Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001 05-21 CCP Work Session
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 21, 2001 6:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM B Joint Meeting with Financial Commission 1. General Discussion of 2002 Budget process a. Uncertainties with legislature b. Levy (assuming no levy limits & assuming levy limits) c. State aids: unknown d. Fees i. Street light utility ii. Rental housing 2. Update on Civic Center Project a. Recommendation of Park & Recreation Commission 3. Twins Stadium: Council Members Peppe & Nelson 4. Recycling & annual clean -up proposal from Hennepin Recycling Group 5. Miscellaneous Items with Financial Commission New Council Member Orientation 6. Movie from Financial Management Institute 7. Council Members' Presentation/Discussion: a. City Council Goals for 2001 b. City Council goal setting retreat on August l V" i. Process c. City Council group process i. Council decision process ii. Council protocols during meetings iii. Council commissions and liaisons d. City Council working under the City Charter through the City Manager and not through staff members I 8. City Manager Presentation: a. Open meeting law b. Data practices c. Miscellaneous d. Conflict of interest e. Funds: Enterprise, EDA, HRA etc. 9. Miscellaneous 10. Adjourn City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and cil Members Lasman, Nelson, Peppe, and Ricker From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: May 18, 2001 Re: Joint Meeting with Financial Commission Preliminary Budtet Discussion This meeting in May is used to identify budget issues from the Council's perspective, with input from the Financial Commission, prior to the actual budget work that occurs during the summer months. At this time, it is uncertain what course the Legislature will take, if any, on a tax bill. The House Tax Bill has severe implications for both operations and the tax increment districts. The House Tax Bill has very restrictive levy limits that are effectively retroactive. The exact impact is unknown, but ranges from no increased levy in 2002 to a levy increase probably below 2 %. The impact of the class rate compression would be to reduce the tax capacity in the of districts in half. If 53% of the General Fund's revenue sources are limited to a 2% to zero growth, a tax levy increase could potentially generate less than I% in overall General Fund revenue growth in 2001. State Aids in the House Bill would be reduced, with the ability to levy for their replacement. Thus, 1/3 of the General Fund Revenue sources would be flat in 2002 under the House Bill. There are some increases in State Aids in the Senate Bill. Most of the remaining revenue sources in the General Fund are limited by statute as to the amount that can be raised. Community Center fees were reduced in the 2001 budget for construction. Those fees should increase in the 2002 budget, but generally be offset by increased costs of operating the suspended programs. Enclosed are materials regarding a street light utility. A street light utility could pay for expenses associated with street light operation, maintenance, and erection that are currently paid for from the General Fund and capital sources. This would free up approximately $200,000 per year and provide a mechanism to deal with decorative lighting. A proposal, as discussed at the May 14"' City Council Meeting, will be further developed for increasing rental housing fees to reflect rates comparable to neighboring cities and to better reflect costs of regulation. i Both the Senate and House bills have provisions to increase the cost to cities for PERA to address the deficit in the plan's funding. The House bill would cost cities more than the Senate bill. This will impact personnel costs as well as medical insurance and wages. We 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway — Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 - (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 I are surveying other cities to compare wage increases that occurred in 2001 to see where we stand on a comparative basis. Some cities settled in the same range that we did for 2001 and others settled are higher percentage increases. Update on Civic Center Project Enclosed is a recommendation from the Park & Recreation Commission to remove the Palmer Lake all season building from the current Capital Improvement Plan. That removal would free up $315,000. Continued work on the Civic Center handicapped accessibility and renovation project design has indicated that a budget of $3,625,000 would be appropriate. The Capital Improvement Plan has $3,325,000 currently allocated to do the building work and parking lot re- surfacing. The initial plans and estimates did not adequately address the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning needs at City Hall. That has now been addressed at substantial additional cost. We have deleted the proposed exterior entrance structure to City Hall and substituted an interior elevator next to the south entrance to reduce cost. We have also reduced the allowance for work on the Council Chambers to focus on the sound system. The plan for the Community Center has been unchanged so as to achieve the greater benefits for community access and use that the plan you last reviewed provides. When the funding needs were identified with the previous architect, we found that actual estimates were greatly exceeded. However, those estimates were the basis for the funding identification in the Capital Improvement Plan. The current plan is far superior in the useable community space and integration of the community areas in the Community Center. By creating the large community room in the addition and another large community /youth/party room, we have much more to offer for roughly 10% more cost than our currently identified funds. We have reduced in the City Hall component of the planning to keep the estimates within identifiable funding sources. The removal of the Palmer Lake facility would provided the funding needed to create a budget in line with the estimates of the plans made by the architects and a contractor doing a check of estimates. The Palmer Lake facility funding is at a level sufficient to build a year around facility that was identified as providing community meeting space. That plan was developed before the current Community Center plan with the significant creation of community space. Another issue that arises in the Palmer Lake Plan that was discussed Tuesday with the Park & Recreation Commission was the operating cost implications of a year around facility off this campus. The Park & Recreation Commission was receptive to removing the facility form the current Capital Improvement Plan and revisiting the nature and scope of a replacement facility commensurate with a destination park that might be 3 season, rather than 4 season based on the creation of significant community space at the Community Center. An item not identified as part of the Civic Center project that has come to light is the deterioration of the railings and other metal in the pool area. That need is being reviewed and we will propose resolving that issue using funds from the Capital Reserve Emergency Fund. This replacement is occasioned by the deterioration of the metal used (a lower grade product was used during construction) in the pool area. Approximate cost i of retrofitting would be $60,000. This would leave the Capital Reserve Emergency Fund balance approximately $140,000 above its target balance. Twins Stadium Discussion This item is on the agenda for further discussion regarding Council Members Peppe and Nelson's proposal that Brooklyn Center considering exploring a bid for a Twins stadium. T City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Hilstrom, Lasman, Nelson, and Peppe From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: December 5, 2000 Re: 2001 General Fund Budget OVERVIEW: On September 11 th, the City Council adopted the preliminary 2001 budget and preliminary tax levy. The final levies proposed for 2001 are: 2000 2001 D ifference HRA $149,516 $154,835 $5,319 EDA $208,495 $216,731 $8,236 Gen. Fund ( &debt) $7,744,568 $8,048,732 $304,164 TOTAL TAX LEVY $8,102,579 $8,420,298 $317,719 3.92%► The 2001 General Fund budget has been modified from the August 21 st draft in a number of areas. The budget has been balanced. Provision has been made to reflect increased gasoline and natural gas prices. We anticipate that the Community Center will be substantially closed for 4 or 5 months of construction activity. Revenues and expenses have been reduced to reflect estimates of revenue losses and decreased costs. A few initiatives have been identified in the 2001 budget, such as funding to consider using sentence to serve on a more regular basis and budgeting for a web site. These will be described in more detail in the specific sections following this overview. The 2001 budget continues several changes in presentation and substance implemented in 1997. The g g P P budget has been developed, consistent with City Council direction, on the premise that bonds will not be issued in 2001 for street projects or in the future, where such projects represent a continuing replacement effort, as opposed to buildings or other major capital projects that are not an annual effort. (This policy eliminates substantial extra costs that would be incurred for interest and issuance costs over the life of the bonds.) The 2001 proposed budget places all City General Fund and Debt Service real estate taxes in the General Fund, with a corresponding transfer out for the payment of the city's portion of debt service. This allows for a clearer picture of the total city real estate tax levy. The real estate taxes levied by the separate legal entities of the HRA and EDA are set forth in their respective budgets. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 U The budget provides for 165 full time positions in all funds, a decrease of one position from the 2000 budget. A full -time Community Service Officer position is eliminated and the furiding used for part- time CSO hours. Two new full time positions were added in 2000. A temporary full time inspector was added and paid for through building permit fees and an additional full time position was budgeted in the Liquor Fund to implement the opening of a 6,300 square foot store in the Cub Foods development. The budget reflects a general 3% increase in wages. Administrative service charges allocate $335,526 of personnel costs from the General Fund to various enterprise funds for management, engineering, and financial services. The breakdown of those charges is set forth in the narrative for Budget Code 474. The administrative service charges are at roughly the same level as in past years. $335,181 is budgeted for engineering reimbursement for construction project work charged against construction projects. The difference in presentation from the pre -1997 budget is that these reimbursements and administrative service charges are set forth in a separate division (474 Reimbursement from Other Funds), rather than as a contra charge within the various departments. The goal of this presentation shift is to more easily understand the personnel costs in each department and the charging out of services. REVENUE OVERVIEW For 2001, the General Fund budget proposes an overall increase of $407,913 or 2.91 %. The major sources of additional revenue are: Tax levy increase: $305,844 Misc. Tax (lodging) $70,000 (note: '/2 goes to Convention & Visitors Bureau) State Aid Increases $81,481 State aids are only increased 2% in 2001 over the 2000 aids. State aid was 29% of the 2000 budget. w An increase of 2% does not reflect the rate of inflation, especially in the area of wages and health insurance. Another major influence on revenue is a reduction in budgeted revenues from recreation and the community center. These have been budgeted at or below actual receipts in 1999. We have been adjusting the revenues in the budget to reflect actual performance in this area. In 2001 we anticipate revenues at the Community Center to be below 1999 levels due to construction. Lodging tax revenues are increased in the 2001 budget, but those revenues are budgeted below 1999 actual revenues and below projected 2000 receipts. The 2001 budget reflects approximately 90% of 1999 actual lodging tax receipts. This approach is similar to the budget line for uncollectible taxes. If lodging occupancy dropped, those revenues would correspondingly drop. -2- The following chart shows the General Fund 2001 budget revenue changes: Revenues 1998 Taxes $7,374,544 $7,563,304 $7,742,888 $8,048,732 $305,844 3.95% Est. Uncollectable ($247,971) ($253,371) ($258,235) ($210,057) $48,178 - 18.66% Miscellaneous Taxes $461,000 $551,000 $650,000 $720,000 $70,000 10.77% Licenses & Permits $364,585 $414,270 $512,050 $551,165 $39,115 7.64% Intergovernmental Rev. $3,848,814 $3,889,507 $4,067,577 $4,149,058 $81,481 2.00% Charge for Service $21,900 $23,000 $23,600 $30,000 $6,400 27.12% Public Safety Charges $23,700 $23,050 $31,000 $37,000 $6,000 19.35% Recreation $425,794 $428,056 $381,750 $330,045 ($51,705) - 13.54% Community Center Fees $411,200 $388,100 $343,400 $225,000 ($118,400) - 34.48% Court Fines $192,000 $186,000 $200,000 $185,000 ($15,000) -7.50% Misc. Revenue $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 0.00% Interest $300,000 $280,000 $324,000 $360,000 $36,000 11.11% TOTAL $13,187,566 $13,504,916 $14,030,030 $14,437,943 $407,913 2.91% (Included in Total above) 1998 1999 1 1 , 1994 Bonds $66,457 $70,165 $68 193 $66, l 76 , ($2,017) - 2.87% 1995 Bonds $72,482 $70,844 $69,126 $72,579 $3,453 4.87 1996 Bonds $120,145 $123,006 $120,242 $122,581 $2,339 1.90% Police & Fire Bonds $783,146 $784,692 $783,012 $785,492 $2,480 0.32% $1,042,230 $1,048,707 $1,040,573 $1,046,828 $6,255 0.60% The overall General Fund levy increase proposed is 3.95 %. This increase includes both operating revenues and debt service for Special Assessment Bonds 1994 -1996 and the Police & Fire Building Bonds of 1997. Court Fines were reduced in the 2001 budget to reflect actual receipts to date. EXPENDITURE OVERVIEW Personnel, equipment, and computer technology are the driving forces behind increased costs in the General Fund budget. The 2001 budget reflects the 3rd year of increased payment for fire drills, technology purchases in the Police Department, reclassification of several positions, increased social service costs, and an additional pick -up truck for park maintenance. As discussed in the Council budget work sessions, the priorities for expenditures are: 1) Maintaining current staffing and service levels 2) Maintaining the existing infrastructure 3) Neighborhood street program 4) Completion of building issues Ism Rt -3- i t i - police & fire completion - civic center accessibility, HVAC, roof, etc. - park storage issues - central garage access and storage 5) Enhancements While the overall General Fund Budget is increased 2.91% above 2000 levels, operating costs in the 2001 budget are approximately 2.11% higher than in the 2000 budget. Some of the reductions are due to the reductions in Community Center operations. The following demonstrates the increase in operations for 2001: General Fund Budget:. 