HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 09-28 FCA•
AGENDA
BROOKLYN CENTER FINANCIAL COMMISSION
September 28, 1993
City Hall
Council Chambers
1. Call to Order: 7:00 P.M.
2. Roll call.
3. Approval of Minutes: August 31, 1993
4. Organizational Evaluation Process.
5. Criteria for evaluation of requests for funding by outside agencies or groups.
6. Unrestricted Capital Expenditure Policy.
7. Adjournment: 9:00 P.M.
•
0
•
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AUGUST 31, 1993
BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Donn Escher called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Present at roll call were Chair Donn Escher, Commissioners, Ned
Storla, Ulyssess Boyd, Viola Kanatz, Denis Kelly and Ron
Christensen. Also present were Council Liaison Dave Rosene, City
Manager Gerald Splinter, Community Development Director Brad
Hoffman, Earle Netwall of Community Resource Partnership, and
Finance Director Charlie Hansen.
ADDroval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Ned Storla to approve the minutes
of the August 10, 1993 meeting. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Aonointment of a Vice Chair of the Financial Commission
The resignation of Pat Boran created a vacancy in the position of
• Vice Chair. Chair Donn Escher appointed Ned Storla to be the new
Vice Chair.
Cauital Expenditure Policv
Chair Donn Escher reminded the staff of need to complete the
Capital Expenditure Policy and forward it to the City Council for
their consideration. This had been delayed because of staff
concerns over some of its provisions and because staff has been
working on the 1994 budget. However that budget refers a number of
projects to be included in the Capital Improvements Fund and so
makes completion of the policy more imperative.
is
Business Expansion/Job Retention Proaram
The city council asked the Financial Commission to review and
comment on the City's participation in the business expansion/job
retention program. Brad Hoffman and Earle Netwall introduced the
program and explained that the City is entering the second year of
a three year survey. The purpose is to find out who all the
businesses in the area are, what they produce, and what their needs
are. This information will then be used to encourage them to stay
and expand in the area, do business with each other, and thereby
stabilize the local economy. The three year survey is funded by a
C.D.B.G. grant from each participating city and a grant from the
State of Minnesota. It is expected that it will then become a self
supporting data base paid for by the businesses through an
organization such as the Chamber of Commerce.
• Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the business expansion/job
retention program should be pursued for another year, subject to
review by the City Council, along with all other C. D. B. G. programs,
in the spring of 1994. Commissioner Ulyssess Boyd seconded the
motion and all voted in favor of it.
Preliminarv 1994 Annual Budaet
Gerald Splinter introduced the preliminary 1994 budget and
explained the changes which have occurred since the joint city
Council/Financial commission meeting on August 16, 1994. Charlie
Hansen made a presentation that highlighted revenue aspects of the
proposed budget and detailed the property tax implications of the
proposed levy on a typical home. Denis Kelly expressed his concern
over the 15% to 17% tax increases and stated that no more than a
15% increase should be enacted. Ron Christensen stated his
opposition to endorsing one of the existing budget versions because
that would imply support for adding officers to the Police Dept.
He also proposed that the City should develop a budget with a zero
percent increase in total spending so as to have a tax increase to
the residents of less than the 15% contained in version 1.
Commissioner Denis Kelly moved that the Financial Commission
recommend the tax levy contained in version 1 of the preliminary
budget to the city Council. Commissioner Ned Storla seconded the
motion. Commissioners Donn Escher, Ned Storla, Ulyssess Boyd,
Denis Kelly and Ron Christensen voted in favor of the motion.
• Commissioner Viola Kanatz voted against it.
Next Meetinq
The next meeting will be Tuesday, September 28, 1993 at 7:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Ned Storla and seconded by
Commissioner Viola Kanatz to adjourn the meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairperson Donn Escher
Ulyssess Boyd
Ron Christensen
Denis Kelly
Viola Kanatz /I
FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
DATE: September 23, 1993
SUBJECT: ORGANIZATION EVALUATION PROCESS
Attached are draft copies of initial tables developed by Todd Peterson, our intern, with regard
to the statistics for city employees by department in inter-ring suburbs. Please remember this
is a draft document which is subject to change. The purpose of giving you these initial tables
is to see if they will satisfy your needs for information. Please understand as we have developed
these tables and information, we have had very good cooperation from the communities
involved. However, some of them, because they may appear to be on the high side of some of
• these statistics, are beginning to show nervousness. Please keep these figures confidential until
such time as we have given a full opportunity for other communities to document their statistics.
We believe we have completed most of the documentation, but there is still some information
we would like to confirm.
The first table in your materials is one which breaks out city employees by common departments
and the comparison of government staff sizes by city characteristics. The black shaded percent
figures and employees per unit figures are the highest in each category. The lighter shaded
areas indicate the cities with the lowest figures in those categories. Our initial review of these
statistics indicates the communities, because they have reasonably light characteristics in size and
inter-ring suburb status, seem to have a number of common characteristics. When comparing
Brooklyn Center to the averages among these communities, we appear close to the "average".
Please remember these are initial results and our department heads have not had an opportunity
to review and evaluate them.
At your meeting on Tuesday evening, we will be prepared to discuss various attributes and
issues relating to our data collection efforts. From my view, the three cities most like Brooklyn
Center in this grouping are Fridley, Roseville, and Richfield. These three communities have
about the same age housing. Particularly, Fridley and Roseville have a similar mix of
commercial, industrial, and residential property characteristics.
• Other tables attached compare staffing of various departments among the surveyed cities
indicating the number and percent of supervisory, professional, technical, and support/front-line
Financial Commission Members
September 23, 1993
Page 2
personnel. One of the problems which plagues us in comparing cities is the fact it is difficult
to develop common groupings of departments or functions. For example, the city clerk function
in some communities ends up in the city manager's office and others in the finance office.
Another situation you'll find is some cities have assessing department functions and other cities
do not. We've tried to cluster functions and develop statistics as best we can to compare like
functions in like departments among the various cities. There is also a question of how each city
interprets the requested classification of what is supervisory personnel. It appears some
communities report as supervisors virtually anyone who has any supervisory responsibility, while
others report as supervisory personnel only those who have a major portion of their duties as
supervisory. The last table in the attached data and information compares statistical information
for the various public works departments and the same type of information for parks and
recreation departments.
Please review the attached materials with an eye to making suggestions to us as to how we can
make it more useful and useable in making judgments about the staffing of our organization.
Attachments
0
T' D L J
. ~
September 21, 1993
(Excluding Liquor Enterprises and the Earle Brown Heritage Center)
City Employee Breakdown By Common Departments
# of City Manager Finance l Public Safety Public Works Park & Rea Comm Dev
Empls # % # % l # % # 0% # % # %
Brooklm Center 134 6 4% 13 10% 56 42% 39 29% 13 10%i 7
;:::•a.:•r~r.
.::x•.:;;•.y...x.::.q;:
Crystal 89 4 4% 6 7% 37 42% 30 5 7 8%
Edina 225 10 4% 13 '`r?y$ _•:•';•i; 86 38 /0 55 244/6 49 12
Fridley 131 6 17 awft 51 39% 32 24% 15 11% 10 8%
Golden Valley 111 5 12 11% 37 33% 31.5 28% 17.5 16% 8 7%
Maplewood 129 5 4% 12 9% 58 33 26% 13 10% 8 6%
New Brighton 71 3 4% 7 10% 23 21 30% 11 15% 6 8%
New Hope 82 3 4% 7 9% 35 43% 17 14 17% 6 7%
Richfield 219 7 ~(q' 3 19 9% 85 39% 53 24%0 33 15% 22
Roseville 130 5 4% 11 8% 54 42% 30 23% 20 15% 10 8%
St. Louis Park 227 7 : ;.:.::,r ::;<%•:fi:
?.<?:'t!"::;":? 19 8% 94 41% 56.7 25% 27.3 12% 23
Average 4% 9% 40% 26%r 14%. 8!
