of energy effi-
ciency projects at City Hall,
such as roofing, lighting,
and window replacement?
18* 39% 10 8t 22%
47.
Expansion of the two Fire
Stations to provide more
efficient storage of fire-
fighting equipment and train-
ing facilities, adding locker
rooms for our female fire-
fighters, and providing space
to station an ambulance from
North Memorial Hospital?
35* 38* 6%- 9%- 13$
48.
Replacement of some aging
fire engines and rescue/
salvage vans?
30% 40% 6%- 8k 17t
Moving on......
49. During the past
year, have you or
YES
44%
other household
members visited
NO........
5 0
the Brooklyn Center Community
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....
.0%
Center swimming
pool or another
activity in the
community Center?
50. Have you or any
household member
YES
24!k
visited another
city's community
NO
76°k
center?
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....
.1%
IF "YES," ASK:
•
7
51. Which city's community center have you visited? (N=96)
DON'T KNOW, 2$; ROBBINSDALE, 4t; BROOKLYN PARK, 35t;
CRYSTAL, 30%; NEW HOPE, 5k; SHOREVIEW, 6k; MINNEAPO-
LIS, 5%; BLAINE, 2%; SCATTERED, 9t.
A second area of identified needs at the Civic Center involves
remodeling and renovation of the Community Center. I would like
to read you a list of components which could also be included in
a bond referendum. For each one, please tell me if you would
strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose a property tax increase for that purpose. If you do not
have an opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE LIST)
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
52. Construction of an indoor
playground? 9t 15ti 28% 310 16%
53. Addition of a gymnasium? 11% 30% 19t 25% 16g
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
54. Construction of a senior
citizen drop-in center? 23t 38% 13V 13t 13%
55. Expansion of the competition
-type swimming pool into a
family-oriented pool area,
with accessibility for young
children, seniors, and the
handicapped, shallow depth
areas, and water fountains? 23% 29k 17t 19a 13%
56. Construction of additional
community meeting rooms? 6$ 17% 28% 27% 22%
Now, let's talk for a moment about all of the bond referendum
proposals we have discussed. Suppose the City of Brooklyn Center
were to propose a bond referendum for six different types of
facility needs at the next election park improvements; a
combination ice arena and youth activities center; Police Depart-
ment addition; Fire Station additions; City Hall remodeling for
energy efficiency; and, Community Center remodeling.
57. How much would you be willing to
see your MONTHLY property taxes
increase to fund this entire pack-
age? Let's say, would you support
a tax increase of $ per month?
(CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT;
MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RE-
SPONSE) How about $ per month?
(REPEAT PROCESS)
NOTHING 19t-
$4.00 .................Ist
$8.00 .................26% /
$12.00 ................15% S "l
$16.00 .................6%
$20.00 .................7
DON'T KNOW 13t
REFUSED 1%-
0
8
i
t
a
I would like your reaction to a specific referendum proposal....
Suppose the City proposed a ten million dollar bond package,
which included these six components. If approved, owners of a
$70,000 home in the city would see their property taxes increase
by about $7.25 per month or $87.00 annually for fifteen years.
58. If the bond referendum were today, SUPPORT/STRONG....:.... 26k
would you support or oppose it? SUPPORT ...............24&
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel OPPOSE .................11t-
strongly that way? OPPOSE/STRONG 284;
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... Ilk
59. Could you tell me one or two reasons for your decision?
DON'T KNOW, 7$; TAXES HIGH, 31$; NEEDED, 22t; GOOD FOR
CITY, 13t; NEED TO MAINTAIN, 4*; GOOD IDEA, 2g; NEED
INFO, 7%; PRICE IS RIGHT, 4*; NOT NEEDED, 5k; T00 EXTRAV-
AGENT, 6%.
•
•
Let's talk about the six components for a few more minutes. To
review, the six different types of improvements were: park im-
provements; a combination. ice arena and youth activities center;
Police Department addition; Fire Station additions; City Hall
remodeling for energy efficiency; and, Community Center remodel-
ing.
60. Which, if any, of the six types of improvements is most
important to you? (ROTATE AND READ LIST)
61. Which, if any, of the five remaining.components would you
rank second highest? (ROTATE, DELETE FIRST CHOICE, AND READ
LIST)
62. Is there any of the six components you would definitely
oppose in a bond referendum? Which one? (RE-READ LIST, IF
NECESSARY)
63. Is there a second component you would definitely oppose?
(RE-READ LIST, OMITTING PREVIOUS CHOICE)
Police Department Addition
Park improvements
Fire Station Additions
Ice Arena and Youth Activities
Center
Community Center Remodeling
City Hall remodeling for energy
efficiency
ALL EQUALLY (VOL )
NONE OF ABOVE (VOL)
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
FRST SCND OPP1 OPP2
43~
19$
2*
It
8k
8&
4t
5$
120
31!k
2!k
2%'
16%
9g
20k
3%
0
10%
7*
8t
3t
4t
11$
6t
4%
4t
74
7W
7W
10t
41$
57!~
4%
6%-
8$
12W
9
*y
Moving on....
64. And, what is your primary source of information about City
government and its activities?
DON'T KNOW/NONE, 3k; PEOPLE, 9%; "POST", 36t; "SUN", 12%-;
NEWSLETTER, 12%; MEETINGS, 2%-; LOCAL PAPER, 15;r; MAIL,
3%,; TV, 6!k; STAR TRIBUNE, 3%-.
65. If you could choose, how would you prefer to receive infor-
mation about City government and services?
DON'T KNOW/NONE, 12t; PEOPLE, 1$; "POST", 4%,; NEWSLETTER,
29t; MEETINGS, 2*; LOCAL PAPER, 16t; AS IS, 8t; MAIL,
23%; TV, 4$; SCATTERED, 2t.
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups lave in your household. Let's start with the oldest.
Be sure to include yourself.
66. First, persons 65 or over?
67. Adults between the ages of 45 and 64?
68. Adults between the ages of 18 and 44?
69. Children between the ages of 5 and 17?
0... .............68
1 ................17$
2 ................15$
0 ................58%
1 ................18-T
2 ................24$
0 ................47W
1 ................20%
2 ................31$
3 OR MORE 30
0 ................74
1 ................10
2 ................10t-
3 OR MORE 6W
70. Children under the age of 5 years old? 0 ................898
1 .................7%-
2 OR MORE 4%
71.
72.
What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation
of your spouse or partner?
PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 7%; OWNER-MANAGER, 180; CLERICAL-
SALES, 16k; BLUE COLLAR, 245; RETIREES, 30t;
SCATTERED, 6%'.
Do you own or rent your present
residence?
OWN ...................73V
RENT..__ ........27%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0%
•
•
10
•
r
73. What is your age, please? 18-24 ..................58
(READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34 .................168
35-44 .................188
45-54 .................17%
55-64 .................17&
65 AND OVER 268
REFUSED ................08
And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your an-
swers are held strictly confidential....
74. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $22,500..........68
pre-tax yearly household income. $12,501-$25,000.......168
Does the income lie.... $25,001-$37,500.......188
$37,501-$50,000.......208
$50,001-$62,500.......10¢
$62,501-$75,000........71-
OVER $75,000...........38
DON'T KNOW .............7%
REFUSED ...............148
•
•
75. Gender (DO NOT ASK)
76. REGION OF CITY (FROM LIST)
MALE ..................488
FEMALE ................538
PRECINCT
1'
15t
PRECINCT
2............
138
PRECINCT
3............
158
PRECINCT
4............
148
PRECINCT
5
.9%
PRECINCT
6............
148
PRECINCT
7............
108
PRECINCT
8............
11
11