2000 2001 Change % Total Budget: $14,030,030 $14,437,943 $407,913 2.91% Conv. & Visit. $308,750 $384,750 $ 76,000 24.62% Street Bonds $237,681 $261,336 $ 23,655 9.95% Police/Fire bonds $745.726 $785.492 $ 39,766 5.33% Operations (net of above) $12,737,873 $13,006,365 $268,492 2.11% CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 1: Support Brookdale Redevelopment By: • use of tax increment assistance I • review and evaluation of land use applications • prompt construction and plan review /inspection • monitoring developer performance Goal 2: Continue and Improve Code Enforcement and Compliance Activities By: • coordinated efforts of the police and community development departments • increased effort and focus on high - density areas, while continuing neighborhood enforcement • continuing to evaluate additional approaches to achieving improved compliance Goal 3: Increased Proactivity Towards Fighting Crime By: • increased visibility of police in neighborhoods and apartment complexes • continuing and expanding the participation rate in Neighborhood Watch programs • including public safety information in all City newsletters -4- Goal 4: Actively Support Northeast Corner of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment By: • exploring responsible and credibly - financed development proposals • ensuring that plans support the long -term goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal 5: Continue Planning For and Beginning Construction of Community Center and City Hall Work By: • developing final designs and cost estimates for the project • moving towards substantial construction of the project in 2001 Goal 6: Continue and Implement Long -Term Financial Planning By: • continued five -year planning for utilities and capital improvements • continuing /expanding five -year planning for other funds • reviewing and developing contingency planning • moving toward development of two to three year budget projections for the City • continuing to evaluate City priorities Goal 7: Support and Promote Major Road and Street Improvement Projects By: • starting the Brooklyn Boulevard project with the county in the year 2001 (completion in the year 2002) • Highway 100: - continuing to support and participate in the North Metro Mayor's Highway 100 Council - keeping project schedule with Mn/DOT • supporting and participating in the Highway 694 widening project, with improved sound walls, by Mn/DOT - supporting other arterial enhancements as opportunities arise Goal 8: Plan for Destination Parks By: • development of a specific financial plan for destination park improvements in the Capital Improvement Plan Goal 9: Support and Expand Joslyn Site Development By: • working with the developer to complete phases II and III • measuring compatibility of the proposed France Avenue routing with neighborhood/development Goal 10: Continue Traffic Calming Efforts and Expand Information Available to the Public By: • continuing enforcement efforts through multiple resources • continuing and expanding information to the public on traffic safety and calming efforts Goal 11: Special Visioning Project to Create a Redevelopment Strategy Based on the i City's Vision For the Future and Developing Opportunities to Promote Inclusion of ALL Residents in Brooklyn Center's Community Life By: • undertaking accomplishment of this goal in the Central Business District with the use of consultants who would facilitate public meetings and perform studies that would assist the City Council' in developing a framework Some specific ways the budget supports those goals are as follows: Goals 1,4,6,8 and 9 are supported by personnel levels to undertake the projects and provide support to the City Council in achieving the goals, as well as Economic Development Authority operations. Goal 2 is supported by continued funding of code enforcement. The full -time liaison position is in the budget. The police budget reflects funding for temporary support for the annual code enforcement sweep. Goal 3 is supported by continued funding of police positions and the newsletter publication. Goal 5 is supported by personnel funding in Administration and CARS and in the Capital Projects O Fund. Goal 6 is supported with the administrative assistant osition that provides greater capacity to P P g P Y undertake projects and research. That position was vacated in early August. With additional challenges in 2001 associated with computer conversion and the need to address upcoming changes in accounting standards, this goal may require some adjustments in the budget allocations and staffing during 2001. I Goal 7 is supported by funding for the Public Works Department, the Economic Development Authority and the Capital Projects Fund. I Goal 10 is supported by funds in Central Supplies and Services for professional services and the police department's commitment to increased and systematic traffic enforcement. I SPECIFIC BUDGET ISSUES 1. CITY COUNCIL The annual audit and all commission related expenses are combined in the City Council budget. The amount of money included for conferences and trainin g allows for facilitated council work/goal setting sessions and the implementation of the council policy on training. The budget supports each council member having the ability to attend state conferences such as the League of Minnesota Cities Annual conference and provides funding for the Mayor and 2 Council Members on a rotating basis to attend 1 national conference. -6- 2. SOCIAL SERVICES The budget reflects the allocation of resources for joint powers agreements and purchased services. As determined by the City Council, the total allocation contained in the budget for social services is $106,035. 3. PERSONNEL As indicated above, there are pressures on wages and benefits that are affecting cities. The robust economy has started to push wage increases above 3% in the private sector. Some cities are also settling contracts and providing wage increases above 3 %. The budget contains a general 3% increase in wages. Several clerical reclassifications are funded. The final amounts for these reclassifications will be made in the context of comparable worth evaluation. Also putting pressure on personnel costs is the rising cost of health insurance. Some cities are dealing with these costs by increasing wages and others are increasing their health insurance contributions. The 2001 budget incorporates an increase in the City's contribution to health insurance from $395 in 2000 to $450 in 2001. In 2002, additional pressures on wages and benefits are likely to occur and will have a substantial potential impact operating costs. Wages and benefits account for 61.72% of the 2001 budget, as compared to the 62.49% of the 2000 budget. The slight decrease in percentage is due to reductions in the 2001 budget for construction closure of the Community Center. The additional building inspector position in 2000 is continued in 2001 to reflect the high level of building activity. Brookdale could trigger additional needs that would be offset by revenues. An amended contract covering 2001 is in place for the public works union. This amended contract contains a 3% increase in wages and the $450.00 per month City contribution to the costs of health insurance to the cafeteria plan. A very similar contract has been negotiated with the police sergeant's union. Negotiations have just started with the patrol /detective's union. Negotiations with the Teamster's Union have not commenced. 2001 will be the 3rd year of a 3 year planned increase in drill pay for fire fighters of $10,000 (total cost) per year. The request for a part-time MIS employee is not included in the budget. Additional MIS support will be provided by better utilization of the payroll clerk position, incorporating those MIS support duties 4 with the payroll duties. Contingency may be utilized for additional salary adjustments and organizational adjustments as ` evaluations may warrant. 4. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND and SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND i TRANSFER VM Capital Projects Fund Transfer is increased $25,000 above the 2000 level. A transfer of $100,000 R -7- was created in the 2000 budget. The transfer to the Special Assessment Construction Fund (which is used for the neighborhood street program) is increased to $409,044 in 2001 from $394,197 in 2000. 5. COMPUTERS/LOGIS/WEB SITE Costs in this area continue to rise. Central Supplies, other contractual services (4400) has been increased to provide $15,000 for web site development and operation. (Other increases in this line I item have been made for additional use of the Sentence to Serve Program as described later in this memorandum.) 6. LEGAL The budget reflects an increased cost of criminal prosecution proposed by Mr. Clelland. 7. POLICE Chief Downer reviewed the initial budget submission and we have identified changes from the original that will seek grant funding, rather than General Fund sources for some of the capital items that were requested. Monies in the 2001 budget are allocated to purchase booking station equipment and other capital items. This has increased the capital expenditure line item in patrol from $22,400 in 2000 to $60,850 in 2001. In reviewing the detail work for the 2000 budget, Mr. Hansen has identified that the personnel budget for 2000 included 44 sworn officers, rather than the 43 sworn officers that was contemplated. When the sergeants were re- classified into true supervisory positions, one sworn position was replaced with a civilian dispatch coordinator position. Since the eliminated sergeant position was administrative, this did not impact the number of officers actually available for service provision. Other changes have occurred in the non -sworn staffing that have reduced costs. We are working to implement the Council authorization to exceed the budgeted number of officers to have better staffing and use of eligibility lists due to additional retirements and exhaustion of previous lists. We have hired 3 new officers from the latest testing process in addition to the 2 officers hired at the beginning of 2000. Our 2 cadets will become officers in the first quarter of 2001 upon successful completion of their skills training and the licensing exam. This will allow us to test the thesis proposed to better utilize resources by not having to test as often and consequently have better coverage in the face of retirements etc. The p olice budget will fund 8 weeks of temporary clerical assistance and an intern for the Code Enforcement Sweep. 8. FIRE The fire budget includes increasing the drill pay by $10,000, as the 3rd year of a 3 year planned increase. -8- 9. YEAR 2000 CELEBRATION /CIVIC EVENTS The budget contains some monies for the 2001 closure of this celebration. 10. LITTER CLEAN -UP AND OTHER COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT As indicated, $14,000 of the increased allocation to Central Supplies line item 4400, Other Contractual Services, is for Sentence to Serve. We are still exploring our capacity to use Sentence to Serve on a scheduled basis. The budget does not contain an additional park maintenance person. The use of Sentence to Serve, if feasible, would allow us to have a full crew of persons once a week to perform tasks in the parks, boulevards, and parkways such as litter removal or other work. Especially during Spring and Fall, our crews are very busy with getting facilities ready for use or ready for winter. Having greater access to the use of Sentence to Serve would have the potential to keep areas cleaner. 11. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The special assessments in the August draft budget have been removed from the General Fund. In the past, minor special assessments for street projects have been made against the General Fund. The next few years of street projects will have substantial city owned frontage. This is more properly seen as a capital cost, rather than an operating cost in the General Fund. These costs have been shifted to the Capital Improvement Fund. 12. MISCELLANEOUS An additional pick -up truck is included for park maintenance to address the need for an adequate number of vehicles. We have previously retained vehicles over the summer to have the requisite fleet to support the use of seasonal workers. The next several years will not see the retirement of vehicles. The old vehicles are being auctioned as they would not be cost effective to retain. While gasoline and natural gas costs have been increased in the budget, these increases are estimates of an unknown future for pricing these materials. t Conversion to a new financial, payroll, and personnel system with Logis has been moved from 2000 into 2001. This suggests that a review of staffing may need to be undertaken to have the appropriate configuration to make these transitions and capitalize on the opportunity to make the most efficient and effective use of the new technology, while have the ability to continue the necessary routine tasks. A plan for Tax Increment Financing must also be finalized in 2001 to avoid losing the ability to make choices before expiration of the authority to incur obligations. 13. COUNCIL ITEMS At the study session, the City Council wanted information on several issues: The cost of equipping intersections and vehicles with signal override systems would be in the $400,000 to $500,000+ range. No provision is made in the Capital Improvement Plan for such a -9- ' 1 system. However, new signals are being wired to accept such a system. This can be accomplished at a nominal cost, while retrofitting is ver expensive. The watershed is pursuing grants to clean up the wetland north of Twin Lake and other water quality I improvements for Twin Lake. The Capital Improvement Plan does contain monies for the relocation of water and sewer lines under Highway 100 for the reconstruction of Highway 100. Those amounts are rough estimates at this time. Public Works has provided residents in street projects with brochures about sod maintenance and watering following a street reconstruction this year and will continue to do so in the future. Monies are included in the budget for teen activities. The specific use of those monies is open for p p allocation based on input from teens such as the Leo's Club. 14. COMMUNICATIONS Newsletters will be mailed 6 times in 2001 pursuant to the City Council's directive a few years ago to increase the frequency of these communications to residents. CENTRAL GARAGE l Central Garage charges are slightly lower than in 2000. However, fuel prices remain uncertain and have the potential to impact the charges made against other funds by the Central Garage. While not part of the General Fund, Central Garage charges have a profound impact on the General Fund. When the Central Garage was instituted full replacement of equipment was not funded, since charges for depreciation had not accumulated for equipment being replaced prior to full accumulation of depreciation charges necessary for replacement. The goal is to have replacement fully funded in order to fully implement the central garage concept. As part of the implementation, several changes were incorporated into the rp General Fund budget in 1997: 1) interest earned in the fund has been spread out against the individual pieces of equipment 2) items having a value below $5,000 have been removed from the central garage fund replacement schedule (items below $5,000 for garage use, as opposed to other departments, will still be budgeted, but not on a depreciation schedule) 3) police vehicles are sold rather than recycled in the fleet; this reduces the cost of squads to the police by giving them credit for the sale proceeds and eliminating charges previously levied against them to refurbish squads for use in the fleet; maintenance costs and fuel costs for other divisions should decrease; initial results indicate that the projected benefits are ! occurring: sale of used squads is at anticipated levels; anticipated reduced operating costs from this shift will have to be monitored over time as recently p urchased new vehicles � y p eh s used in departments (rather than using old squads) have little or no repair costs -10- BUILDINGS The cost of building maintenance is rising. Equipment, supplies, and utilities account for the largest part of the increase for existing buildings. In 1999, the new police station was added to the budget for a partial year at a cost of $57,348. The 2001 budget allocates $106,665 for the operation of the new police station. PARKS The Capital Improvement Plan provides a five year plan for park improvements. The five year plan finished the replacement of playground equipment and inventoried the life expectancy of the major components of the park facilities and improvements. The Park & Recreation Commission recently completed a series of meetings in areas of the City seeking input on park planning. The Capital Improvement Plan incorporates the work of the Park & Recreation Commission to fund destination park improvements that would serve the entire city, along with the neighborhood parks. FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS Most departments have projected minor fluctuations in expenditure requests that would need to be accounted for only in inflationary changes in the budget. Public Safety continues to make rather substantial projections for major personnel and equipment additions. Of concern also is the need to adjust our capital transfers for street construction etc. to provide for real growth. Revenues will need to increase to keep up with current programs, fund future capital projects, and to the extent justified to or desired by the Council, expand service provision. In the Enterprise Funds, 5 year plans are in place for Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer. A 5 year capital improvement plan is also in place. II. ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS, E BR HERITAGE ARLE OWN ENTER C The 2001 budget for operations projects operational self - sufficiency and some capital investment. Funding for trade shows and directed sales for conferences is continued. Those goals were met in the 2000 budget year. The Inn on the Farm continues to be a financial drag on the operations. Staffing was reconfigured with the departure of the Inn Keeper. Overall staffing at the Inn has been reduced. As indicated in the budget review, the EBHC must achieve its operational sufficiency goals. Those goals were met in 1996 and 1997. In 1998, water issues ' resulted in a loss due to large capital needs to deal with the water problems. In 1999 the Center was in transition to new caterers and the construction of additional facilities. WATER, SEWER AND STORM SEWER FUNDS These enterprise funds, pursuant to the 5 year plans, are anticipated to cash flow operations and p, capital needs with rate increases. The 2001 budget includes the adopted increases in sewer and storm sewer rates. Increases were adopted to maintain the fiscal health of these funds and to reflect the changed methodology of estimating utility replacement needs in connection with neighborhood street reconstruction projects. Estimates now assume replacement of all water and sewer lines in a neighborhood street reconstruction project area based on recent experience where the amounts of line replacement have been higher than previous estimates. GOLF FUND The golf course budget continues providing sufficient funds for its operations from operating revenues. The plan adopted by the City Council in 1998 is continued with its scheduled repayment of the principal on the construction loans. This 20 year plan creates sufficient capital reserves to address equipment replacement issues and pay down the principal on the original construction loan. When the Golf Fund achieves the target fund balance goal, we hope to be able to transfer an additional modest principal repayment amount as available from surplus. , LIQUOR FUND The budget implements the new leased facility at the Cub Foods development. The leased facility on Brooklyn Boulevard was closed, as was the Humboldt store. The Humboldt facility was leased to Independent School District #286 on a lease /purchase agreement. The Northbrook store is continued in the 2001 budget on the assumption that an appropriate lease renewal can be negotiated. In the short term, the fund is projected to at least perform at current levels. In the long term, the re- configuration is projected to increase net revenues. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The revenues from the Housing & Redevelopment Authority are transferred to the Economic Development Authority to carry out redevelopment and housing purposes. The operating budget for the Economic Development Authority is increased at the rate of increased operating costs. Capital projects are not budgeted in the fund, since the revenues and expenditures are dependent on many variables affecting amounts and timing. FUTURE ISSUES/PROJECTIONS An issue facing the organization is creating a workforce that reflects the diversity of the community. We have been working on this, especially through minority hiring fairs and the cadet program. The work plan for COOP Northwest will work on joint efforts in this area beyond the police component. We are also reviewing the impacts of increased health insurance costs on the funding for retiree benefits. A transfer to address a deficit may be needed in the overall finalization of the entire budget f -12- for all funds. The rising cost of health insurance and the rate of wage increases, as discussed previously, are also significant future issues. SUAMARY The budget reflects a serious effort on the part of the department heads to operate within the fiscal constraints facing the City. The predictablibity of the City's revenue stream in the future continues to be uncertain. The Governor's Big Plan and the Legislature's reaction to it are all unknowns that could have substantial impacts on the City's revenue stability and growth. The proposed budget continues a return to a format that states expenditures in a fashion that is easier to track, places all general fund tax revenues in the General Fund, allocates most full -time employees as full persons within departments, reduces the number of divisions greatly, uses line- item detail, and provides more information regarding the planned use of monies than the previous budget. The budget reflects City Council goals and direction. I would like to thank the many staff members who participated in the revision of the budget presentation and process. -13- Summary of 2001 General Fund Revenue by Source General Fund Revenues 2000 2001 Change % Increase Taxes $7,742,888 $8,048,732 $305,844 3.95% Estimated Uncollectible Taxes ($258 ($210 $48,178 - 18.66% Miscellaneous Taxes $650,000 $720,000 $70,000 10.77% Licenses & Permits $512 $551 $39 7.64% Intergovernmental Rev. $4,067 $4 $81 2.00% Charge for Service $23,600 $30,000 $6,400 27.12% Public Safety Charges $31,000 $37,000 $6,000 19.35% Recreation $381,750 $330,045 ($51,705) - 13.54% Community Center Fees $343,400 $225,000 ($118,400) - 34.48% Court Fines $200,000 $185,000 ($15 - 7.50% Misc. Revenue $12 $12,000 $0 0.00% Interest $324,000 $360 $36,000 11.11% TOTAL $14 $14,437 $407,913 2.91% 1 -21- T General Fund Revenues Real Estate Taxes 53.5% j NNW Interest 2.5% Public Safety Charges 0.3% Court Fines 2.8% Misc. Taxes 4.9% Rec. & Comm. Center Fees Misc. Revenue 3.8% 0.1% Charge for Service Licenses & Permits 0.2% 3.8% State Aids 28.3 °h -22- Summary of 2001 General Fund Expenditures Types of Expenditures 2000 2001 Per Cent Change Salaries $7,068 $7,141,101 1.03% $72,818 Fringe Benefits $1,698 $1 4.22% $71,600 Supplies $552 $550,845 -0.34% ($1,861) Purchased Services $461,387 $472,054 2.31% $10,667 Communications $264 $277 4.80% $12 Repair, rental $453,259 $488,591 7.80% $35 Other Contractual $853,101 $931 9.17% $78,207 Central Garage $890,036 $891,212 0.13% $1 Insurance $126,350 $145,150 14.88% $18,800 Utilities $518,190 $536,085 3.45% $17,895 Capital Outlay $307,162 $326,445 6.28% $19,283 Debt Service NSP $16,660 $16,660 0.00% $0 Transfers to other funds $1 $1 6.99% $103,268 Administrative Service ($317,233) ($335,526) 5.77% ($18,293) Reimbursement ($432,000) ($435 0.74% ($3,181) Cost of Sales $33 $23,000 - 31.34% ($10,500) Contingency $57,808 $57,808 0.00% $0 TOTAL $14 $14,437,943 2.91% $407,913 I -23- General Fund Expenditures 2001 Public Safety 35.0% General Government 10.6% Police & Fire Bonds 5.2% Transfers to Debt Service 1.7% Community Development Transfers to Capital Projects 4.8% qq `� 3.5% Unallocated Dept. 2.3% Risk Management 1.1% Convention & Tourism 2.2% Public Works 17.8% Parks & Recreation Social Services 14.9% 0.7% At i t -24- General Fund Expenditures 1997-2001 General Government — Public Safety — Police & Fire Bonds — Community Development — Public Works — Social Services — Parks & Recreation — Convention & Tourism — Risk Management — 01997 Unallocated Dept. — 01998 01999 Reimbursement from Other Fu D 2000 ■ 2001 Transfers to Capital Projects Transfers to Debt Service -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Millions -25- Summary of 2001 General Fund Expenditures (by Object Classification) Types of Expenditures 2000 2001 Per Cent Change Salaries $7,068,283 $7,141,101 1.03% $72,818 Fringe Benefits $1,698,438 $1,770,038 4.22% $71,600 Supplies $552,706 $550 -0.34% ($1,861) .Purchased Services $461,387 $472 2.31% $10 Communications $264,779 $277,481 4.80% $12,702 Repair, rental $453,259 $488,591 7.80% $35,332 Other Contractual $853,101 - $931 9 308 9.17% $78,207 Central Garage $890,036 $891 0.13% $1,176 Insurance $126,350 $145,150 14.88% $18 Utilities $518,190 $536,085 3.45% $17,895 Capital Outlay $307,162 $326 6.28% $19,283 Debt Service NSP $16 $16,660 0.00% $0 Transfers to other funds $1,477,604 $1,580 6.99% $103 Administrative Service ($317,233) ($335,526) 5.77% ($18,293) Reimbursement ($432,000) ($435,181) 0.74% ($3,181) Cost of Sales $33 $23,000 - 31.34% ($10,500) Contingency $57,808 $57,808 0.00% $0 TOTAL $14,030,030 $14 2.91% $407,913 i -26- 4 General Fund Expenditures by Type Personnel Costs 59.3% Capital Outlay 2.1 w� I Ly .ya Capital Prot1•. Fund 0.7% Police & Fire Bonds 5.0% Debt Service 1.7% Supplies " ^ CCC o Street Construction 3.7 /o 2.7% >;R ` Contingency Services Y 0.4% 3.1 % Utilities Communications 3 . 5 % 1.8% Insurance Repair, rental 0.9% 3.1% Central Garage Other Contractual 1 6.0% 5.8% I Cost of Sales 0.2% -27- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ADEQUATE GENERAL FUND BALANCE POLICY FORMULA AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 22, 1980 (LAST AMENDED BY RESOLUTION 99 -21 ON JANUARY 25, 1999) Latest Audited Total Fund Balance at December 31, 2000 $7,435,389 Unrealized Gains or Losses (subtract gains or add back losses) 154,306 Adjusted Total Fund Balance at December 31, 1998 $7,58905 Minimum Required Fund Balance Elements: 1. Items Not Readily Convertible to Cash: a. Accounts Receivable 7802 b. Advances to Other Funds 105,074 -------- - - - - -- $183,956 2. Amount Appropriated to the General Fund Current Year Budget: 2000 3. Amounts to be Reserved for Working Capital and Variances from Revenue Estimates: (45% of Total General Fund Current Year Budget, less debt service) 45% of. $13,374,455 = $6 -------- - - - - -- Minimum Required Fund Balance $6,202,461 Amount in Excess of Minimum Required Fund Balance $1 Amount Available per Formula for Other Use in Current Year $693,617 fincomm \policies \finmgmtAdgfdbal 2000 5/18/01 12:02 PM General Fund Printed: 05/17/2001 IYR date entered: 05/17/2001 Code 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 I YR I Change since 97 since 97 avg 97 GENERAL City Council $126,089 $123,711 $120,603 $120,247 $124,267 3.34% $4,020 -1.45% (51,822) -0.36% Administration $198,283 $200,219 $191,415 $181,432 5187,817 3.52% $6,385 - 5.28% ($10,466) -1.32% Human Resources $166,728 $165,069 $166,239 $183,967 5192,376 4.57% $8,409 15,38% $25,648 3.85% City Clerk $48,397 $69,279 $70,855 $76,024 $77,204 1.55% $1,180 59.52% $28,807 14.88% Elections $48,397 $69,088 $57,166 $82,373 $81,057 -1.60% ($1,316) 67.48% $32,660 16.87% Finance $384,563 $412,411 $414,774 $417,768 $437,113 4.63% $19,345 13.66% $52 3.42% Data Processing $241,451 $222,719 5228,006 $248,1169 $275,260 10.96% $27,191 14.00% $33,809 3.50% Legal $201,400 $198 $197,900 $220,000 $240,000 9.09% $20,000 19.17% $38,600 4.79% TOTAL: $1,415,308 $1,460,896 $1,446,958 $1,529,880 $1,615,094 5.57% $85,214 14.12% $199,786 3.53% POLICE Patrol $2,653,301 $2,709,132 $2,796,754 $2,806,718 52,891,231 3.01% 584,513 8.97% 5237,930 2.24 %, Investigation $588,580 $579,855 5544,099 $623,404 5607,461 -2.56% ($15,943) 3.21 $18,881 0.811 Support Services 418 $821,989 $840,719 $937,341 $970,636 5976,467 0.60% $5,825 18.79% 5154,472 4.70% Police Station Maint. $57,348 $109,168 5106,665 -2.29% (52,503) ERR 5106,665 ERR Chief 419 $157,29 $146,786 $131,966 5133,287 $143,630 7.76% $10,343 - 8.69% ($13,665) -2.17% TOTAL: $4,221,165 $4,276,492 $4,467,508 $4,643,213 $4,725,448 1.77% $82,235 11.95% 5504,283 2.99 %, FIRE Fire 425 $603,820 $594,271 $592,737 $649,273 5657,472 1.26% $8,199 8.89% 553,652 2.22% Emergency Prep. 426 $51,871 $47,849 $47, $47,815 $44,757 -6.4 ($3,058) - 13.71% ($7,114) - 3.43% TOTAL: $655,691 $642,120 $639,921 5697,088 $702.229 0.74% $5,141 7.10% $46,538 1.77% COMMUNITY DEV. Inspections 430 $229,633 $261,724 $268,174 $309,956 $328,521 5.99% $18,565 43.06% 598,888 10.77% Planning & Zonin 431 $116,180 $111,107 $110,712 $114,539 5119,898 4.68% $5,359 3.20% $3,718 0.80% Assessing 432 $247 $261,59 $262,620 5268,498 $287,756 7.17% $19,258 16.33% 540,398 4.08% TOTAL: $593,171 $634,423 $641,506 $692,993 $736,175 6.23% $43,182 24.11% 5143,004 6.03% Conv. & Tourism 433 $206,570 $218,500 $261,250 $308,750 $342,000 10.77% $33,250 65.56% $135,430 16.39% Social Sevices $80,000 $80,104 $79,860 $95,030 $106,035 11.58% $11,005 32.54% $26,035 8.14% BUILDINGS Custodial Services 440 $49,964 $55,041 $60,329 $60,719 $61,440 1.19% $721 22.97% $11,476 5.74% Bldg. Maint. 441 $297,469 5371,502 $398,616 5372,963 $384,564 3.11% $11,601 29.28% $87,095 7.32% Govt. Bldg ground 442 $42 ,952 565,364 560,902 561,252 565,152 6.37% $3,900 51.69% $22,200 1 2.92% TOTAL: 5390,385 $491,907 $519,847 $494,934 $511.156 3.28% $16,222 30.94% $120,771 7.73% I PUBLIC WORKS Engineering 443 $369,546 $380,104 5429,363 5442,215 5442,658 0.10 %1 5443 19.78% 573,112 4.95 Pub. Works Admi 444 5194,025 $195,329 5204,434 $210,085 5218,250 3.89% 58,165 12.49% 524,225 3.12 Street Maint. 445 $919,751 5941,086 $897,028 5854,483 5857,5711 0.36 %1 $3,087 - 6,76 %, (562,181) - 1.69 Traffic control 446 $168,747 5174,555 5181,746 5198,111 $2119,206 5.60%1 511,095 23.98 %, 540,459 5.99% Snow & Ice 447 $183,161 5191,092 $200,403 $203,642 5222,168 9.10% 518,526 21.30% 539,007 5.32% Street Lighting 448 $139,000 $134,000 $134,500 $138,500 5142,500 2.89% $4,000 2.52% 53,500 0.63% Parks Maint 449 $348,290 $302,388 5311,393 5368,996 5361,906 -1.92% (57,090) 3.91 %, 513,616 0.98% Park Fac. Maint 450 $267,630 5275,881 $276,930 5271,623 5283,553 4.39% $11,930 5.95% 515,923 1.49% Maint. Rec. Prog 451 $53,026 $61,209 $64,195 $70,254 $68,458 - 2.56% ($1,796) 29.10% $15,432 7.28% Forestry 452 $103,866 $106,829 $109,419 $122,312 $126,025 3.04% $3,713 21.33% 522,159 5.33% Ice & Hockey 454 $90,777 $93,765 5102,541 $100, $ 6.93% $6,992 1 8.79% _ $17,05 4.70% $2,837,819 $2,856,238 52,911,952 $2,981,060 $3,040,125 1.98% $59,065 7.13% $202,306 1.78% CARS CARS Admin $135,786 $141,066 5146,027 3.52% $4,961 ERR 5146,027 ERR Rec. Admin 460 $400,701 $433,630 $322,080 $330,933 $328,871 - 0.62% (52,062) - 17.93% ($71,830) -4.48% Adult Rec 461 $273,683 $249,490 5234,223 $224,483 $206,522 -8.00% ($17,961) - 24.54% ($67,161) - 6.13% Teen Programs 462 512,892 $12,966 $18,077 $15,318 59,290 - 39.35% ($6,028) - 2794% ($3,602) - 6.98% Youth Rec. 463 $109,644 $109,942 $108,092 $110,198 5122,499 11.16% $12,301 11.72% 512,855 2.93% General Rec. 464 $56,813 $53,924 $55,088 $56,294 559,497 5.69% $3,203 4.72% 52,684 1.18% Community CCU. 465 $275,162 $225,580 $244,418 $246,566 $227,329 -7.80%1 (5;19,237) - 17.38% (547,833) -4.35% Pool 466 $332,2 $239,673 $249,848 $255,159 5225,056 - 11,80 %1 ($30,103) - 32.26% (5107,203) - 8.07% $1,461,154 $1,325,205 51,367,612 $1,380,017 51,325,091 - 3.98% (554,926) 9.31% ($136,063) - 2.33% MISCELLANEOUS Risk NIgmt. 470 $167,000 $157,000 $152,500 $152,700 $169,41111 10.94% $16,700 1.44% $2,400 0.36% Central Supplies/ 471 $251,200 $375,369 $362,059 5312,376 5345,648 10.65% $33,272 37.60% 594,448 9.40 1 %, Civic Events 472 51,500 56,425 56,459 513,767 59,387 - 31.82% (54,3811) 525.80% 57,887 131.45% Reimbursement Other Funds 474 (5699,141) ($715,538) (5737,487) ($749,233) ($770,707) 2.87% (521,474) 10.24% (571,566) 2.56% Transfers (debt)& 475 $244,281 51,378,425 $1,384,971 51,477,6114 51,580,872 6.99% 5103,268 547.15% 51,336,591 136.79% MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2001 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Background Information, Street Light Utility Several cities in the Metro area, including Maple Grove, Plymouth, Crystal, New Hope, Andover, Mounds View, Burnsville, and Apple Valley, have Street Light Utilities to pay for operating and capital costs of their street light system. Brooklyn Center currently budgets $140,000 in the General Fund to pay streetlight operating costs. Most of that is the cost of a per -light charge from Xcel for power, maintenance, and depreciation. We also budget a small amount for maintenance of the decorative streetlights in the Earle Brown Farm area, which city staff maintain. In the next few years, that maintenance budget will have to increase as the number of decorative lights increases on Brooklyn Boulevard and on the TH 100 France Avenue bridge. As a result that $140,000 budget will likely increase to $150,000 or $160,000 in the next several years. Another major street lighting cost occurs on our Neighborhood Street and Utility Reconstruction Program projects. The General Fund and street special assessments pay for the cost of the new pavement, curb and gutter, and other work associated with the actual street construction, as well as other costs such as installing decorative street lighting, new street name and other signs and pavement markings, and reforestation. The average cost of replacing the existing street lighting with decorative lighting is about $75,000 a project. This type of decorative lighting is the fiberglass poles with shoebox heads rather than Xcel's standard wooden poles with cobra heads. g p p Xcel still owns these; we pay the upfront cost to have upgraded lights. A Street Light Utility would remove the operating costs from the General Fund, much the same as when we implemented the Storm Drainage Utility several years ago. (The SDU pays for street sweeping and street sweeping equipment, storm sewer maintenance, and general surface water maintenance as well as capital project costs.) The Utility could also pay for the decorative lighting on street projects. This would in effect make an additional $75,000 or so available to use for actual street construction costs. I have attached a table that shows potential street light utility charges and potential revenues. This is very rough, and if this were to be pursued would take much refining. Assuming a monthly charge per single - family household of $1 and charges for other types of properties similar to other cities, we could raise about $200,000 per year. Further refinement could bring that to a target of about $240,000. The following table shows some pros and cons of Street light Utilities by comparing the utility charge to the general tax levy. Gene Ta x Levy _ _ Street Light Utility _ CON: No direct relationship between tax paid PRO: Charge is easily linked to benefit and benefit received. Harder to describe the received. Ratepayers can easily see the impact of specific improvements as it would product of rates paid. The cost of specific vary by property value, limited market value, improvements results in specific, known rates. This Old House limitations, etc. "If