Source: Numbers Based on Infomnation from Organizational Charts and Personnel Listings Provided by Each City
Note: Shaded Areas Denote the Highest and Lowest Percentage
Comparison of Government Staff Sizes and City Characteristics
# of
City
Empls Per
City Size
Empls Per
Housing
Empls Per
# Manfg & Retail
Commercial Estabs
Em Ism
o ulation
1000 Pop
(Sq Mi)
Sq Mi
Unite
1000 Units
Establishments
Per 1000 Hsng Units
Brooklyn Center
134
28,741
4.66
8.7
15.40
11,713
11.44
243
20.75
Crystal
89
23,771
3.74
5.7
15.61
9,541
9.33
191
20.02
Edina
225
46,079
4.88
16
14.06
20,983
10.72
543
25.88
Fridley
131
28,313
4.63
10.1
12.97
11,418
11.47
290
25.40
Golden Valley
111
20,889
5.31
10.7
10.37
8,532
13.01
231
27.07
Maplewood
129
31,365
4.11
15.2
v
12,120
10.64
302
24.92
New Brighton
71
22,253
f:•.:•:::.::
4.5
15.78
81811
166
18.84
New Hope
82
21,715
3.78
5.6
14.64
8,795
9.32
172
19.56
Richfield
219
35,544
8
16,094
216
Roseville
130
33,493
3.88
13.5
9.63
14,216
9.14
482
St. Louis Park
227
43,781
5.18
10.7
21.21
20,678
10.98
442
21.38
Average
4.50
15.05
10.70
22.83
Source: DCA Stanton Group, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey 1993, Annual Financial Reports of Each City, 1990 U.S.
Census of Population and Housing
1987 U.S. Census of Manufacturing 1987 U.S.
Census of Retail Trade
D Lj
September 21, 1993 r..,.,~
STAFFING WITHIN SUBURBAN CITY MANAGER'S & FINANCE DEPARTME
(Excluding Liquor Enterprises)
BROOKLYN CENTER
City Manager
Personnel Coord
Finance Director
Asst Finance Dir
Assessor
StaffAcconmtsnt
MIS Coord
Appraisor H
Date Entry Oper
Assssinnt Tech
Accndng Tech
U61 Tech (Acct)
Pay/Psl Tch (Avg)
Fin Secretary
Assassing Secs
Adm Ast/Dep City C1rk
Arlen Secretary
A&n/FJec Sect
Swtchbrd Op/Rec
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
•Proflfedn
SUAWWtani Una
TOTAL
Assassko
Nis
city dark
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
ProgTech
SupprWront Line
TOTAL ~
OA..a,,
Pius
dry dale
5 .26%
3 16%
11 58%
19
A
M
C
NEW HOPE
City Manager
Admin Asst
Dir Fin/Adm
City Clerk
Accountant
Acctg Clerk
Sr Acctg Clark
SpAs/U11 81 C1rk
Dept Secretary
Mgrs Secs
4 40%
1 10%
5 50%
10
C
FRIDLEY
ROSEVILLE
RICHFIELD
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
Asst City Mgr
Asst Cty Mgr
Dir Adm Serve
AstMgr/Prwmi Crd
2 Exec Mgmt III
Finance Dir
Personnel Dir
Admin Asst
Finance Dir
Exec Mgmt IN
Assessor
Finance Dir
Personnel Mgr
Asst Dir of Fin
Exec Mgmt N (Assg)
MIS Technician
Asst Finance Dir
Adm Aide
City Assessor
Exec Mgmt 1 (Acct)
Personnel Coord
Licensing Supv
Finance Mgr
Contnincins Spec
2 Took Mgad III
Puble Info Spec
Publdw Spec
Dta Pro Mgr (MIS)
2 Video Producer
3 Tech Mpg IV (Ass)
Asst Finance Dir
Data Coordinator
City Clerk
App-/Coma
Tech Mgmt II (Acct)
Staff Accountant
Sr Lanes Clerk
MV Lic Supv
Appraisor/Resid
Tech IN (Assg)
Accounting Spec
Lice nee Clerk
Prog Analyst (MIS)
Accountant
Tech N b4ssg)
General Accountant
Uay Mir Spec
Accountant
Treasurer
Tech N (Acct/
Appraiser
PayroN Clerk
Payroll Accntirt
City Clerk
Tech I (Cty Clrk)
MIS Specialist
2 Deft Asst
Cnt Srv Tech (MISJ
MIS Coord
2 Tach / (Acct)
City Clerk
Reoepdonist
Date Proc Tech (MIS)
Senior Oper
2 Tech N
Acig-Dta Pic Cik
Adm Searotery
Acotg Clrk-BL*t
Warailkn Clrk
Genera/ I
Acig-D& Pro C/k
Accig C/r1t Peytils
PeyraN C/rk
Actg-Dts Pro Clk
Acotg Clrk-Csh RcvkI
Si Utii Ckk
Util Miring Clerk
Acctg C14-Util
Accts Pay Clrk
Ast Clk/Apr Ast
Rtnance Cirk
Ud1 BN C1rk
ReceptVa C1k
Assessment Cirk
Assess Tech/CIrk
Secretary
4 Licanalirg Clerks
Sr Ass CIrk
seer to Cty Mgr
Racpt1SwfaA6w i
Sr Records C1tk
Parsid Secr
ClarklTyplst
Switchbrd/Recpt
Asst to Cty Mgr
Note: 2 Employees
Adm Secreterv
Not Accounted For
5- 22%
6 38%
9 35%
5 19%
6 29%
9 39%
2 13%
2 8%
9 35%
6 29%
9 39%
8 50%
15 581/6
12 46%
9 43%
23
16
26
26
21
A
A
A
M
N
M
C
a
C
C
C
NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CRYSTAL
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
Finance Dir
Asst Cty Mgr
Finance Dir
Asst City Mgr
Aid Cty Mgr
Hmn Rac Dit
Asst City Mgr
Finance Dir
Admin Aide
Finance Dir
Commctns Coord
Accountant
2 Accountant
Asst Fin Dir
Asst Finance Dir
City Clerk
3 Acotg Clerks
City Clerk
Superv/Aden Aid
3 Aecig Clerk
Records Clerk
Deputy City Clark
City Clerk
Adin Secretary
Accountant
SrAcotg Clark
Adn C1w*
MIS Coordinator
U07 Billing Cirk
2 Aootg Chcfr
Acts Pay/DP C1rk
Recpbegng Cirk
Ceshler
2 C/ak/Typist
4 Lican*Clrk
Dept Secretary
2 Secretary
Secretory
Receodonist
2 20%
7 41%
2 12%
4 40%
4 40%
2 12%s
5 29%
1 10%
4 40%s
8 47%
10 59%
5 50%
10
17
17
10
M
C
C
C
C
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WITHIN SUBURBAN CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
BROOKLYN CENTER FRIDLEY
City Manager
City Manager
Personnel Coord
Asst City Mgr
Aden Ast/Dep City CIrk
Personnel_Coord
A&n Secretary
Pubic, Info Spec
Ark» lHaa Sear
Secs to Cty Mgr
Swtchbrd Op/Rec
perani Sear
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
2
Profl rc&
0
0&WfVFtvntLh,,,
TOTAL 1
4
ROSEVILLE
City Manager
Asst Cty Mgr
Personnel Dir
Publctna Spec
Add Secretary
33% 2 33% 3 60%
0% 2 33% 1 20%
67% 2 33% 1 20%
6 6 5 1
NEW HOPE NEW BRIGHTON CRYSTAL
City Manager City Manager City Manager
Admin Asst Asst Cty Mgr Asst City Mgr
mgrs seer Admin Aide Adnt Secretary
A&n Clerk
2 67% 1 33% 2 50%
0 0% 2 67% 0 0%
1 33% 0 0% 2 50%
3 3 4
MAPLEWOOD
RICHFIELD
GOLDEN VALLEY
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
City Manager
City Manager.
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
Asst Cty Mgr
Dir Adm Servo
Asd City Mgr
AstMgr/Pronnl Crd
2 Exec Mgmt 111
Hmn Rsrc Dir
Admin Asst
Commcha Coord
Commnelm Spec
2 Tech Mgmt III
Secretary
Personnel Mgr
2 Secretary
2 Video Producer
2 Tech 0
Receptionist
Adm Aide
Asst to Cty Mgr
Genera/ I
Recpt/Swtchbrd
Adn Secretary
C/erk/Typiat
Note: 2 Employees
PERSONNEL
Not Accounted For -
Supervisory
3 60%
5 71%
1 20%
2 29%
3 38%
Progrech
0 0%
0 0%
2 40%
3 43%
2 25%
SWpfw"nt r.,
2 40%
2 29%
2 40%
2 29%
3 38%
TOTAL h
5
( 7
5
7
8
•
9r
D JLL
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WrMIN SUBURBAN FINANCE DEPARTMENTS
(Excluding Liquor Enterprises)
BROOKLYN CENTER
FRIDLEY
ROSEVILLE
RICHFIELD
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
Finance Director
Finance Dir
Finance Dir
Finance Mgr
Finance Dir
Exec Mgmt ill
Asst Finance Dir
Assessor
Asst Finance Dir
Dta Pro Mgr (MIS)
Asst Dir of Fin
Exec Mgmt II (Assg)
Assessor
MIS Technician
Licensing Supv
City Clerk
City Assessor
Exec Mgmt I (Acct)
Staff Accountant
Asst Finance Dir
Data Coordinator
MV Uo Supv
Appraisor(Conmt
3 Tech Mgmt IV (Ass)
MIS Coord
Staff Accountant
Sr Lon" Clerk
Prog Analyst (MIS)
Appraisor/Resid
Tech Mgmt II (Acct)
Appraiser II
Accounting Spec
License Clerk
Accountant
Accountant
Tech /II Matsg)
Date Entry Opar
General Accountant
uty Br79 SP-
Payrori Accntnt
Treasurer
Tech II (Assg)
Assssmnt Tech
Appraiser
Payrorori Clerk
Cnt Srv Tech IN/$)
City Clerk
Tech ri (Acct)
Accndng Tech
MIS Specialist
2 Data Asst
Date Prot Tech (MIS)
MIS Coord
Tech I (Cry C/dd
UM Tech fAcot)
City Clerk
Recapdorrst
Acctg C/rk-Br►dgt
sari or Oper
2 Tech I (Acct)
Peylftl Tch (Avg)
Acig-Dta Pro CIk
Acctg C144%yhls
Waroft/m CIrk
Fin Secretary
Actg-Dta Pro Clk
Acctg C)rk-Csh Rcvbl
Payrop Clrk
Assessing Secr
Acig-Dta Pro CIk
Acctg Clrk-Udl
Sr uti/ CIrk
Uhl Miring Clark
Finance C14
Acots Pay Cldk
Ast Clk/Apr Ast
Assessment Cltk
Uhl MI C)rk
ReceptMe CIk
4 Licensing Clerks
Assess Tech✓Clrk
Secretary
Sr Ass Clrk
Sr Records Clik
SwitchbrdlRecpt
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
3 23%
3 18%
3 27%
4 21%
3 16% 3 23%
~ProvToch
4 31%
7 41%
1 9%
2 11%
6 32% 4 31%
SnpuorwroMUno
6 46%
7 41%
7 64%
13 68%
10 53% 6 46%
TOTAL
13
17
11
19
19 13
Asso-%g
A
A
A A
MIS
M
M
M
M
City Clark
C
C
C
C C
NEW HOPE
NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CRYSTAL
Dir Fin/Aden
Finance Dir
Finance Dir
Finance Dir
Finance Dir
City Clerk
2 Accountant
Asst Fin Dir
Asst Finance D r
Accountant
Accountant
3 Accig Clarks
City Clark
Superv/Adm Asst
City Clerk
Acctg Clerk
Records Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk
3 Acctg Clark
SrAcctg Clerk
Accountant
SrAcetg Clark
SpAslUN M C/rk
MIS Coordinator
Udl Miring Clrk
Dept Secretary
2 Acctg Clerk
Acts Pay/DP Clrk
Rsopt/B/hrg Chk
Cashier
2 C/erk/Ty#st
4 Lk nsC/rk
Dept Secretary
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
2 29%
1 14%
4 33%
1 8%s
2 33%
Progrech
1 14%
2 29%
2 17%s
3 25%
1 17%
SuppmFront Line
4 57%
4 57%
6 50%
8 67%
3 50%
TOTAL
7
7
12
1 12
6
M
city gwrk
C
C
C
C
• September 21. 1993
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
Prof/tech
S9AwVf1eut MDR
TOTAL
*L-~
PAMMMAM
AWWailke
J D A~L J
STAFFING WMIIN SUBURBAN PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER
FRIDLEY
ROSEVILLE
RICHFIELD
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
Police Chief
Pub Safety Dir
Police Chief
Pub Safety Dir
Police Chief
.75 Exec Mgmt IN
Fire Chief
Fire Chief
Rre Marshal
Asst Fire Chf
.8 Fire Chief
.25 Exec Mgmt IN IC D)
2 Captain
Dep Rre Chief
Dep Police Chief
2 Caption
2 Asst Fire Chief
Mgrnt IN (Fire)
7 Sgts
Dap Pub Saf Dir
5 Sgts/Open
2 Lieut
Police Caption
PS Mgmt IN (Pal)
S.S. Supervisor
Lieutenant
Sgt/Servicw
Admin Aide
6 Fire Caption
2 PS Mgmt 111 FFire)
31 Pstr Officers
4 Sgts
Fire Inspector
Code Comp Off
.2 Civil Def Dir
4 PS Mgmt N (Pal)
6 Pub Sfty Dispatcher
Offe Supom (Pop
Admin Analyst
6 Sgt
2 Po) Lieut
7 PS Mgmt I (Poll
Admin Analyst
Civil Defense Dir
Comm Rel Coved
4 Invest
8 Poi Sgt
3 PS Mgmt I (Fife)
Code Enfremnt Off
3 Firefighters
33 O Oper
Pang & Reorch Spec
37Patrol Officcr
Tech Mgmt H (Pol)
Prop Room Sup-
3 Corps
5 Otricas/Sctricn
28 Officers
19 Firefighter
3 Tech Mgmt H (Pol)
Classff Officer
23 Patr Officers
3 Sr OfNae Asst
18 Firefighters
3 CSO
36patrol, Dispatch Oficr
2 Secietedes
Pub Sfty Proj Coord
Dept Secretary
3 Fire Caption
Off Sup/Secret
3 FlAO's (Fire)
Reeapdonist
2 Crim Prev Spe (Pon
3 Fire L(eut
6 Comm Op-/Chk
- 12 P,..:...._::im
2 Sr Ofee Asst
2 971 Dispatch
Secretary
5 Inspectors
4 Office Aset
4 911 Dispatch
Sr Reeds Clrk
3 Fkcfigluas
Are Secretary
2 CSO
Records Clerk
Tech X /Are/
~ce Secretary
Adm Aldo
Ch*lTypkt
3 PS General N fPoQ
2 Secretary
Data Entry Cidr
Youth Rose Spec
GYerk
Clerk/Typist
2 Secretary
12 21%
10 20%
9 17%
13 15%
22 23%
19 22%
38 68%
33 65%
41 76%
57 67%
59 63%
63 73%
6 11%
8 16%
4 7%
15 18%
13 14%
4 5%
56 .