you want X improvement, the additional cost to each single family property owner will be $Y." PRO: Tax can be deducted by single- family CON: Single - family owners cannot deduct residential owners who itemize their this expense, but multi - family and deductions. Multi- family and commercial/industrial can deduct as an commercial /industrial can also deduct. operating expense. PRO: Traditional core services are paid for CON: May be seen as a "hidden tax" shifting from the general tax levy. a formerly tax - supported service off the levy. CON: Tax exempt properties benefit but are PRO: Tax exempt properties can be charged not charged for this service. for their benefit. CON: Ability to respond to cost increases may PRO: Only limitation is self - imposed limits. be constrained by levy limits or self - imposed Cost increases requiring a rate increase may be limits on levy increase. mitigated by limiting the increase of other utility charges on the overall utility bill. CON: Charge is based on property value, not PRO: Charge is directly related to receiving a services received. benefit or service. PRO: Does not require any definition of CON: Benefit needs to be clearly established benefit. and related to the charge. i t I Potential Street Light Utility Charges & Revenues 18- May -01 Total Quarterly Annual Other Cities Property Type Unit Units Charge Revenue Per Quarter Single Family Number 7365 $ 3 $ 88,380 $3 -6 Two Family, Townhouse, Condos Number 861 $ 3 $ 10,332 $3 -6 Multi Family Units 3241 $ 3 $ 38,892 $2.25 -3 per unit Institutional Acres 239 $ 10 $ 9,560 $5 -20 Retail and Service -Office Acres 515 $ 15 $ 30,900 $5 -20 Industrial Acres 217 15 13,020 5 -20 Parks & Open Space Acres 536 $ 5 $ 10,720 unclear Vacant - Developable ** Acres 70 $ 5 $ 1,400 unclear Vacant - Undevelopable Acres 25 Total Potential Revenue $ 203,204 * *End of '99 data. Some of this has been developed since then. Potential Budget Item Budget 2001 Budget: Street Lights $ 140,000 Additional expense for add] deco lighting $ 20,000 Admin & overhead $ 5,000 Potential Future Street Light Utility budget $ 165,000 Add in approx annual project expense for new lights . $ 75,000 Potential Future Street Light Utility budget w/ capital $ 240,000 Unit Annual Quarterly For example Unit Area Charge Charge Charge Brookdale Acres 37.26 $ 15 $ 2,236 $ 559 Northport School Acres 21.76 $ 10 $ 870 $ 218 Rainbow Foods Acres 12.41 $ 15 $ 745 $ 186 St. AI's Church Acres 17.82 $ 10 $ 713 $ 178 Maranatha Acres 7.07 $ 10 $ 283 $ 71 Hilton Acres 6.46 $ 15 $ 388 $ 97 BCHS Acres 35.57 10 1,423 356 Grandview Park Acres 12.45 $ 5 $ 249 $ 62 Henn County Govt Center Acres 13.35 $ 10 $ 534 $ 134 Summerchase Units 252 3 3,024 756 Wickes Distribution Acres 12.6 $ 15 $ 756 $ 189 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: May 16, 2001 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Regarding West Palmer Lake Park Shelter Building At their meeting last evening, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed your request to remove the West Palmer Lake Park shelter building from the 2001 -2205 Capital Improvements Plan and reallocate the money to the Civic Center Remodeling Project. A major portion of the discussion centered on the remodeling plans, specifically the creation of additional "community" space at the Community Center and City Hall. As you may recall, part of the rationale for creating a larger, enclosed building a West Palmer was to provide for community meeting space. As this additional community space will be created by the remodeling project, the removal of the shelter building from the Capital Improvements Plan would allow for time to evaluate the need for any additional "four season" space. After considerable discussion, the Commission unanimously passed the following motion: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the funding allocation for the West Palmer Lake Park shelter building be removed from the 2001 -2005 Capital Improvements Plan, and that the $300,000 be reallocated to the Civic Center Remodeling Project. The motion also identifies that continued planning for the West Palmer Lake Park shelter building be undertaken to ensure that the improvement is consistent with the park's designation as a "destination park." Please let me know if you have any questions or would like additional information. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 = FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 City of Brooklyn Center 2001 Assessed Values and Acreage $64,400 Exempts — � $6,100,000 0.247 5.581 $1,100,000 $506,800 City Owned Exempt 6.142 3.686 $395,000 6.616 $5 5.057 00 5.057 $6,394,400 $4,000,000 5.664 _ 6.344 Summit Drive $7,985,100 $6,500,000 3.168 — 9.054 — $1,610,000 — 4.262 — $2,790,000 — 6.391 $2,005,000 $4,570,000 — $705,000 3.001 3.946 $629,20 ✓ .581 .876 — $855,700 O�hAd $2500300 O�`�0 $1,507,500 -- — 1.805 ?%j� 0.867 3.089 � Qr• �t0 $468,000 G`e $760,000 Le er $2,300,000 1.605 0� $650,000 i 3.677 $2,520,000 1.351 $722,000 = 7.973 1.173 $475,475, 00 $2,990,000 ' 11.689 $4,700,000 23.097 - $3,684,000 8.608 i This map was created on May 14, 2001 for illustrative purpose only. $855,700 1.805 $6,500,000 9.054 $760,000 1.605 $2,790,000 6.391 $650,000 1.351 $468,000 0.867 $727,000 1.173 $2,990,000 11.689 $475,000 1.135 $2,200,000 5.243 $2,520,000 7.973 $2,005,000 3.001 $4,700,000 23.097 $705,000 1.581 $3,684,000 8.608 $17,658,000 37.826 acres $14,371,700 46.747 acres Total of both $32,029,700 84.573 acres "HRG" RECYCLING /SOLID WASTE REPORT TO COUNCILS May 2001 The following information is an update on the recycling program pilot project now in progress in three separate neighborhoods in the cities of New Hope, Crystal 9 p ry and Brooklyn Center, requesting consideration to negotiate to expand the program city -wide in 2001, and proposal for consideration of a NEW clean -up collection program to be negotiated as an addition to the recycling contract. HISTORY — CURBSIDE RECYCLING The current 18 gallon bin, weekly collection system has been in place since spring 1989. The growth of the program took place in the early 1990's and then leveled out to the annual average participation of 58 %. In 2000 the average pounds- per - household was reported at 473 #. The contract cost per household has remained at $2.05 per month for the last four contract years. HISTORY — PILOT PROGRAM • May 2000 — Applied for and received grant from Hennepin County for $34,778 to do a study, working with the contractor Waste Management, Inc., for a "Simple. One-Sort" automated cart, every-other week curbside system. • November 2000 — Sent introductory letters to all households in the three target pilot areas. • January 2000- Sent letters to all households announcing cart delivery schedule • February 2001 — Carts delivered to each pilot area household, including litter bag with program information and instructions and calendar refrigerator magnet. • February 28 1March 1, 2001 — First week pilot project collection • May 11, 2001 — Program survey mailed to every pilot area household with self addressed return envelope, asking for completion and return to the Administration office by May 25, 2001. Every week of collection there has been a detailed mapping that highlights each address with cart set -out. Records have also been kept on non - compliance (bin set out). On the off -week the routes have also been traveled, identifying any set - outs, cart of bin. Letters have been sent to all non - compliance addresses, identifying what was done and what should be done to be consistent with the program. The following report shows the set outs and weight of materials collection start -up to date. 196 hh 193 hh 226 hh Av. Part. Tons Col. DATE Nhoi3e Crvstal Bcenter 2 -28 145/74% 152/79% 5.59 ton 3 -1 143/64% 72% 2.29 ton 3 -14 138/70% 142/74% 4.66 ton 3 -15 147/65% 69.6% 2.25 ton 3 -28 152/79% 159/82% 5.36 ton 3 -29 168/74% 78% 2.88 ton 4 -11 153/79% 165/84% 4 -12 158/70% 77.6% 2.33 ton 4 -25 159/82% 174/87% 5.55 ton 4 -26 175/77% 82% 2.87 ton 5 -9 161/84% 176/91% 5.36 ton 5 -10 184/81% 85% 3.18 ton Note: Pilot Study is scheduled to end June 21, 2001. If the decision is made to expand city -wide, the current pilot area will continue with the cart program for the balance of 2001 with delivery of carts to all households in November /December and new collection system implemented at beginning of 2002 contract term. Pre -Pilot One -month Comparison — November 2000 Av. Set -out 133/68% 122/63% 131/58% 63% Attachments • HRG Board Minutes of May 2, 2001 • Letter November 2000 • Letter January 2001 • Survey May 11, 2001 • Three completed surveys returned 5 -14 -01 • Cost Analysis Report u 40 P <-- ' ► - - FAIRVIEW AVE 9200 1-- 91 FF 1 E I. D 9400 4900 h h S - 8810 8800 8700- 8745 A � ........ .. ... -- - -- O b do +p vF.•b - - ... • 4884 4886 4864 4873, Z 8921 1 8901 m 4 4840 :. o � : 0 48810 , 4880 4849 Z 4848 ... n 00 Go o X 4876 4877 ,4836 45651 Q 4856 4841 > 4 4832 - 4873 , 4872 4841 4840 , 4868 4869• ..4,8,18 4857. '44848 4833 C 4824 4841 4845 • . • Q _. + :L) . • . 4849 4885 4 : 4864 . 4833 4832 / .4860 ; 4857 4840 4849 i � 4840 •4525 j4816 °4837 4824 - • 4852 4849 4841 + W :4817, 4808 B O 4853 4857 8616 O a 4832 Z .4832 483 a 4816 . 4844 ' 4541: •¢ - 4833 + 4 Z 4800 4629 F CIR - 48TH ,AVE N • 4x38 4833 4$24 4824 4809 , 4780 4825 �4 4809 4808 -a 4801 4 m $ o . : '3 4816 4525 48/6 4 _ z8 4s25 4817+ . 4p . 6 + M� m .. . • O ( - 4783 w n. 4750 I I i_) •� �P� . ° 4817 H •t J E . F . �� 4n3 HOPE 4600 4809 5 � 4788 4746 + $ W 3, S ► B 4 0 r I I . • • 4724 4780 474: 4740 4801 • 48TH AVE s °ems ee08 78s' 4757 :4751 C H U RCH _ J . , .4772 4733.' 4732 4791. 1 0 �: o ° �: ' 8816 • . 4732 4764 g , a ' o •. f � 11,, 4746 4758 4741 } • . 4725. 4724 4771. + . + 4740 4748' 471 B 4733 i Cb 40 ..... -... 4717. 4716 4751. ` N '� 4717 v + 4717, o o ' o. t oo �' J 4744. - o � a , • 0 8821 . 4709 • 470e 4709 4708: -4700 _ 6 47 4 72 1 , 471 /2 AVE N nit �Q 4725 z . 4700' 4701 4700 4701 + 4700 : 4701. 4724 4740.4742 4717 HIGH' _ - r - 4701 e ',r H G L I DA r o m So 4711. 14712 4738 4709 - 1. _ ... _ 9024 o .. o , .....p. oo ...... pp _ o.. o. o . 47TH... .. AVE 4664 = P �' PA RK r r 4701 1�f N r �"' " I Z 9311 9301 4887 4698 4689 ooi i p $ 0 870 4654 . 6601 - ., s' � -�•... - .4�.._ _' �_.f .e � .. d. �.. it e _ 4641 l,J 4657 4636 4689 4692 4681 ` l: .. 4648 4849 Q: 4450 .4849 4648 •4681 4886 4873 4696 9001 4880 8901 4470 ._.. ~ ^ ...: ' o f - K t Lij - g 4642 4843 4661 U 4840. 4641 4640 .41173 A 4680 4665 4688 .. 4672 .' W y' 4681. 4665 4860 4651 4636 4637 •� 4665 4672 Q .. 4e33 < G 4657 A 4680 4673 .'. 4664. 4657 �� 4650: 4640 S t . W' 4620 4825 4624 4857 ; �� 4684 ' 4872. F .. ' �� 4441 .4630 4831 4649 (s1 4866. �i 4656: 4649.. ' IL O 4516 '• 64 : �j 4848 G 4631 4624 4625 UJ 4610 ` 4617 7 4656 , • '4657. Q 4641 'A 4630 ; . Z • •• •• • • • - . 4609 4808 4641 4848 ., 4641. 4656. , .4649 4640 •4833 9L 4621 4618 4619 - .•S 0 4600 4633 4640 4833 ' .� G 4848 . 4641 9L<� 4632 4625 4620 4 4612 4613 4611 4540 4 9 •.4832 4625 , • '4�. 4833 , y '4624: 4808 o� 625 4617.. 4610 9 S 406 4607 4601 � 4617 463 2 _ AV� A , 4532 4817. f_ 4624 • .. AAeA •' '4825 4618 4609 4600 ' 4601 ' .46M ���♦ �����.�`✓ _ `�y7 Ny7J ♦ �+� ♦ fig ♦ - ter _- �- _ 0 90 019 T, 9 N Q N �9 S 5! 81J'1 lei i 9 L/ 99 ip z r" i' rY r r .. t= r os�b► Z� (tZ�►9 9�1 �v I Q g9M I Q d � std d d y �� C/ - u - . _ �LffS d �' • . ,. "'_'.' anN3AV W 14 r I o., gq »sit �►It7 Eit� ZIL Ip _ ,9 S > - 4 1 ) k t� l ;t� ort9 iZC 6J cp _ �, 81 L9 Lat OM f J 1 6 zt7 0Zt WWI Z _ a sas b } N W 04 8Z9r 8 .1269 Moo 6Z v' .� r �� ON W 100 �W jJOb,9 'rdUb tvb�l a' - t b! v HIM W 0 b x060) Zr f r • W OD � 11169 � ; , . r'Zb _ ZZb • ! Zb°) trj` Ll6°� g 6 16 9Z ` .�z S?b = c 6 SZ� O .IDOL Z b nl N3�1 Lot aooc cot — ' 1 �.Lool _ 19101. t St01� OZOL ^ JJCt SIQL. Txx 'ZID r 6tOJ $iC .� N� p o mot 9 S ? C2 Z Lt �" 3nN3Ad ) �. uNj 1 c - f• Y , d' hr r' r r r anN3Ad ONbr7 i ts ?' tom" �! f 'Q r .. �t 8 ?, i -4 40 • �� �� J . • . • • . 301 07 2901 3001 2918 291. 29 2819 281 2807 2801 2719 ZID. AVE, Ott r am 3401 3319 3313 3301 321 .321 3207 3201 3119 311. 3107 3101 �1D 2713 . Z 3307 • 62 0 8230 0231 i • d2 • ♦ 3012. 3000 2911 291. 2 2909 2818 2612 2806 2900 3318 3312 330E 3300 3224 3218 i8 / 901 271 a 6224 am 3212 3206 AS r • r . • 3024 y ! ..- b r. f • . • • • • 3200 3112 6218 6219 r r O ♦ . . `�' • • • - 4 - v • J. I 31 19 , 3013 3001 622! 2915 291_ 2901 2901 2819 281_ 2801 8249 3307 3301 . 2 3319 3315 0212 6213 3219 3213 • • + — _� .-- • 3207. 3201 • • 3012 300E 0219 2917 291: 2909 290E 2816 201. 280E 2600 OZ 62Oi! 620a a207 3113 • ..r! • r r 3316 3312 3306 3300 3107 • I .1.. 3224 3101 70 3IDOl 3412 3400 3218 3031 . • • � � � �.✓ . a • 3212 3206 3025 . 62 3019 -- —e — f - —> - w • " 3200 3013 � 31 3118 3007 6215 0200 291. 2907 2901 2619 6229 . �. • 0142 3507 � • � 331D 3313 330 ' 3501 3 3401 3112 4 \ 3301 3219 ♦ 1 3106 3413 32f � . 3100 30}2 3006 300E x201 62IX 11211 621E 0219 . \ 6136 6137 3318 3312 3306 1 3127 • . • . •� 3300 3224 3119 • r r 8221 • • 3218 3113 3107 1 3206 3102 0120 3313 , 3200 303 3001 J118 311 O 8117 3311 I ` 3219 4 3101 6113 6120 • � • • • ' 6110 13 • 0 3105 6107 0109 3309 Of • �' .3 4 7 311 31 11103 • ` 0100 4 3207 {{ 3121 I ! . J ♦ `° _. 3318 331 321 321 3209 3 11 311 3106 3 301 30 1 8101 Q04 •S� ST ) I . l � � :�°! �, . . 6044 8037 3319 6023 6024 3107 3101 3009 3001 . . UO25 0018 0019 6018 0019 0031 6018 dots 6018 6012 6013 W12 6013. 0012 6013 W12 0013 0012 r_ 0025 6006 0007 0000 0007 eM I I. I 0007 0066 ease aoo . � . � �`- 6007 MINUTES HRG.BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 2, 2001 CRYSTAL CITY OFFICES 4141 DOUGLAS DRIVE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 1:15 P.M.. BY ANNE NORRIS, BOARD CHAIR Present: Director - Dan Donahue - New Hope Director - Jim Glasoe Chair - Anne Norris Administrator - Marilynn Corcoran APPROVAL OF April 11, 2001 MINUTES - Motion by Dan Donahue, Second by Jim Glasoe to Approve minutes as presented. - 3 ayes - MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS • Curbside Contract — Marilynn reported to the Board that she had received a written proposal in letter form from Waste Management offering $.20 cost per month per household increase, or from $2.05 to $2.25 per month, if HRG were to elect to extend the existing contract and expand the cart, single sort pilot program city -wide. Included in this offer is that Waste Management would agree to provide, deliver and maintain all carts, collect recyclables every- other- week with the automated system, and process and market all recyclables. Marilynn indicated that Waste Mgt. suggested they would be interested in a five year contract to amortize their capital investment in carts and new collection vehicles. • All Board members were interested in the 5 -year but requested clarification as to whether the $.20 per month would be good for the entire five year term. Marilynn stated she would verify that information. She would also verify that HRG would have no purchase of carts. All Board members were in favor of moving ahead with program wide cart recycling and will schedule meetings with each council to gather their support as well. Their would be a minimum annual cost savings of $5,.000 that now is being spent on purchase of bins. • Annual Curbside Proposal - Marilynn reported that Waste Management had presented, in writing, their interest in expanding the scope of the recycling contract to include a once —per -year, curbside cleanup collection throughout each HRG city. She presented cost and program information from the Bloomington program and that Waste Management presented an offer to HRG to match the cost per household that Bloomington is paying BFI for same /similar program. All Board members were very interested. Brooklyn Center requested that HRG Administrator, Marilynn meet with their council and manager at a work session to discuss this service level and answer any questions and concerns prior to developing a new contract. All cities agreed to do the same and will schedule meetings asap. If this program were added there would be no need for the two "Special Materials" drop -off days which would be a budget savings to HRG of $13,600 and New Hope would be able to discontinue their spring cleanup which costs their general fund $20,000. Note: Cost Analysis — Recycling /Solid Waste 2002 and Beyond Current RS Charge (21,658 households) $2.15 per household /month $2.05 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained by each city for billing administration $2.15 /month = $25.80 /year continued r Proposed Charge with Cart Program $2.25 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration $2.35 /month = $28.20 /year Proposed Charge with Existing Bin Program and Cleanup $2.05 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration 1.12 Cleanup cost $3.27 /month = $39.24 /year Proposed Charge with Cart Program and Cleanup $2.25 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration 1.12 Cleanup cost $3.47 /month (recommend rounding to $3.50) _ $42.00 /year Board Member Dan Donahue suggested that the Board consider absorbing some of the increase for both the cart and cleanup program by spending down the HRG reserve fund, at least the first and maybe second year of the program, rather than passing the entire increase immediately to the resident on their utility bill ($2.15 to $3.50 or increase of $1.35 per month). The Board recommends that HRG negotiate the city-wide implementation of the cart program and include in the negotiation of a once - per -year city -wide cleanup collection of selected materials. Meetings will be held with each city council to discuss this recommendation. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Crystal Iwo • New Hope Hennepin Recycling Group o Brooklyn Center 5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 (763) 493 -8006 November, 2000 Dear Resident, CONGRATULATIONS! YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN A NEW AND INOVATIVE RECYCLING PROGRAM! Your City, as a member of the "HRG" HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP cities of Crystal, New Hope and Brooklyn Center, has received a grant from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to study a new recycling collection system in three HRG neighborhoods. There will be NO extra cost to you or to your city for this study. This system will be the first of its kind in the mid -west, and if proven successful and popular, may be expanded citywide. Your Mayor and Council and the "HRG" Board of Directors ask that you cooperate with "HRG" administration and Waste Management, our program contractor, during this pilot study period in order that we have a successful study. Please read and follow all information and instructions carefully. You will be sent a calendar magnet that will serve as a convenient reminder of your every- other -week day for recycling, and it will list the convenient rules for recycling materials. All questions and comments should be directed to Marilynn Corcoran, HRG program administrator, 763 -493 -8006. Beginning the last week in January and first week in February 2001 you will be delivered a mid -size, 64 gallon heavy duty green "RECYCLEMOBILE" cart with a hinged lid and wheels, similar to the common seen garbage cart. It will be labeled with recycling instructions. USE IT IN PLACE OF YOUR GREEN RECYCLING BIN. The larger size should allow you to easily contain two weeks recyclables. The footprint or floor space required to store it should be very little larger than your current green bin. Collection in the pilot areas in Crystal and New Hope will begin Wednesday, February 28 and in Brooklyn Center, Thursday March 1. Your recycling will be collected every-other -week on your regular garbage day the months of March, April, May and June and may be extended, if deemed necessary. Please place all of your acceptable recyclable containers (clean glass jars, metal cans and narrow neck plastic bottles), and all acceptable paper fiber (newspaper, junk mail, magazines, paper board), loose, directly into the cart. Every-other -week you will then roll your cart to the curb, placing it on the opposite side of driveway from your garbage container, with front facing street and handle facing your house. Your cart will be mechanically emptied by a special collection truck equipped with a mechanical lift arm. Recyclables will be taken to a new sorting facility where the material will continue to be sorted, weighed, measured and prepared for shipment to processing facilities to be re- manufactured into new items. The objective of this pilot project is to introduce and test a new and innovative collection system to the area that hopefully will prove to be convenient and user friendly, increase waste reduction and participation and reduce truck traffic as we continue to ... REDUCE — REUSE — RECYCLE At the conclusion of the pilot project you will receive a survey. Your response and comments will aide us in the evaluation of the new co- mingled automated roll cart system and the change from every week service to every- other -week service. We will carefully evaluate any increase or decrease in participation, increase or decrease in the amount of material recycled and overall acceptance by you and your neighbors to the new program. Operating and collection issues will be carefully evaluated, measuring time to collect, difficulty in sorting the co- mingled materials, how much contamination or unacceptable materials are collected compared to the current weekly two -sort bin system. The Crystal pilot area has 195 households and includes the south 1/2 of 47 Ave. from Nevada to Hampshire; the east 1/2 of Nevada from 47 to 45 the north 1/2 of 45 from Nevada to Hampshire; and the west 1/2 of Hampshire from 47 to 45 The New Hope pilot area has 195 households and includes the south 1/2 of 49 Ave. from Erickson Drive to Boone; all of Erickson Drive; 47 Avenue from Hwy#169 to Boone; and the west 1/2 of Boone from 49 to 47 The Brooklyn Center area has 226 households and includes the south 1/2 of 63` from the back lot line of Chowen to the back lot line of Brooklyn Drive; Chowen South to 62nd. 62nd. east to the back lot line of Beard south to 61 st ; the north 1/2 of 61 st from Beard to Xerxes; the west 1/2 of Xerxes from 61 st to 62 "d ; 62 "d . east to Brooklyn Drive; Brooklyn Drive from 62 "d . to 63` F ff you plan to be away from your residence during any part of this pilot project (January through June), or if you have special needs such as handicap or language barrier, please contact administration at 763 - 493 -8006, Marilynn and special arrangements will be made. Thank you for your cooperation. We are enthusiastically looking forward to a successful project! Sincerely, -- -�-\ "HRG" Board of DirJtors & Waste Management Marilynn Corcoran — Administrator • Crystal two' • New Hope Hennepin Recycling Group - Brooklyn Center 5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 (763) 493 -8006 RECYCLE "MO "BILE IS COMING SOON TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD...o , Between February 1 and February 9 o o O We will be Delivering to you a Recycle "MO" bile" Green cart on wheels, just in time for the kick -off of the i ONE -SORT, EVERY -OTHER WEEK - r-- pilot recycling collection program. Collection will begin in the Crystal and in the New Hope pilot areas on Wednesday, February 28, and will begin �../ Thursday March 1 in the Brooklyn Center area. Attached to your cart will be a plastic re- useable litter bag containing a refrigerator magnet that will have program instructions, a calendar of the dates for collection and telephone numbers for your questions. Please review all materials carefully. Recycle i °MO" bile" should be set at the curb by 6:30 a.m. on your collection day with handle facing the house, across the driveway from the garbage cart. If you have questions about the program or about customer service issues, please call 763- 493 -8006. NOTE: Your garbage will continue to be collected WEEKLY on your regular (� service day. Only your recycling will be EVERY -OTHER WEEK. �• ; This is a cooperative pilot program of "HRG ", Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and Waste Management. YES HRG Hennepin Recycling Group NO •Glass Bottles do Jars Crystal • New Hope • Brooklyn Center • pa ate ' d ' • Meat of dairy plastic or paper • Metal Beverage and food cans „ pa ckagi ng • Plastic Bottles with narrow neck • Wax or plastic wrap or bags �� • i • Paper from news, magazines, .w� p ° • Freezer food packaging • Plastic deli produce or take - junk mail, Dry non - coated food , Pr paper bcodmard, small flat r oil packaging or utensils pieces of corrugated - l • Plastic baps or wrapping Im cardboard book material. 0 • Formed or pellet styrofoam packaging TOGETHER - LOOSE - MIXED tt va" o7HM tNaK 7" roll • Window glass, ceramics or INSIDE "RECYCLEMOBILE" CART PLAY Al INISTRATION And vne to O � � t � dishware, mirrors, tight bulbs (763) 493 -8007 street handle lounindIn hawse. G • Crystal , w in H R • New Hope Hennepin Recycling Group • Brooklyn Center 5200 85th avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 (763) 493 -8006 "HRG" RecycleMobile Pilot Program Survey Please circle one choice only: How would you rate the: very Poor Fair Good Good Excellent NA 1. The "RecycleMobile" Program overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. The Cart 1 2 3 4 5 6 Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ease in set- out at curb 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 Storage 3. One -Sort Recycling System 1 2 3 4 5 6 J 4. Every other week service 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Education Pieces/Communication with Residents Refrigerator Magnet 1 2 3 4 5 6 Introductory Letters 1 2 3 4 5 6 Follow -up Letters 1 2 3 4 5 6 Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Appearance of your Neighborhood Carts. set at curb recycling week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Off Week storage of carts 1 2 3 4 5 6 Litter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Recycling Collection truck 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fewer truck trips (every-other week) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Noise 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Customer Service Administration 1 2 3 4 5 6 Driver /Contractor 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Service Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 Over Less Same More 10. With the "RecycleMobile Cart program 1 recycle Frequency Less Same More Quantity Less Same More 11. I support implementing the "RecycleMobile" cart program permanently YES NO 12 Even if it meant that my Recycling Service charge would be YES NO slightly higher 13. I prefer the every-week small bin program YES NO Comments r J OPTIONAL: Name Address Telephone Number PLEASE RETURNSURVEYIN THE ENCLOSED SELFADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE BY MAY25, 2001 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and return it to our Administrative Office. Your input is important to us and will be strongly considered when we make our decisions regarding this new and innovative program. Careful monitoring of participation and recyclable materials quantities has been recorded throughout the term of the pilot and that information will also be strongly considered. Sincerely, "HRG" Board of Directors. If you have any questions regarding this survey or the "RecycleMobile" program and its future, please contact Marilynn at 763 - 493 -8007. Cr r�'J N""v Hope Iwo' HRGHennepin RC_c'y'chnu�-, " - Bilooklyn '-wer 5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, ININ 55 �76 - "HRG" RecycleMobile Pilot Program Survey Please circle one choice only: How would you rate the: Very Poor Fair Good Good Excellent NA 1. The "RecycleMobile" Program overall 1 2 3 4 G:) 6 2. The Cart 1 2 3 4 (5 6 Size 1 2 3 4 <N 6 Ease in set- out at curb 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quality 1 2 3 4 Ull 6 Storage 3. One-Sort Recycling System 1 2 3 4 6 4. Every other week service 1 2 3 4 6 5. Ed ucation Pieces/Communication with Residents Refrigerator Magnet 1 2 3 4 6 Introductory Letters 1 2 3 4 6 Follow-up Letters 1 2 3 4 6 Survey 1 2 3 4 5i 6 6. Appearance of your Neighborhood Carts set at curb recycling week 1 2 3 4 5% 6 Off Week storage of carts 1 2 3 4 5 6 Litter 1 2 3 4 5 6 ) 7. Recycling Collection truck 1 2 3 4 S i 6 Fewer truck trips (every-other week) 1 2 3 4 5j 6 Noise 1 2 3 4 5j 6 8. Customer Service Administration 1 2 3 4 6 Driver/Contractor 1 2 3 4 6 9. Service Reliability 1 2 3 4 � 6 0 Over Less Same More 10. With the "RecycleMobile Cart program I recycle Frequency Le Same More. Quantity Less Same Mop 11. I support implementing the "RecycleMobile" cart program permanently YE' NO 12 Even if it meant that my Recycling Service charge would be YES NO slightly higher 13. I prefer the every -week small bin program NO :: f Comments C . tr �i � ,� is � ' `� �' �v� , �,. L'G'.�� !`,�1s i Ln 11-2 OPTIONAL: ' Name V, 4-(�Irn,:;d %HIV? wi t° Address '7r.>i 5 - - Telephone Number PLEASE RETURN SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED SELFADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE BY MAY 25, 2001 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and return it to our Administrative Office. Your input is important to us and will be strongly considered when we make our decisions regarding this new and innovative program. Careful monitoring of participation and recyclable materials quantities has been recorded throughout the term of the pilot and that information will also be strongly considered. Sincerely, "HRG " Board of Directors. If you have any questions regarding this survey or the "RecycleMobile" program and its future, please contact Marilynn at 763 - 493 -8007. C Crystal 'Nik�w Hope HR .I e i r, ec)` Rt�cy c I ing G rOUD Brooklyn Ccnter ` 8th A%ntie Nort' Brooklyn Park, 55444 (763' 493-8006 "HRG" RecycleMobile Pilot Program Survey Please circle one choice only: How would you rate the: Very Poor Fair Good Good Excellent NA 1. The "RecycleMobile" Program overall 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 2. The Cart 1 2 3 5_ 6 Size 1 2 3 4 <W 6 Ease in set- out at curb 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appearance 1 2 3 4 6 Quality 1 2 3 45 6 Storage 3. One-Sort Recycling System 1 2 3 4 6 U- 4. Every other week service 1 2 3 4 01 6 5. Education Pieces/Communication with Residents % Refrigerator Magnet 1 2 3 4 5 6 Introductory Letters 1 2 3 4 6 Follow-up Letters 1 2 3 4 6 Survey 1 2 3 4 6 6. Appearance of your Neighborhood Carts set at curb recycling week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Off Week storage of carts 1 2 3 4 6 Litter 1 2 3 4 6 7. Recycling Collection truck 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fewer truck trips (every-other week) 1 2 3 4 6 Noise 1 2 3 5 6 8. Customer Service Administration 1 2 3 4 5 Driver/Contractor 1 2 3 4 5 9. Service Reliability 1 2 3 4 6 Over Less Same More 10. With the "RecycleMobile Cart program I recycle _ Frequency Less ' More Quantity Less Etam e ,' More 11. I support implementing the "RecycleMobile" cart program permanently YES NO 12 Even if it meant that my Recycling Service charge would be YES NO } slightly higher 13. I prefer the every-week small bin program YES O Comments i ✓ I / J i . / i' _i � ' �? ri -fC /1 i' . ✓ ,�$-7 ✓' 1 f r P I -t J ! L.f� v' .G f'h'� �..i _ is i'. �� t" OPTIONAL: C< <' L i ts Ce e , ;� .r - �� c- L ,• �� Lt e h Namei1., i Address Telephone Number />'?) - / 7/ PLEASE RETURN SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED SELFADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE BY MAY 25, 2001 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and return it to our Administrative Office. Your input is important to us and will be strongly considered when we make our decisions regarding this new and innovative program. Careful monitoring of participation and recyclable materials quantities has been recorded throughout the term of the pilot and that information will also be strongly considered. Sincerely, "HRG" Board of Directors. If you have any questions regarding this survey or the "RecycleMobile" program and its future, please contact Marilynn at 763- 493 -8007. Crystal New Hope HRG Hennepin Recycling Group Brooklyn Center 5200 85th A'kienue North, Brooklyn Park, .`554-44 1, 763) 49 "HRG" RecycleMobile Pilot Program Survey Please circle one choice only: How would you rate the: Very Poor Fair Good Good Excellent NA 1. The "RecycleMobile" Program overall 1 2 (39 4 5 6 2. The Cart ._'I '� u I (r- I S2, 3 4 5 6 Size 1 3 4 5 6 Ease in set- out at curb 1 2 3. 4 5 6 Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 Storage r 3. One-Sort Recycling System 1 2 3 5 6 4. Every other week service 1 2 3 5 6 5. Education Pieces/Communication with Residents Refrigerator Magnet 1 2 4 5 6 Introductory Letters 1 2 4 5 6 Follow-up Letters 1 2 4 5 6 Survey 1 2 4 5 6 6. Appearance of your Neighborhood Carts set at curb recycling week 1 2 3 C 5 6 Off Week storage of carts 1 2 4 5 6 Litter 1 2 4 5 6 7. Recycling Collection truck 1 2 3 -4-, 5 6 Fewer truck trips (every-other week) 1 2 3 5 6 Noise 1 2 3 �_4.% 5 6 8. Customer Service Administration 1 2 3 5 6 Driver/Contractor 1 2 3 �, 5 6 9. Service Reliability 1 2 3 5 6 Over Less Same More 10. With the "RecycleMobile Cart program I recycle Frequency Less Same; More Quantity Less t Same More 11. I support implementing the "RecycleMobile" cart program permanently YES` NO 12 Even if it meant that my Recycling Service charge would be YES. , NO slightly higher ..... 13. 