51
54
85
94
86
D
F
O D D
P
F f f
NEW HOPE
NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CRYSTAL
Dir of Police
Police Chief
Pub Safety Dir
Director
Police Chief
Dir Rre & Sfty
Oper Mgr
.6 Adm Capt
2 Capt
Fire Chief/Marsh
Inspector
3 Sgts
1 Captain
4 Sgts
2 Police Mgr
6 Sgts
14 Paul Officers
6.7 Sgt*
Fr Chf/Rre Mnh
3 Police Supv
Office Super
3 Corporals
1 Sgt Disp
Fire Inspector
3 Police Corp
2 Investigator
Secretary
Rre Marshal
21 Patr Officers
17 Police Offs
16 Paul Officers
.5 Capt (Para)
Comm Supervisor
4 CSO
Animal Cnul Off
.3 Sgt (Pare)
Crime Prev Spec
Juvenile Spec
Fire Inspector
And Fire Mush
3 Dispatch
Rerds/Offc C hk
2 School Usson Off
26.7 Patr Officers
2 Secretary
3 Common Chk
3 Clerks
7 Dispatcher
Secretary
Dept Secretary
3.3 Patrl O&r (Pan)
3 CSO/ Paramedic
Secretary
3 Clerk/Typkrt
Envy Prop Sacs
PERSONNEL
Sup r
9 26%
5 22%
12 21%
8 22%
7 19%
ProFrech
22 63%
17 74%
41 71%
27 73%
25 68%
supprvRott tk.
4 11%
1 4%
5 9%
2 5%
5 14%
TOTAL
35
23
58
37
37
Dhpae0ft
D
PANAV Out
Vd Ah
P
•
Dj L J
JLL T -
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WITIHN SUBURBAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER
FRIDLEY
ROSEVILLE
RICHFIELD
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
Police Chief
.6 Pub Safety Div
Polies Chief
.6 Pub Safety Dir
Police Chief
.76 Exec Mgmt 111
2 Captain
Dep Pub Set Dir
Dep Patios Chief
2 Captaan
Polies Caption
.26 Exec Mgmt 111 (C D)
7 Sgts
Lieutenant
5 Sgts/Oper
2 Lieut
.2 Civil Def Dir
PS Mgmt 111 (Poll
S.S. Supervisor
4 Sgts
Sgt/Servlces
Admin Aide
2 Pal Lieut
4 PS Mgmt 11 (Pal)
31 Patr Officer
Otfe Superv IPoO
Admin Analyst
Code Comp Off
9 Pal Sgt
7 PS Mgmt I (Poll
6 Pub Sfty Dispatcher
Civil Defense Dir
Cow Rel Coord
6 Sgt
37 Patrol Officer
Ted( Mgmt H (Pal)
Admin Analyst
3 Corps
33 Officers/Oper
Phmg & Rsrch Spec
3 CSO
-3 Tech Mgmt 1I(Poi)
Code Enfmnmt Off
23 Pair Offices
5 Offioers/S
4 Invest
Off Sup/Secrat
36 Patrol, Dispatch Offer
prop Room Super
Pub Sfty Proj Coord
3 Sr Office Asst
28 Officers
6 Comm Oper/CYrk
3 PS Oenenl H /p011
Class// Officer
2 Crim Pray Spa (Pal)
Dept Secretary
4 911 Dispatch
Secretary
2 Secretaries
2 Sr Ofee Asst
2 917 Dispatch
Sr Reeds Cytk
Receptionist
4 Office Asst
2 CSO
Records G7etk
police Secretary
Adm Aide
C7rk/Typh:t
2 Secretary
Data Entry Clik
Youth Rose Spec
Cleek/TTypw
2 Secretary
PERSONNEL
Sui. „ry
11 20%
7.5 17%
8 15%
11.5 19%
23.2 31%
13 23%
Pro9fech
38 69%
30 67%
40 77%
33 55%
40 53%
40 71%
~tlne
6 11%
7 16%
4 8%
15 25%
12 16%
3 5%
TOTAL
' 55
44.5
52
59.5
75.2
56
Mpstalft
D
D
O
D
NEW HOPE
NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CRYSTAL
Dir of Police
Police Chief
.5 Pub Safety Dir
Director
Police Chief
Inspector
Oper Mgr
.5 Adm Capt
2 Capt
2 Police Mgr
5 Sgts
3 Sgts
1 Captain
4 Sgts
3 Police Supv
Office Super
14 Petri Officers
6.7 Sgts
21 Patr Officers
3 Police Corp
2 Investigator
3 Corporals
1 Sgt Dhtp
COMM Supervisor
17 Police Offcr
16 Patd Officers
Secretary
26.7 Patt Officers
Crime Prev Spec
4 CSO
Animal Cntrl Off
7 Dispatcher
3 Dispatch
Juvenile Spec
2 School Liason Off
Secretary
2 Secretary
Rcrds/Offe qtk
3 decks
3 aerir/7yp/st
3 Commcta CM
Dept Secretary
Secretary
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
8 24%
5 22%
9.7 20%
9 24%
6 17%
Prorrech
21 64%
17 74%
33.7 71%
26 70%
24 69%
SUAWVfrontthm
4 12%
1 4%
4 8%
2 5%
5 14%
TOTAL
y
1 33
23
47.4
37
35
Obptd✓V
D
Phsaha Out
0
•
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WITHIN SUBURBAN FIRE DEPARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER FRIDLEY ROSEVILLE NEW ROPE NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
Fire Chief .5 Pub Safety Dir Fire Marshall Dir Fire & Sfty
.5 Pub Safety Dir
Fire Chief Fire Inspector Fire Inspector
Fire Marshal
Dep Firs Chief
.5 Capt (Para)
3 Firefighters
.3 Sgt (Para)
Rre Secretery
Asst Fire Marsh
3.3 Patrl Ofcr (Para)
3 CSO/ Paramedic