1 prefer the every-week small bin program YES 4' NO Comments OPTIONAL: Name Address Telephone Number PLEASE RETURN SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED SELFADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE BY MAY 25, 2001 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and return it to our Administrative Office. Your input is important to us and will be strongly considered when we make our decisions regarding this new and innovative program. Careful monitoring of participation and recyclable materials quantities has been recorded throughout the term of the pilot and that information will also be strongly considered. Sincerely, "HRG" Board of Directors. If you have any questions regarding this survey or the "RecycleMobile" program and its future, please contact Marilynn at 763- 493 -8007. I "HRG Household Count (21,658) Crystal (7,694), New Hope (5,136), Brooklyn Center (8,228) Cost Analysis — Recycling /Solid Waste Proposed Program 2002 and Beyond Current 18 gallon bin collected weekly — two sort $2.15 per household/month $2.05 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained by each city for billing administration $2.15 /month = $25.80 /year Proposed Cart Program 60 gallon cart collected hi-weekly-one sort $2.25 Contract Cost .05 Administration - yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration $2.35 /month = $28.20 /year Proposed current 18 gallon bin collected weekly but adding annual curbside community cleanup $2.05 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration 1.12 Cleanup cost $3.27 /month = $39.24 /year Proposed 60 gallon bi- weekly 60 gallon cart program and added annual curbside community cleanup $2.25 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration 1.12 Cleanup cost $3.47 /month (recommend rounding to $3.50) = $42.00 /year I: \RECYCLE \WPFILES \HRG\2001 contract Cost Analysis.doc 5 -14 -01 PROPOSAL to Add "HRG" ANNUAL CITY WIDE CLEAN -UP COLLECTION Background: Code enforcement issues and residents general desire to clean- up their lots and households have brought forward many inquiries about how we could make it easier and more convenient for people to get rid of stuff, especially those residents who may not have equipment or vehicles, or be physically able to haul to a special drop -off site. The "HRG' cities have provided their residents a drop -off for certain materials since the program began in 1989 and have participated for the last six years in a four -city "Special Materials" drop -off day which has been very successful, taking many materials in for recycling and re- processing. In addition to the "Special Materials" event, New Hope has also had a drop -off at their Public Works facility for certain debris type materials. The cost to "HRG" for the special materials events is $14.000 and the cost to New Hope for their drop -off day is approximately $20,000 annually. This proposed curbside program would collect items that are not now accepted at "Special Materials" and would divert some of the "Special Materials" items to the Hennepin Transfer Station in Brooklyn Park and other sites in NW Hennepin County. Waste Management, the contractor providing the curbside collection for recyclables, has offered to add, for a fee of approximately $13.00 per year (still to be negotiated) a new component to the contract that would expand the current service level to include a once -a -year curbside, by zone, of items such as • General junk • Carpet and pad • Lumber • Mattress /box spring • Scrap metal • Appliances (Limit 2) • Unusable furniture Construction materials • Brush All acceptable items would have detailed weight limit instructions, size limitations, preparation rules etc. This is not a new idea but modeled after a program that has been ongoing in the City of Bloomington since 1998 (4 years), with great acceptance and success. (see attached Bloomington information.) The dynamics, demographics, housing stock etc. are enough similar to make fair comparisons. , Possible Outcomes: • The challenge now heard from residents when asked to clean -up would be neutralized because the service would be available every year. • Residents would plan for clean -up collection and city staff could use this opportunity to positively encourage all residents to participate through the use of newsletters, cable TV, special information flyers, local newspapers. • Neighbors would help each other in getting materials to the curb for collection • The benefit would for all — a cleaner neighborhood, and the cost would be shared equitably. • All residents of all abilities would be able to access this service. Possible Negatives: • Junk left at the curb for longer than the designated week of collection. (Bloomington has a mechanism for ticketing non - compliance) • Junk from other cities being brought in. (With many cities now providing this service, particularly neighboring cities, this issues should be minimized) • Residents angry about having to pay for a service they claim they will not need. (Bloomington has found that, after the first year, those claims disappear because everyone has something to get rid of sometime. This year participation has shown to be 82% of households setting items out for collection). The City of Bloomington went out for bid and awarded the curbside cleanup to their hauler of choice because they do not have a contract with a contract hauler for curbside recycling collection. Bloomington's 27,418 single - family homes and town homes all receive this service and all homes are charged as a utility a fee of $9.00 per year, with additional subsidy from the City. Funding: (See attached "Cost Analysis ") It is suggested that this program be considered to be added to the contract to be negotiated for years 2002 -2006, and that it be funded by an increase of approximately $1.12 in the monthly "RS" charge, either for the entire amount of the contract cost, and /or use some of the "RS" reserve funds to pay a portion of the annual cost, reducing the increase added to all residential utility bills. Attachments: Copy of Bloomington Program Brochure Cost Analysis Work Sheet } Co Zones L i BROOKLYN PARK B� 73RD AVENUE OP T 94 BROOKLYN BROOKLYN PARK CENTER a _ 62ND AVENUE e<6� Ln � Z R N U O CP m 53RD AVENUE LU g . NE W X Id OPE 42ND AVENUE I ROBB INS - GALE 0 _j 27TH AVE MED LKI RD Crystal/New Hope Monday: West of Brooklyn Center/Robbinsdale Boundary, North of Medicine Lake Road, East of Douglas Drive County Road 81, South of 62nd Avenue. Tuesday: West of Douglas Drive, North of Medicine Lake Road, East of Highway 169, South of 42nd Avenue. Wednesday: West of Douglas Drive /County Road 81, North of 42nd Avenue, East of Highway 169, South of 62nd Avenue North. Brooklyn Center Thursday: West of Brooklyn Boulevard /I -94 /Hwy 100, North of Robbinsdale Boundary, East of Noble /Brooklyn Park Boundary, South of 73rd. Friday: West of Mississippi, North of 53rd, East of Hwy 100/1 -94 /Brooklyn Boulevard, South of 73rd. Q b vs C' U, :.0 US1Cil s�APPKQV ga -y __1999 k "k, b' y" -, t& We 9 ;resident vvho jw "R Cu, bside: sid fa ,, single Curb q9U ar-, " h ""'&WO - '0 GOT ;tras P is -a oca ton L t' 7, b -pick-tipjs, -pick p. gNand ys� ity '� . - SatUr qy. tu r4, ay: , tj] * ' ' ��Js."� 'd, S a cyc ��g �_Y' � m4y Part (L" August 8 East of Portland -h T ues ay August 15 une L12 4 Portland to Penn j & Pehn'to France,- - qn(;sciay :August'22 Tvi W , Th ay rs.. 4y'� 'd A ugust 29 be ' Th - 'P . P France to Normandale 19 � 'dA September - West of Norma dal F 'd thi ih�! AR49 cte n e y R - k , :� - - 1 -111: "..' ORd , � " " Waist' T WC U "911 ....... 0 6 4. .. .. before 14T materials -o rnore:� than two a4y; befoi Do'n6t put U_ ca o i ry Residents ;;:If YO 22 W--ee ' scheduled. ick- p "'tt ou ,ea y ' e ore • 6 atticl at 7 a.m_ • �"g' gi p M bl' Set ffi4icrials th'' 6ry y6ii�- c urb sid e; . -: R e cur pic k A .iO 'id ouraassaclatlon _P;K _ay MM;_ Y - �_jniffi 0 1 _-Y agernep �.cpMpap khedul6 _T' ks -on '6n i - ysee U - 00�4y."'.0r,"i . . . ...... ruc :W1 _koit rdog, y ovwe -Ml please -ca �your up�"l � , ... - '..; __ - -' �` IF You, ss. your- curb�ide'pick- y If _y� f s h "k up your., refuse for a'fee'_. ys Senior or residents �vho` :arm disabled. Unable tv:hand� the If regular trash �h' - .wi h au ev w 6 pic ha'v'e., questions, jil6is call` the tit y of you toomington7s Recyelihg-Divisi ri B (612)9 C o n tact " C 48-8750.� P" , ord(inatt _H tiniA e' S pf 39 - d dths"i e pic 7up n SI.Ve x e Ine X T 9 • cc HRG ff Household Count (21,658) Crystal (7,694), New Hope (5,136), Brooklyn Center (8,228) Cost Analysis — Recycling /Solid Waste Proposed Program 2002 and Beyond Current 18 gallon bin collected weekly — two sort $2.15 per household/month $2.05 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained by each city for billing administration $2.15 /month = $25.80 /year Proposed Cart Program 60 gallon cart collected bi- weekly -one sort $2.25 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration $2.35 /month = $28.20 /year Proposed current 18 gallon bin collected weekly but adding annual curbside community cleanup $2.05 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration 1.12 Cleanup cost $3.27 /month = $39.24 /year Proposed 60 gallon bi- weekly 60 gallon cart program and added annual curbside community cleanup $2.25 Contract Cost .05 Administration — yard waste, public education, bins .05 Retained for each city for billing administration 1.12 Cleanup cost $3.47 /month (recommend rounding to $3.50) = $42.00 /year I:\RECYCLE \WPFILES \HRG\2001 contract Cost Analysis.doc -*a' ° ,xTd- —+ 3 I. �;if•`s. 1- A .s ' m3 .'s .».� r a A vat I y ,Cs x �av eX rs s 'i,a• a .{ t 1 '> a ; ♦ General junk: No household trash such as food. Boxed or = bundled = under, 100 pounds per item. ♦ Hazardous waste: Motor - Carpets /carpet pads: . oil, paints, solvents and _ �l''j `:. Rolled and securely other household chemical y tied. s. i� g an five , r =" ' ♦ Tires and batteries. No lon th feet ;' ' _ ♦ Electronic -_ and no rider than gods: TVs, one : � . _ - � g foot. in diameter: = larger -� computers stereos. i ♦ Recyclable - materials: " rolls cause handling problems. Bottles, cans, paper. �► Lumber: ' Shack and .bend nai15.. *Gas appliances-_ Camper:' ;IV6 longer than five feet and .other refrigerators, air 1�To railroad ties. conditioners Call ahead`, (612)348 - 5445. 1Vlattresses / box springs. Hennepin Coasnty Pxoblem Scra 'ri etal such as chain .lint fences: and b hlate� Center P 1400 Wi>st 96tb Street; Prefers-ed option. -- recycle :scrap. metal and take it to: the (61 -8984 Hennepin County Problem .Materials Center: Hozc rs: ' Ti i t - Fri clay, r 10 a. in 6 P . in. Sattcrdix T. A 1'ancesc Refri e 'at stoves, p � t ors 'washers ' dryers, sto s PP g � , microwaves, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, Limited`to two 8 a."'. 4 p.m_ ltances er:house.'For ic, -ti or "tnore in ormation, fee. is cbaJaed forsorrt a e. PP P p' f items, such as tires, appli= call (610930 - 1828 by 4: 30 p.t4. the Friday be/bre'vour ances and brush. pick-Zip date. • : - .. '. ialp�ihtl�lal {lilliL�llili - Unusable furni E 8' ♦Asbestos shin les /sidin ture: 'Disassemble 4 g . g: 2' ., - r : <,;n - Pine Bend Landfill, hide a way beds so. the k • - <: - ", Int. Gro.z7 . Hei hts �. g F: cannot open during hari d hll - (612)457 -2� 78 Q g , 11 A 1111411111 ii l l+i i �. Construction ♦ Concrete/brick s materials Pile lim- ♦ Porcelain (Tubs, sinks) ited to what can fit ♦ Shingles (No asbestos)_' - -_ " in a level standard- ;_ Kraemers Landfill, size pickup truck. - Burnsville, (612)890 3248 No "contractor materials.. ♦ Propane tanks ♦ Brush: Smaller than four inches in diameter; bundled in � Natrngars, (612)529 -9276 five foot lengths. _ All fluids must be drained from items to be collected. ", Stumps =_ SIiB, SbOkopee, (61 ?; 445 -5247 y J`• 1� # A 3 1 ' yj' - r:'R:.: �, ..- , zz;• �-yr _ . L a� s c lipping s , - - e e. - Rt - -.. _ J ! s -� }- - J T sod - - -J' -33Zs� _ Compo � of S t g' 3 BUrns: �ir'1 - ,16.12)890 -3611 'VI 1 r 2001 City Council Goals Goals are not in any order of priority. Goal is Support Brookdale Redevelopment By: • review and use of tax increment assistance • evaluation of land use applications • prompt construction and plan review /inspection • monitoring developer performance Goal 2: Continue and Improve Code Enforcement and Compliance Activities By: • coordinated efforts of the police and community development departments • increased effort and focus on high - density areas, while continuing neighborhood enforcement • continuing to evaluate additional approaches to achieving improved Goal 3: Increased Proactivity Towards Fighting Crime By: • increased visibility of police in neighborhoods and apartment complexes • continuing and expanding the participation rate in Neighborhood Watch programs • including public safety information in all City newsletters Goal 4: Actively Support Northeast Corner of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment By: • exploring responsible and credibly - financed development proposals • ensuring that plans support the long -term goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal 5: Continue Planning For and Beginning Construction of Community Center and City Hall Work By: • developing final designs and cost estimates for the project • moving towards substantial construction of the project in 2001 Goal 6: Continue and Implement Long -Term Financial Planning By: • continued five -year planning for utilities and capital improvements • continuing/expanding five -year planning for other funds • reviewing and developing contingency planning • moving toward development of two to three year budget projections for the City • continuing to evaluate City priorities Goal 7: Support and Promote Major Road and Street Improvement Projects By: • starting the Brooklyn Boulevard project with the county in the year 2001 (completion in the year 2002) • Highway 100: - continuing to support and participate in the North Metro Mayor's Highway 100 Council - keeping project schedule with Mn/DOT • supporting and participating in the Highway 694 widening project, with improved sound walls, by Mn/DOT - supporting other arterial enhancements as opportunities arise Goal 8: Plan for Destination Parks By: • development of a specific financial plan for destination park improvements in the Capital Improvement Plan Goal 9: Support and Expand Joslyn Site Development By: • working with the developer to complete phases II and III • measuring compatibility of the proposed France Avenue routing with neighborhood /development Goal 10: Continue Traffic Calming Efforts and Expand Information Available to the Public By: • continuing enforcement efforts through multiple resources • continuing and expanding information to the public on traffic safety and calming efforts Goal 11: Special Visioning Project to Create a Redevelopment Strategy Based on the City's Vision For the Future and Developing Opportunities to Promote Inclusion of ALL Residents in Brooklyn Center's Community Life By: • undertaking accomplishment of this goal in the Central Business District with the use of consultants who would facilitate public meetings and perform studies that would assist the City Council in developing a framework Nlill 0 COMPANY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 23, 2001 SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY PARTICIPANTS Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. January 24, 2001 © Neu and Company and the Center for the Future of Local Governance TM, 2001 � r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 23, 2001 SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE PARTICIPANTS Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. January 24, 2001 I. INTRODUCTION On January 23, 2001, the members of the City Council, City Manager, and Assistant City Manager participated in a City Council Workshop. This workshop provided an opportunity for the participants to review the overall performance of the Council, the goals established for the year 2001, and the processes to be used for the annual goal- setting session set for August 11, 2001, and providing new Council- member orientation after the election on May 1 st to fill a vacancy on the Council. A copy of the Workshop Agenda and participant materials is attached as Appendix A. II. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS A. General Team Building: Review of Council Performance and Relationships 1. Council Performance: effectiveness in addressing and resolving issues. Council members were asked to identify those areas where issues have been addressed and resolved effectively and those areas where attempts to address and resolve issues may have encountered obstacles or seem to be floundering. 1 i Items Addressed and Resolved Issues Where Obstacles or Effectivelv Frustrations were Encountered • Big picture goals • Brookdale established,communicated, and being achieved • Citizen concerns seem to Old Police Department/ be moving away from big Community Center issue items toward smaller issues and concerns indicating that citizen confidence is growing because Council is seen to be addressing big issues • Citizen satisfaction seems • 69th and Brooklyn to be on the increase with Boulevard fewer complaints being received and greater focus being given by the citizens to City projects • Overall, the City is seen to Redefining the dog be "working well' ordinance • Responding and listening to citizen input • Impact on staff time resulting from "smaller issues" • Long -term financial picture /framework • Appropriate staff alignments 2 • Review of Boards and Commissions in terms of making them more effective consistent with City needs and opportunities for citizen participation 2. Discussion pertaining to issues identified above that have not been addressed or resolved completely or have encountered certain obstacles. The following observations were made to some of the issues identified above that have encountered obstacles or have not been completed fully. a. Brookdale Essentially this is seen as the City being "locked in" to an agreement in which a number of the elements affecting the future of Brookdale are not under the City's direct control. Secondly, the City is seen not to have a long -term exit strategy relative to the Brookdale issue. b. Old Police Department /Community Center Basically, the factors are: • There is a fixed amount of money allocated by Council to deal with the remodeling of the old Police Department and Community Center. • There are a number of unknowns and what if's that will affect potential outcomes, designs, and choices. C. 