Emrg Free Secs
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
1 100%
2.5 38%
1 50%
1 50%
0 0% 2.3 22%
Proffrech
0 0%
3 46%
1 50%
1 50%
0 0% 7.3 69%
S&wWlFrontune
0 0%
1 15%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0% 1 9%
TOTAL
1
6.5
2
2
0 10.6
•PAMM0daa
P
Non Val Rro
P
RICHFIELD
GOLDEN VALLEY
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
CRYSTAL
.5 Pub Safety Dir
Fr Chf/Fire Mrsh
.8 Firs Chief
Mgmt III (Fire)
Fire Chief/Marsh
Asst Fire Chief
Fm Inspector
2 Asst Fire Chief
2 PS Mgmt III (Fire)
3 Fire Captian
8 Fire Captian
3 PS Mgmt i (Fire)
3 Fire Lieut
19 Firefighter
3 FMO's (Fire)
18 Firefighters
12 Paramedics
S Inspectors
3 Firefighters
Tech /I/ (Rie)
PERSONNEL
supervisory 1.5 6% 1 50% 8.8 32% 6 20% 1 100%
ProVTwh 24 94% 1 50% 19 68% 23 77% 0 0%
swwwromLIM 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0%
TOTAL 25.5 2 27.8 30 1
i
Pawnea vs P
Non Val Rre P P P
0
T p L~
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WITH N SUBURBAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER FRIDLEY ROSEVILtz RICHFIELD ST LOUIS PARK EDINA
Dir of PW Dir of PW Dir of PW Dir of Corn Sme Dir of PW Exec Mgmt In
Cty Engineer Suprt IPW Maint) Asst PW Dir Oper Coord Enginr Supt Exec Mgmt I (Engr)
Engr Tech IV Supv ISts) Super (Sts) Mnt Supt IPW Mnt) Mnt Supt ISts) Exec Mgmt N (PW Mnt)
PW Supt (Maint) Supv IWtr) Supsrt IS & W) Foreman (Sts) MM Supt IWO) Exec Mgmt I IStreets)
Supt (Strts & Prk) Supv ISvvd Engr Supv Mach Super Mnt Supt (Eqp) 3 Tech Mgmt IV (Engr)
Super (Util) Asst PW Dir Eog Tech Supt (util) Mnt Formn (Lt/Tr) Teeh1%n t III (Mech)
Mnt Supr 10vt Bdg) Oper Analyst 2Proj Coord Foreman (Swd Mat Foram (Fae) Te hMptII(Streds)
PW Coord Engr Tech Wrk Fenw (Sts) Foreman (Wtr Pint) Asst Cty Engr 3 Tech Mgmt I (Eogr)
3EngTechIII EngrAide-Adm Wi*j'---- IS&W) Foreman IUtg) 4EWTechM Tech Mgmt I (PW Mat)
PW Dhrpatch (Strta) Engr Tech'bV Forum (Veh A&V Admin Asst 5 Mat NI (Sts) Tech 111 MIN Mat)
Lead Coat 6 PSW-D (Sts) 7 Ma/nt (Stet Engr Super a Mat I (Sts) Tech N
3 Mach (Stns) 3 Mech-8 (Sts) S Maint (S&4 Adm Aide (PWM)) Mat N (S&S) Tech I (Enor)
Not Siv Pren (Strtsl PSW-C (Sts) Wntr Web Mnd Supt (Bkige) Mnt I (S&S) Tech I (Govt Bldg)
11 Mat a (Stmt) PSW-B (Sta/ Cast (Gvt Ridge) Tnmsprt Engr 4 Mnt N (Fac/ 1 f HVy Eq-0 OF-
7 Maint N (UN) PSW-A (Sts( Sr CIAlTyphrt City Engr 2 Mnt IV (UM) 15 Lt Equip Oper
MM Cust (Gvt Bdo) PSW-D (Wtr) Secretary Enor Tech 4 Mnt IN (Ut(l) 4 Mach
Cust (Gvt Bdos) 2 PSW-C (Wir/ 3 Wb Pint Open 3 Mat N (UN) Mach Mpr
2 Enor Secr PSW-A /Wtr) 13 CS Wild (Sts) 7 Mat I (Utl/)
2 PS W-8 (Swr) Asst Supt (Bdo) 4 Mnt IV (Equip)
2 PSW-A (Swr) Mach Mnt I (Equip)
2 Secretary 4 CS Wrkr (Swr) 2 Secretary
Project Asst Clerk/Typist
Mach ( Wtr Pint) .7 Clerk/Sect
4 CS WnYr if WWWO) Data Entry Aldr
2 CS Wild (Bldgs)
Cult (B/dys)
• 3 Sr GYerk/Typ/at
Accto Clark
Secretary
Asst Auto Mach
Note: 7 Employees
Not Accounted For
Supervisory
8 21%
5 16%
4 13%.
13 25%
7 12%. 7 15%.
Prorrech
4 10%
5 16%
4 13%
2 4%
5 9% 6 13%
SeppWFrenr tine
27 69%
22 69%
22 73%s
38 72%
44.7 79% 35 73%
TOTAL
39
I 32 I
30
53 I
56.7 48
NEW HOPE
NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CRYSTAL
Dir of PW
Dir of PW
Dir of PW
Dir of PW
PW Director
Super (PW Mnt)
Sr Engr Tech
Asst Cty Engr
Asst Cty Eng►
Street Supt
2 Ldwkr (St&Uti)
Supr IPW Mnt)
PW Coord
.6 Supt (Sts)
Util Supt
TO Mat (St& Ut1l)
2 Supr IS & W)
Foreman (Sts)
Asst Supt (Sts)
Bldg Coord
2Mechanics
Engr Aide IV
Foreman (S&W)
Supt (Veh Mnt)
2EngrAides
Dept Secretary
Cv1EngrI
4SrEngr Tech
SuptlS&W)
5MdntHI
10 Ma1nt
3 Eng Tech
Asst Supt (S&W)
5 Maint II
2 Mechanics
Adm Asst
5 Eng Aide
11 Maint I
Janitor
9 Malnt (Sts)
9 Maint (Ste)
2 Cust
.5 Secretary
2 Mach (Grge))
2 Mach (Veh Mat)
Clerk
.5 Rac Cllr
5 Ma/nt (S& W)
7 Ma/nt (Udl)
3 Mnt 10vt Sdga)
Cust 10vt Bdos)
Secretary
Secretary
Supervisory
4 24%
5 24%.
5 15%
6.5 21%
3 10%
Prorrech
0 0%
2 10%
8 24%
5 16%
3 10%
SVPPUF,enrLke
13 76%
14 67%
20 61%
20 63%
24 80%
TOTAL
17
21
33
31.5
30
ALT L
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WITHIN SUBURBAN PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER FRIDLEY NEW HOPE NEW BRIGHTON MAPLEWOOD CRYSTAL
Dir of Recreation Dir of Roe & Nat Dir of Prk & Roc Dir Prk & Roc Dir Prk & Roe Rear Dir
Golf Manager Nat Rsres Coord Supt/Forest (Prk) Supt (Glf) Foreman IPrk) Park Supt
Aquatics Supv Foreman (Prk) Leadwrlu (Prk) Supt (Prk Mnt) Asst Dir Pk & Roo Roo Supv
3 Ping Super Sr Citzn Prg Coord Roo Foo Mgr Forester Naturalist Roo Prog Supv
6 Maint It (Prk) 2 Inhprty Speo Asst Golf Mgr 2 Roo Supv Prog Coord C/stir
Secretary Prog Supv Atha Supv 4 AWnt (Prk) 7 AWnt (Prk/
Prog Speo Roo Supv Secretary Secretary
5 PSW-D (Prk) Greaukeeper
Recepdonist 2 Mnt Oper Ike Arena)
Secretary 3 AWnt (Perk)
Secretary
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
3 23%
3 20%
5 36%
3 27%
3 23% 2
40%
Prof/Tech
3 23%
5 33%
3 21%
3 27%
2 15%s 2
40%
Supprt/FmntUna
7 54%
7 47%
6 43%
5 45%
8 62% 1
20%
TOTAL H
13
' 15
14
11
13
5
Ro""Aron
R
R
R
R
R
R
Naerar7st
N
N
F~ar
F
Im Ara"
I
I
Goff Course
O
O
O
G
Comm Cab
C
C
ROSEVILLE
RICHFIELD
GOLDEN VALLEY
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
Dir Prk & Roo
Leisure Srv Coord
Dir Prk & Roe
Dir Prk & Roc
Exec Mgmt III
Recr Supt
Natr Cntr Mgr
Mgr (Gif)
Mgr/Notrlst
Manager lice Arena)
Supt (Prk Mnt)
Roe Mgr
.5 Supt (Prk)
Prog Mgr
Manager (Golf)
Supt (Glf)
Mgr (Glf)
Asst Supt (Prk)
Mgr (Grounds)
3 Tech Mgmt III (Rec)
Asst Pk & Re Dir
Foremen (Prk)
Sea Citz Coord
Mgr (Bldg*)
Tech Mgmt III (Prk Mnt)
Mgr lice Arena)
Mgr (Ice Arena)
Ass Mgr (G10
Naturalist
3 Joe Arena Wrkrs
Mgr (Skating Fee)
Turf Supervisor
2 Prog Supv
Naturalist Aide
70 Golf Wrkrs
2 Prog Coord
Asst Mgr IGif)
Greeaskeeper
Prog Coord 10 EaGnbrh1Ctnl Lks Wrkrs
Foreman (Prk)
Comm Cntr Mgr
Asst Greenskpr
3 Maint N (Grads)
2 Hvy Equip Oper
5 Wrkrs (Prk Mnt)
2 Rec Supv
Mach toff)
3 Maint I// 10ldg)
13 Lt Equip Oper
2 Mnt flee Arena)
2 Naturalist
6 Awnt 1prid
6 Maint N (Grads)
Joldtor
Cust Serv Asst (G10
Transit Spec
Secretory
4 Maint I (Bldg)
`
Cust (Act Cnfd
Oper Asst (Ice Arena)
h nt I (Grads)
Secretary
CS Wkr (Nat)
SecelProg Aide
CS Wkr five Arena)
Secretary
2 Asst Turf Spec/Mach (Glf)
.3 Clerk/Secr
10 CS Wks (Prk)
3 Sr CIrk/Typist
Custoolan
Note: 3 Employees
PERSONNEL
Not Accounted For
Supervisory
7 35%
9 27%
3.5 20%
5 18%
3 7%
Prwrech
2 10%
4 12%
5 29%
3 11%
4 9%
SUAPfWront une
11 55%
20 61%
9 51%
19.3 71%
39 85%
TOTAL
20
33
17.5
27.3
46
Row"aran
R
R
R
R
R
Nseravst
N
N
N
w
F
Arwrs
/
I
/
/
Goff Corr"
G
G
G
a
Carom Cab
C
C
,I Ll~IL ~ L .J
i
September 21, 1993
STAFFING WITHIN SUBURBAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS
(Excluding the Earle Brawn Heritage Center)
BROOKLYN CENTER
FRIDLEY
ST LOUIS PARK
EDINA
CRYSTAL
RICHFIELD
Dir of Comm Dev
Dir Comm Dev
Dir Comm Dev
Exo Mgmt II IB 1)
Comm Dev Dir
Dir Corn Dev
[nap/Bldg Offal
Chief Bldg Off
Dir of Map
Exo Mgmt it (Ping)
Comm Dev Coord
Chief Bldg Officer
Com Dev Spec
Piing Coord
Supv of Inspect
Exc Mgmt 11 IP H)
Building Inspector
Hong & Rdev Crd
Ping/Zng Spec
M-AM149Iaap
1.8 Mgr of Having
Tech Mgmt IV (P TO
Housing Inspector
Comm Dev Asst
Inspector
Code Enf Off/Pln Asst
Planner II
Tech Mgmt III (P)ang)
Hlth/CmtyDev C/rk
Health Admnstr
Haig Inspetr
2 Pluig Asst
Planner I
Tech MPA H (Plmng)
Bldg Ckk
Hang Supv
Ping//-p Recpt
Seer (Comm Dev)
Asa Housing Mgr
2 Tech Mgmt H (B 1)
Can Dev Sec/Assg
Leased Hong Spec
Secs (Bldg Insp)
10 BldB/Safaty Inv
.75 Tech B Mlmv)
Bldg Insp
Secs (Plnng)
.2 Planning Asa
.25 Tech 0 (P H)
City Planner
Acotg Clrk (Hang)
Tech I (Bldg Insp)
Sr HotRSing Insp
/nap CIM/Sear
Housing Insp
hasp Clerk
h9Nr/ k-v Spec
Acin/n Seer
Asst Plnr
Secretary
Zng Adm
Rehab Spec
Note: 2 Employees
Redev Spec
PERSONNEL
Not Accounted For
Cledr/Typrat
Supervisory
2 29%
3 30%
3 13%
3 30%
1 14%
Lsd Hsng Tech
ProUTech
4 570A
4 40%
15 65%
5 50%
3 43%
Can Dev Tech
SupprtTVVnt Line
1 140/o
3 30%
5 22%
2 20%
3 43%
Atkn/n Aide
TOTAL
H 7
10
23
10
7
Sr Cllr/Typist
Secretary
~w✓ny
P
P
I
I
P
bppeotlom
/
/
/
/
/
Housing
H
N
H
6onv cwdw
c
HooM Dept
H
ROSEVILLE
NEW HOPE
NEW BRIGHTON
MAPLEWOOD
GOLDEN VALLEY
Dir Comm Dev
Mgmt Asst/CD Crd
Dir Com Dev
Dir Corn Dev
Dir (insp/Zon)
Asst Dir Corn Dev
Bldg Official
Bldg Official
Bldg Official
Dir (Pinng)
Chief Code Offer
G__.,_rl Inspector
Planner
Bldg Inspector
2 Inspectors
City Planner
Housing Rep
Sanitarian
Health Inspector
Planner
2 Code Enfro Offer
2 Dept Secretary
Radev Spec
2 Asse Phnr
License Clrk
2 Data Asst
5 Reds C/rk
Clrk/Typist
Sect (/nsp/Zng)
Sr Clrk?yp/st
5 Secretary
Secretary
Seer (P/nng)
Secretary
PERSONNEL
Supervisory
2 20%
1 17%
1 17%
2 25%
2 25%
7 32%
Proffrech
4 40%
2 33%
4 67%
4 50%
3 38%
2 9%
SuAwvfronrune
4 40%
3 50%
1 17%
2 25%
3 38%
13 59%
TOTAL
~I 10
6
I 6
8
8
22
P/enn/np
P
P
P
P
P
P
1"'. .,/.w
/
I
/
/
/
i
Howng
H
N
coftv Confer
0" Dept
H
f at f & Ants 71
or'ks Del~artuent
ublic't~V Strect Utility
anon for the P Ens
1993 l In form .w Wens Upi
September 21 ` W~
Statistic Sewer WarrMail► Connectns 14
1 9
PW PW Emps Sts ) ~ (NU) 4. 8,910
Total (Sts & L1ti1) 146.1 114.05 Mi~eapolis 24 14
18 10
Emp1s EErnpls 22 105. 123 95 14,025 13 10 9
_Brooklyn 39 so 199 .8"218 10.5
134
10 6
Cent 89 30 23 200 145.3 109.94 50 Mmneap°lis Crystal 225 55 38 125.5 .1 129 b9 St, Paul 211
Cry 140 157 140 10
Edina 131 32 20 19.5 107 138 68 mvwcpolis 14 16
Fridley 111 31.5 16 66 10
Yes
Goldenvalley 129 33 12 65 131 85 11,400 St. Paul 10 1s
Maplewood 71 21 12 93.5 179.3 120 9,223 13 17.3
17 142.4 180 13,399 flew Brighton 82 30 240
108 161.87
14., Uope r
219 53 20 151.5 249.2
giohfield 130 30 35.3 for Each City
Roseville 227 56.1 JL, al Budgets
for E"hCtty, A
Recreation
St.10AS Park Finaucisl R "port Fit for Each City and
~ ks a
source: P 1 Lists by ' Ice & godcry
Golf
the Department of Par ice u
Information for Park Arms 12
St`ati5tical Ball Swwffng Courts a o
Park Pools---_ . 3- 17 0 i 0 24
P&R Parks Fields 3 23
Srtesr 1
A Total E p A,creag 17 32 44 0 0
EMPls 522 2 19 0 3
_ 134 13 228 38 0 - 43 1 0 0
Brooldyn Center 89 5 1600 27 44 27 0 1 is
crystal 225 49 550 26 1 1
Edina 131 15 481.5 56 11 1 is
Fridley 111 17 5 - 17 1 1
335 2 i 27
Golde-nvailey 129 13 203 32 16 0
Maplewood 11 23 2 1s 1
71 _ 200 16
New Brighton 82 14 485 25 29
-New hope 219 33 510 23 12 4
53
Richfield 130 20 150 eis for Fah City
Roseville 27.3 F City, Mutual BudP
227 [t for Each
St. Louis Park ual Finaacial Repo h city
source. Compreheasive A and personnel Lists for Eac
O.g~ational chats
i