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard The following factors were identified: • Until construction is done on the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard intersection, it is hard to address issues with high levels of confidence pertaining to land use and other factors that will occur in the area. 3 • It may be appropriate "to wait" until the Boulevard construction is done before addressing subsequent issues affecting the area. d. Redefining the dog ordinance The primary issue here seems to be two -fold: • Council's comfort levels with various options available to it • Establishing a definite number of animals permitted per household • Council needs to resolve this issue quickly. The other issues on the list were discussed briefly with no specific conclusions reached as to how the issue may be resolved more quickly. 3. Working Relationships Within Council Basically, the Council members were unanimous in their conclusion that working relationships within the Council are seen as being "good ". Factors that indicate relationships are going well include: • A definite lack of partisanship within the Council • The Council's commitment to civility • Council's focus on "big picture" items. A primary factor that could affect the working relationship in the future is the introduction of a new Council member who will be elected on May 1 to fill a vacancy. This item is not seen as a negative, but a realization that whenever a new member comes into the Council, there is a period of accommodation and establishing new working relationships among all five Council members. B. Review of 2001 Goals and Approaches to Implementation The City Manager reviewed briefly the 11 goals adopted by the City Council for the year 2001. It was concluded, generally, that the goals and implementation steps were appropriate. Additional comments were made relative to three goals: 4 1. Goal No. 1: The Council would like to have more proactive "monitoring" of developer performance relative to progress being made on Brookdale. It was recommended that this monitoring might consist of a monthly report outlining specific progress being made. 2. Goal No. 5: This goal deals with construction of the community center and city hall. Much of the discussion relative to this is outlined above in this report. 3. Goal No. 10: This goal focuses on traffic calming efforts to be carried out throughout the City. The City Manager indicated a need for more specific information from the Police Department so that measurable and reportable efforts and plans could be established by which the Council and community could evaluate improvements being achieved relative to the implementation of this goal. C. Discussion of Annual Goal- Setting Session An outline of the process that was used for establishing goals for the year 2001 was reviewed. Council concluded that the same format for establishing goals should be used at the August 11, 2001, goal- setting session. D. New Council Member Orientation Council members concluded that the policies and procedures established for providing information to Council member candidates and newly - elected Council members should be the same as used for Council elections conducted in November, 2000. E. District 286 Elementary School and Grand View Park The City Manager presented some conceptual ideas pertaining to how the City and the School District could work together to create constructive options beneficial to both jurisdictions. Council concluded that the Manager should explore these options with the District and report back as to what opportunities have been identified warranting future consideration by the City and the School District. 5 L I APPENDIX A I I I 6 I I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 23, 2001 2:00 - 8:00 p.m. WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. General Team Building a. Approaches to issues as a Council i. How are we doing? ii. What would we like to be doing? 2. Review 2001 Goals and approaches to implementation a. Council roles in achieving b. Staff roles 3. Discussion of annual goal setting session a. Format from last year b. Any changes /additions 4. New Council Member orientation a. Guidelines for providing information to Council candidates b. New Council Member orientation C. Staff information to be assembled and provided to the new Council Member 5. District 286 elementary school and Grandview Park 6. Other issues 7 Excerpt from January 8, 2001, City Council minutes: 9e. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS OF COUNCIL LIAISONS TO CITY COMMISSIONS FOR 2001 1. FINANCIAL COMMISSION 2. HOUSING COMMISSION 3. REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Mayor Kragness requested approval of her nominations to the following Commissions: Financial Commission Councilmember Peppe Housing Commission Councilmember Nelson Regional Human Rights Commission Councilmember Lasman Park and Recreation Commission Councilmember Lasman A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to approve the above listed nominations. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER TO SERVE AS CITY REPRESENTATIVE 1. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 2. NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION 3. NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4. ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES 5. CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM Mayor Kragness requested approval of her nominations to the following: League of Minnesota Cities Councilmember Peppe North Metro Mayors Association Mayor Kragness Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Councilmember Nelson Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Councilmember Nelson Crime Prevention Program Councilmember Lasman It was the consensus of the Council to approve the above listed nominations. xxxmeeting processes ana procedures • Quorum Minn. Stat. § To transact city business in a statutory city, state law 412.191, subd.. I requires a quorum - -or a majority - -of the councilmembers to be present. This minimum may include, but does not have to include the mayor, or in Standard Plan cities - -the clerk. Minn. Stat. § For most city councils and other public bodies, a majority 645.08(5) of the qualified members of the council, board, or commission constitutes a quorum. For some charter cities, however, their charters may provide for the number that will be a quorum of their public bodies. co. Open meeting law Minn. Stat. § Under the Minnesota open meeting law, all city council 13D.01, subd. 1 meetings and executive sessions must be open to the public, with only a few exceptions. The open meeting law also requires that meetings of any committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of the city council, be open to the public. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. The open meeting law serves three vital purposes: v. District 742 Community Schs ., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). • To prohibit actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the interested public cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public bodies or detect improper influences; • To ensure the public's right to be informed; and, • To give the public an opportunity to present its views. Minn. Stca. § The votes of the city council, or any other group subject 4 of 33 5/18/20012:56 PM q. http:// www. imnc .org/search97cgi /s9...DFO %22E %3 Co %3 EB &Dir= O &Inctx= data36 13D. 04, sitbd. 4, S to the open meeting law, on any action taken in a meeting that must be open to the public, must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose. The journal must be open for public inspection during all normal business hours where such records are kept. The clerk should record the votes on all formal council actions. Minn. Stat. § Each member's vote must be recorded on each 13D. 04, subd. 4 (b) appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute. Minn. Stat. § For any meeting required to be open to the public, at least 13D.04, subd. 5 one copy of the printed materials that relate to agenda items distributed to councilmembers must be available in the meeting room for public inspection while the council considers the subject matter. This requirement does not apply to materials the law classifies as other than public, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a properly closed meeting. Mober v. Independent Sch. The open meeting law does not define the term Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983); St. Cloud "meeting." The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has Newspapers, Inc. v. District ruled that the open meeting law applies to gatherings 742 Community Schs ., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). where a quorum or more of the members of the council, committee, board, department, or commission are present, and at which the members intentionally discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that body. The law does not cover letters, e-mail, and telephone conversations among less than a quorum of the councilmembers. But the law does prohibit the use of telephone conversations, e-mail, or letters in a decision - making process among a quorum of members designed to avoid an open meeting. Mankato Free Press c. City A 1997 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision seems to of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. App. support that serial meetings could violate the open 1997) meeting law. In this decision, the court looked at a situation where the members of a city council conducted individual interviews of candidates for a city position in separate rooms. Although the district court found that no meetings had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present, the Court of Appeals sent the decision back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had used this interview process for the purpose of avoiding the open meeting law requirements. Mankato Free Press c. City On remand, the district court found that the private of North Mankato, No. C9 -98 -677 (Minn. App., interviews were not done for the purpose of avoiding the unpub. Dec. 15, 1998) open meeting law requirements. This decision was also appealed and the Court of Appeals, in a 1998 unpublished decision, agreed. Cities that wish to hold this type of interviews with job applicants, however, should consult with their city attorney before doing so. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. The Minnesota Supreme Court also decided that v. District 742 Community schs., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. informational seminars about school board business, 1983)• which the entire board attends, must be public and open. Thus, any scheduled gatherings of a governing body must have proper notice and be open, whether or not the _4 of 11 5/18/20012:56 PM http://www.Imnc.org/search97cgi/s9 ... DFO%22E%3 Co %3 EB &Dir= O &Inctx =data3 6 body takes or contemplates taking action. This - includes meetings where members receive information that may " influence later decisions, but excludes chance or social gatherings. A quorum of members cannot discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering. Hubbard Broadcasting v. The Supreme Court has warned that even though City of Afton , 321 N W.2d 395 (Minn. 1982); A.G. Op. gatherings of less than a quorum do not constitute 471 -E (May 23, 1978). meetings under the law, serial gatherings of less than a quorum may be a violation of the statute depending on the individual case. C ompare St. Cloud It is not clear from the Court's recent rulings whether the Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schs ., 332 participation of a city council in a League of Minnesota N.W.2d 1(Minn.1983) With Cities sponsored training program to develop various A.G. Op. 63 -A -5 (Feb. 5, 1975). skills constitutes as a meeting under the Open Meeting Law. The result may depend on whether or not the program includes discussions of particular matters within the council's official duties or powers. See the League research It is not entirely clear how the open meeting law applies memo Meetinzs of to recent technology, such as e-mail. Although the law Citv Councils does not specifically address the use of e -mail and other (LMC 140b.1) recent technologies, it is likely that e -mail communication between councilmembers or members of other public bodies could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Moberg v. Independent The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that serial School Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983) communications through telephone conversations or letters could violate the open meeting law if done to avoid holding a public meeting. City councils and other public bodies should not use e -mail to communicate with their other members in the following instances: • When a quorum of the council or public body will be contacted regarding the same matter. • When less than a quorum of the council or public body is involved in e-mail being used in a serial fashion. . Open meeting exceptions The open meeting law is designed to favor public access. Therefore, the few exceptions that do exist are carefully constrained to avoid abuse. h. Labor negotiations Minn. Stat. 5; The city council may, by majority vote in a public 13D.03, subd. 1 (b) meeting, decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation developments or discussion of labor negotiation proposals. The council must announce the time and place of the closed meeting at the public meeting._ Minn. Stat. § After the closed meeting, a written record of all members 13D.03, subd. I of the city council and all other people present must be (d)and subd. 2 available to the public. The council must tape record the proceedings at city expense and preserve the tape for two years after signing the contract. The tape recording must 1; nf '1Z 5/18/20012:56 PM http:// www. lmnc. org /search97cgi /s9...DFO %22E %3Co %3 EB &Dir =O& 1nctx= data36 be available to the public after all labor coritracts are signed for the current budget period. Minn. Stat. § If someone claims the council conducted p ublic business 13D.03 subd. 3 h of er than labor negotiations at the closed meeting, a court must privately review the recording of the meeting. If the court finds the law was not violated, the action must be dismissed and the recording sealed and preserved. If the court determines a violation of the open meeting law may exist, the recording may be introduced at trial in its entirety, subject to any protective orders either art requests and the court deems appropriate. p Y q Minn. Stat. Ch. Several other exceptions to the open meeting law exist 13D that may apply to cities, which are discussed in the following sections: i. Not public data Minn. Stat. § First, a meeting may be closed in some circumstances 13D.05, subd. 2 pursuant to the ?..iiis ?r.tc6c:ti Act. The general rule is that meetings cannot be closed to discuss data that are not public data. Any portion of a meeting, however, must be closed if expressly required by other law or if the following types of data are discussed: • Data that would identify victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults; • Active investigative data created by a law enforcement agency, or internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct; and, • Educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data that are not public data. Minn. Stat. § Data that are not public data may be discussed at an open 13D.05, subd. I meeting without liability or penalty if the disclosure (b), (c) relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. The public body, however, should make reasonable efforts to protect the data from disclosure. Data discussed at an open meeting retain their original classification, however, a record of the meeting shall be public. j. Misconduct allegations or charges Minn. Stat. § Second, a public body must close one or more meetings 13D.05, subd. 2 (b) for "preliminary consideration" of allegations or charges of misconduct against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted, further meetings or hearings relating to the specific charges or allegations and held after that conclusion is reached must be open. A meeting must also be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. k. Performance evaluations Minn. Stat. § Third, a public body may close a meeting to evaluate the 13D.05, subd. 3 (a) performance of an individual who is subject to its I nF11 5/18/2001 2:56 PM http://www.imnc.org/search97cgi/s9 ... DFO%22E%3 Co %3EB &Dir= O &Inctx =data3 6 For a complete discussion authority: The public body must identify the individual to of this process, see " be evaluated prior to closing the meeting. At its next Employee Discipline and the Open Meeting Law" open meeting, the public body shall summarize its Minnesota Cities, conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be September 1997, page 41. open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. 