9 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
POLICY RELATING TO CITY CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
General
The City of Brooklyn Center is aware that there are many worthwhile nonprofit
organizations serving Brooklyn Center residents, and that such organizations are supported
primarily through public and private funding. Contractual services to such organizations for
the City of Brooklyn Center, when made, will be distributed in accordance with this policy.
Purpose
✓ To develop an effective method for receiving and considering requests made to
the City of Brooklyn Center from nonprofit organizations.
✓ To maximize the benefits to the citizens of Brooklyn Center from the limited
resources available.
✓ To maintain objectivity and equity in granting contractual service requests.
✓ To provide a means of monitoring and responding to community needs and interests
• that may change from year to year.
General Policy Guidelines
The Brooklyn Center City Council is responsible for determining whether financial or
in-kind contractual services will be made by the City to assist nonprofit organizations. The
City Council will consider the following guidelines in determining which nonprofit
organization(s), if any, receive contractual services from the City. This policy should not be
construed to obligate the City Council to provide financial or in-kind contractual services.
1. The City Council shall offer contractual services to nonprofit organizations for one
year, with the option for contractual services after review and approval by the City
Council on an annual basis. All requests for contributions should be submitted to the
City by June 1 for consideration for the following fiscal year (January 1 to
December 31).
2. The City Council will give high priority to contractual services to organizations which
can demonstrate that the contractual services are used to provide services to Brooklyn
Center residents.
I Contractual service requests will normally be considered in relation to existing City
commitments and the target populations served.
• 4. The City Council may request proposals from a variety of alternative sources.
September 1993 - 1 -
5. Preference will be given to organizations which:
a. Have taken affirmative efforts to raise funds to support their efforts.
b. Demonstrate in their budgets that there is a continuing concentration on
minimization of administrative and overhead costs.
c. Cannot be effectively or fully funded through other sources.
d. Sponsor programs which have verifiable benefits to the community at large; for
example, programs that enhance the effectiveness of City programs.
e. Make effective use of volunteer skills and in-kind contributions to reduce the cost
of program/service delivery.
6. Final approval of requests are subject to the City's public hearing and budget approval
process.
Contractual Service Request Guidelines
The completion of the following procedures is the responsibility of the City Council.
1. A letter specifying the required information for consideration for contractual services
and the deadline for application will be sent to the organizations which have previously
requested and received contractual services for the City. This information will be
available to other interested parties upon request.
2. All written requests for contractual services must be submitted prior to June 1 for
consideration for the following fiscal year (January 1 to December 31). An application
for contractual services form must be filled out completely and submitted as part of
the written request.
3. The City Council may request an oral explanation of the written request from each
applicant.
4. The City Council may designate an appropriate City advisory commission to research
and monitor groups receiving City contractual services. At the request of the City
Council, the designated commission shall monitor the community by methods available
at the time of assessment.
5. City staff may make contractual service recommendations to the City Council based
upon use of the evaluation form for requests.
0
September 1993 -2-
APPLICATION FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
(FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION/PROGRAM/AGENCY)
Date Submittefl•
(Deadline is June 1 for consideration for the following fiscal year, January 1 to
December 31.)
Applicant Organization/Program/Agency Name:
Address-
City, State, Zip;
Phone Number-
Contact Person-
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
1. Generally describe the organization, including its mission, date established, services, and
goals.
•
2. Explain the areas of expertise of the organization, including a description of the range
of staff capability.
3. Describe the target group for services of the organization.
•
-1- September 1993
•
•
4. Describe how the organization is marketed, and to what geographical and
demographical areas.
5. Discuss the methodology employed in measuring the effectiveness of the organization.
BUDGET
DOLLAR AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM CITY $
TOTAL ORGANIZATION BUDGET $
CITY AMOUNT AS % OF TOTAL BUDGET
% OF TOTAL BUDGET FOR OVERHEAD
AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS
6. List specific secured and anticipated sources of contributions available to the applicant.
SECURED (S)
OR
SOURCE AMOUNT ANTICIPATED (A)
•
7. List all other funding organizations explored and the outcome.
-2- September 1993
8. List in-kind items requested from the City.
•
9. Describe use of all in-kind contributions, and include estimated value of each in-kind
contribution.
10. a. Describe use of volunteers.
b. Describe how the use of volunteers impacts your budget.
•
•
COMIVIUNM NEED
11. Explain the community need for the proposed service.
12. Describe how Brooklyn Center benefits from the services provided.
-3-
September 1993
•
13. a. Discuss possible alternative sources for those services available within the
community.
b. Describe why those alternative services are not fulfilling the current needs.
•
•
14. State the total numbers of people from all communities who participate or receive
direct benefits, and describe how these numbers were determined.
TOTAL SERVED
LAST YEAR
PROJECTED TOTAL
TO BE SERVED
NEXT YEAR
15. State the numbers of residents from Brooklyn Center only who are served, and describe
how these numbers were determined.
TOTAL SERVED
LAST YEAR
PROJECTED TOTAL
TO BE SERVED
NEXT YEAR
ORGANIZATION NEED
16. What would be the consequences to your organization of not receiving the amount
requested?
-4-
September 1993
Include the following supporting documentation that must accompany this application. If
any item is not enclosed, please explain why not.
1. Financial statement for the preceding fiscal year.
2. Proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
3. Data substantiating the need for this service in Brooklyn Center.
4. Proof of nonprofit status.
5. List of current Board of Directors.
6. Job descriptions and resumes of key personnel.
7. Statistical or other data measuring effectiveness of the organization.
Signature Date
Title
•
-5- September 1993
EVALUATION FORM FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
•
•
•
City Commission Conducting Evaluation:
Date of Evaluation:
Applicant Organization/Program/Agency Name:
Address-
City, State, Zip,
Contact Person-
Phone Number-
Date Application Submitted:
Budget Year Requested-
Score each statement based on the maximum points listed in parentheses next to each item.
The higher the score, the more the actual request is equated to the statement. A total of
100 points is possible. For Y/N responses, select Y for yes or N for no.
A. PROGRAM OVERVIEW (20)
(5) 1. The application and supporting documents were submitted in a
timely fashion for inclusion in the annual budget.
(5) 2. The applicant has a realistic view of their resources and the
organization is limited to its level of competence. The
applicant indicates the availability of an effective staff, if
applicable.
(5) 3. The applicant has demonstrated the ability effectively to reach
its target/demographical and geographical areas.
(5) 4. The methodology employed to measure the organization's
effectiveness is effective, clear, and concise.
B. BUDGET (30)
(10) 1. The total amount requested from the City of Brooklyn Center
is reasonable given the overall organization's budget.
(10) 2. The budget request is reasonable given the objectives of the
proposal for the contractual services.
(10) 3. The administrative and program service costs are in reasonable
balance.
•
0
•
(Y/N) 4. The use of volunteers is reasonable and cost effective.
(Y/N) 5. Other funding sources have been explored.
C. COMTVI[UNM NEED (30)
(10) 1. The applicant is meeting an important community need.
(10) 2. The extent of this service does not overlap with services
provided elsewhere in the community.
(10) 3. The number of Brooklyn Center residents served is high in
relation to the amount requested.
D. ORGANIZATION NEED (20)
(10) 1. The program is not viable without local government support.
(5) 2. There are few, if any, alternate sources of funding available to
the applicant.
(5) 1 The organization's request does not create an ongoing demand
for funding in future budgets.
TOTAL SCORE
September 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Donn Escher and Members of the Financial Commission
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C91f
DATE: September 23, 1993
SUBJECT: Unrestricted Capital Expenditure Policy
Last fall, the City Council asked the Financial Commission to
develop a policy to guide the approval of projects to be paid for
by the Capital Improvements Fund. A subcommittee of Pat Boran and
Dennis Kelly was appointed to the task. A draft policy was written
primarily by Pat Boran and was given tentative approval by the
Financial Commission on May 11, 1993. The City's staff has several
reservations about the policy as currently written. These were
expressed in private meetings with Pat Boran and at Financial
Commission meetings. At the July 12, 1993 meeting, the staff was
directed to come back at a future meeting and demonstrate their
case.
1. The overall thrust of the policy seems to be to load the City
Council down with so many limits that it will be difficult for
them to spend money from the Capital Improvements Fund. I
don't care to speculate as to why Pat Boran took this
approach, but I feel the ideal policy would provide guidance
on expenditures without unduly preventing the City Council
from being able to act in the City's best interest. Pat
Boran's response to this was that the Council could always
take exception to the policy if the merits of a situation
warranted it. With the current policy, this would happen so
often that the policy would lose credibility and cease to be
effective.
2. The second often repeated response to our objections was that
projects not qualifying under this policy should be funded in
the General Fund. In the 1993 General Fund budget, 63% is for
wages and fringe benefits of employees. Government is a labor
intensive operation and the City Council is determined to
increase, not reduce the number of employees. Another 16% is
for insurance, utilities, and contractual services which can't
be cut unless we literally shut down operations. Another 15%
is for supplies which we have more control over. But this
area has already been scrutinized and cut back to the minimum
necessary to enable employees to carry out existing programs.
About 4% is for capital outlays, mostly replacement of
existing vehicles and equipment. The last 2% is the Council
contingency account. These expenditures can't be cut back
sufficiently to absorb major additional capital expenditures.
•
• The 1993 budget resulted in a average 14% increase in the
property taxes on a typical Brooklyn Center residence. The
1994 preliminary budget projects another 17% tax increase.
The idea that taxes could be increased further to allow the
General Fund to pay for projects previously paid for by the
Capital Improvement Fund is not viable.
The revised policy, titled "Capital Improvements Fund Expenditure
Policy" contains a number of revisions and deletes a few of the
provisions of the earlier draft. The changes are all designed to
accommodate the two concerns expressed above. I ask for your
favorable consideration of the draft policy.
•
0
. FINCOMM\CAPPLCY2
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
requires through the general fund operating budget.
B.) Expenditures from $25,001 to $200,000: Upon
recommendation from the Finance Commission the City
Council may, through simple majority, approve these
expenditures.
C.) Expenditures over $200,000: Upon recommendation from the
Finance Commission and a public hearing, city council
may, through a 4/5th's majority, approve expenditures in
this category.
SPENDING LIMITATION/FUND BALANCE REOUIREMENT:
. 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: At all times, 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 CONNISSION:
The finance Commission MUST provide the City Council a
recommendation on all expenditures from this fund. recommendation
requires response to the following:
A) Does the expenditure comply with the Capital Improvements
Fund Expenditure Policy?
B.) Is the expenditure appropriate considering the financial
condition of the City?
•
0
• FINCOMM\CAPPOLCY
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
UNRESTRICTED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE POLICY
POLICY OBJECTIVE:
The City of Brooklyn Center funds unrestricted capital
expenditures through one of two accounts. 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.
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 funding through the capital improvements fund
require funding from the general fund operating budget.
Specifically excluded from this policy are capital expenditures
that are to be funded from insurance proceeds. Capital
. expenditures funded by insurance proceeds 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 $100,000.
Capital expenditures of less than $100,000 are to be funded
through the general fund operating budget.
B.) Permanent: Any capital expenditure that has an estimated
useful life of 15 years or longer, as defined by generally
accepted accounting principles.
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 equipment and 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 $100,000: Not eligible for
funding from the capital improvements fund. Funding
requires through the general fund operating budget.
B.) Expenditures from $100,001 to $200,000: Upon recomm-
endation from the Finance Commission the City Council
may, through simple majority, approve these expend-
itures.
C.) Expenditures from $200,001 to $1,000,000: Upon
recommendation from the Finance Commission and a public
hearing, City Council may, through a 4/5th's majority,
approve expenditures in this category.
D.) Expenditures over $1,000,000: These expenditures require
• a citizen referendum.
SPENDING LIMITATION/FUND BALANCE REOUIREMENT:
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.) Spending Limitations: Proposed capital expenditures in
the range of $100,001 to $200,000 are limited to interest
earnings for the capital improvements fund from the
previous year.
c.) Fund Balance Requirements: At all times, a minimum fund
is 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.
ROLE OF THE FINANCE COMMISSION:
The finance Commission MUST provide the City Council a
recommendation on all expenditures from this fund. recommendation
requires response to the following;
A) Does the expenditure comply with the unrestricted capital
expenditure policy?
B.) Is the expenditure appropriate considering the financial
condition of the City?
•
•