1. Attorney - client privilege Minn. Stat. § Fourth, a meeting may be closed if permitted by the 13D. 05, subd. 3 (b) attorney - client privilege. For example, a council may Northwest Publications, Inc. close a meeting to discuss pending or threatened v. Cit 64 Paul, 435 litigation. The city may not abuse this rivile e to N.W.2d 64 (Minn. App. g ty y p g 1989). suppress public observation of the decision - making process. It does not extend to the governing body's request for general legal advice or opinion. Minn. Stat. § Before closing a meeting, the public body must state on 13D. 01, subd. 3 the record the specific grounds that permit the meeting to be closed, and describe the subject to be discussed. Minn. Stat. § The notice requirements that apply to open meetings also 13D.04, subd. 5 apply to closed meetings. Therefore, open meetings that the council closes after calling them, need no special notice. But special and emergency meetings that the council intends to close, must be properly noticed. While not required by law, some cities record closed meetings, and have the clerk or city attorney keep the tape until information no longer needs to be kept private or a court orders the release of the tape. The tape may be useful in establishing that members did not use the closed meeting to discuss matters that should have been discussed publicly. 94. Penalties Minn. Stat. Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting 13D.06, subd. 1 law is subject to personal liability in the form of a civil Claude v. Collins, 518 penalty up to $300 for a single occurrence. The penalty N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). may not be paid by the public body. A court may take into account a councilmember's time and experience in office in determining the amount of the civil penalty. Coalwell v. Murra No. Technical violations of the law that are not willful or 2436 (Minn. App. Aug 6,1996). deliberate ma y not result in penalties. Aug 6, Minn. Stat. § An action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any 13D.06, subd. 2 person in any court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the governing body is located. Minn. Stat. § If a person is found to have intentionally violated the 13D. 06, subd. 3 (a) open meeting maw in three or more actions involving the same governing body, that person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equal to the term of office the person was serving. Claude v. Collins, 518 Three separate adjudications are not necessary. Rather, N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). one adjudication of three separate, unrelated and intentional violations is sufficient for removal under the statute. Minn. Stat. § The court determining the merits - -upon finding a 13D. 06, sllbd 3 (b) separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous 9 of T; 5/18/2001 2:56 PM http:// www. Imnc .org /search97cgi /s9...DFO %22E %3 Co %3EB &Dir =O &I nctx =data36 violations - -must declare the position vacant- and`notify the appointing authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case of an other vacancy. . Y Minn. Stat. § In addition to other remedies, the court may award 13D.06, subd. 4 reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action alleging a violation of the open meeting law. The court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit. A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against any of its members. Insurance is available from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to pay these amounts, but the insurance must be in effect before the violation occurs. Minn. Stat. § No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded 13D. 06, subd. 4 (d) against a member of a public body unless the court finds there was a specific intent to violate the open meeting law. Minn. Const. art. Under the Minnesota Constitution, the Legislature may VIII, § 5 provide for the removal of public officials for malfeasance or non - feasance. To constitute malfeasance Jacobsen v. Nagel 255 or nonfeasance, a public official's conduct must affect (1959)300, 96 N.W.2d 569 the performance of official duties and must relate to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. Jacobsen v. Nagel 255 "Malfeasance" refers to evil conduct or an illegal deed. " Minn. 96 v. Coll ins, g 569 (1959); ; Cl aude v. Coll Nonfeasance � " is described as ne glect or refusal without Cl 518 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. sufficient excuse, to perform what is a public officer's 1994). legal duty to perform. More likely than not, a violation of the Open Meeting Law will be in the nature of nonfeasance. Although good faith does not nullify an open meeting law violation, good faith is relevant in determining whether a violation amounts to nonfeasance. Claude v. Collins 518 Ignorance alone does not amount to good faith or N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). sufficient excuse Ignorance due to inexperience may constitute good faith and amount to sufficient excuse in instances where the elected official neither knows or has reason to know that he or she is violating the open meeting law. Claude v. Collins, 518 To remove a public official, it must be established that N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). the official had a reasonable amount of time to learn the responsibilities of office. The excuse of inexperience, however, will not last long if that ignorance results in harm to the public. Public officials should seek advice from the city attorney or other resources to prevent open meeting law violations. Sullivan v. Credit River The open meeting law contains no provision invalidating Township .'2d 502 (1974). ' actions the body takes at a closed meeting that should have been open. In a 1974 case, the court held that because the law failed to provide a method of enforcement, the statute was not mandatory and its violation did not result in invalidating actions of the body. Although the fact that the plaintiff had spent a 4 „f T; 5/18/20012:56 PM http:// www. Imnc .org/search97cgi /s9...DFO %22E %3 Co %3EB &Dir= O &Inctx= data36 substantial sum in reliance on the action the public body took at the illegal meeting may have influenced the court, it does not seem likely that a court would overturn the rule of the case without a change in the law. Because the law now contains methods of enforcement through the civil penalty and removal from office, there is probably little need for an invalidation rule. Again, however, the council should follow the law to avoid the possibility that the court would declare its actions illegal. CP. Citizen involvement Minn. Stcat. 6 Any person may observe council meetings. In fact, the 13D.01, subd. 6 council should encourage citizen attendance to help citizens become more aware of the city's problems and more sympathetic to programs suggested by the council. Citizens must be able to hear the discussion and be able to determine who votes for or against a motion. One copy of the agenda and all materials made available to the council should be made available to the audience unless doing so would violate the ..u-.t i'rae icl—I Act. Although anyone can attend council meetings, citizens cannot speak or otherwise participate in any discussions unless the mayor or the presiding officer recognizes them for this purpose. The decision to recognize speakers is usually up to the presiding officer, but the council can overrule this decision. The council can, through a motion, decide to hear one or more speakers from the audience. Participation in council meetings can be intimidating for the average citizen. Councils should take care to make sure citizens are invited to participate when appropriate and listened to with courtesy. Individual councilmembers should not argue with citizens. Citizens are there to give information and opinions for the council to consider. Discussions or debates by individual councilmembers with citizens during council meetings is inappropriate and may reflect badly on the decision - making process. The council should not sample public opinion by asking for a show of hands. The majority opinion of those attending the council meeting does not necessarily represent general public opinion. It is likely to express only the opinion of a special group. CQ. Tape recording by citizens A. G. Op. 63a -5, Dec. 4 , The public may make an audio or videotape of an open 1972. meeting if doing so does not have a significantly adverse impact on the order of the meeting. Neither the city council nor any member may prohibit dissemination or broadcast of the tape. CR. Accessibility Minn. Stat. § Both the meeting and the meeting room must be 363.03, stabd. 442 accessible. To ensure accessibility, the meeting should be U. S. C. § 12101 - 12213. located in a room that all people, including people with mobility impairments, will be able to access. A city may _1n �fzz 5/18/20012:56 PM http:// www. Imnc .org/search97cgi /s9...DFO %22E %3 Co %3 EB &Dir= O &Inctx= data36 also have to have a person sign for people With Bearing loss and have written materials available in large print, Braille, or audio cassette for people with sight or hearing impairments. CS. Maintaining order Minn. Stat. § Although meetings must be open to the public, 412.191, subdl 2. individuals who are noisy or unruly do not have the right State v. Occhino, 572 N. W. to remain in council chambers. When individuals abuse 2d . F (Minn. App. 1997), their right to be resent in the council chamber the pet. For rev. denied (Minn. g p , Jan. 28,1998 >. mayor, as presiding officer -- subject to overrule by the council -- should order their removal from the room. If the presiding officer fails to act, the council may, by motion, issue such an order. The council has authority to preserve order at council meetings. The council can use necessary force, including use of the marshal or police, to carry out the mandate. If a person is excluded from a meeting, the council should provide an opportunity for the excluded person to give his or her side of the exclusion to a designated city staff member to satisfy any due process questions. If the entire audience becomes so disorderly that it is impossible to carry on a meeting, the mayor should declare the meeting continued to some other time and place if necessary. The council may also move for adjournment. No matter how disorderly a meeting may be, it is a legal meeting and any action the council takes in proper form is valid. Questions have arisen as to whether city councils can issue contempt citations against individuals whose disorderly conduct disrupts or interferes with the transaction of city business. The council cannot issue such contempt citations. CT. Rules of procedure Minn. Stat. § The city council has the power to regulate its own 412.191, subd. 2 procedure. While many councils have operated without written rules or regulations, written rules facilitate the conduct of city business and reduce the risk of mishandling important matters. Council bylaws usually cover the place and time of regular council meetings, the order of business, parliamentary rules governing council procedures, minutes, and standing and special committees and their powers. Many councils also include other provisions in their bylaws. .Agendas The bylaws should establish an order of business and a process for placing items on an agenda. Many councils have found the following order of business convenient: . Call to order. . Roll call. . Approval of minutes from previous meeting. . Consent agenda. . Petitions, requests, and complaints. 11 of 33 5/18/20012:56 PM http://www.Imne.org/search97cgi/s9 ... DFO%22E%3CO%3EB&Dir=O&Inctx=data34 See Official - (LMC 140a.3)- In all three of these areas, the law is complex and whether a violation has occurred is not always clear. Even when a situation does not violate these laws, people sometimes still question whether a public official has acted ethically. This section discusses each of the laws in more detail. (A research memo with further detail is available from the League.) . The law prohibiting gifts to city officials Minn. Stat. 6 471.895 With some exceptions, every gift to any city official is prohibited. An interested person may not give a gift or request another to give a gift to a local official. A local official may not accept a gift from an interested person. Minn. Stat. 6 471.895, subd I (c) An "interested person" is a person or a representative of a person or association with a direct financial interest in a decision the local official is authorized to make. The law prohibits gifts to local officials, not to cities. Thus, a gift can be given by an interested person to a city. Whether the city can pass the gift on to local officials is discussed below. A gift means money, real or personal property, a service, a loan, a forbearance or forgiveness of indebtedness, or a promise of future employment, that is given and received without the giver receiving consideration of equal or greater value in return. A local official means an elected or appointed official of a county or city, or of an agency, authority, or instrumentality of a county or city. All members of the city council, appointed boards, commissions, and committees are covered by this law. The definition of an interested person implies that appointed officials who are authorized to make decisions or recommendations that could impact someone financially also cannot accept gifts. Top appointed officials are thus covered, such as the manager/ administrator, clerk, financial officer, and other department heads. Other covered city employees include inspectors and people who can make decisions or recommendations about purchasing property, supplies, or services. It is possible to construct fact situations where any public employee can make or recommend actions that could affect someone's direct financial interest. Peace officers and public works employees are examples. Many cities interpret the gift law to include all city employees. An interested person who cannot give a gift to a local official includes anyone who is or may provide goods or services to a city--such as engineers, attorneys, fiscal advisors, contractors, and sales representatives. Virtually every resident of the city and anyone doing business in the city could at some time have a direct financial interest in a decision a local official is authorized to make and thus would qualify as an interested person. The following are possible examples where a property or business owner's financial interested could be effected: • The levying of property taxes. • The spreading of special assessments. • The valuation of property for tax purposes. • The issuing of a license. • The zoning of property or granting of a land use permit. Any person doing business or residing in the city is potentially an interested person as far as a city councilinember is concerned. Whether a resident or business owner is a potential interested person as far as members of boards and commissions are concerned depends on the types of decisions or I of 5 5/18/2001 3:00 PM http:// www. Imnc .org/search97cgi /s9...DFO %22E %3 Co %3 EB &D ir= O &Inctx= data34 recommendations they are authorized to make. The decision or a city official is authorized to make does not have to be pending or probable. If the city official is authorized to make that decision or recommendation, then a person who could at any time have a direct financial interest in that decision or recommendation is an interested person and any gift from that person is prohibited. Minn. Stat. $ 471.859, subd. 3a Since virtually every elected or appointed city official or employee is covered by the prohibition of gifts law, the question of whether anything is exempted from the gift law is important. There are a few limited types of gifts that are not prohibited. The following types of gifts are permitted: • Political contributions. • Services to assist an official in the performance of official duties. • Services of insignificant monetary value. • A plaque or similar memento recognizing individual services in a field or specialty or -to a charitable cause. • A trinket or memento of insignificant value. • Informational material of unexceptional value. There is also an exception for food or beverage given at a reception, meal, or meeting away from the recipient's place of work by an organization before whom the recipient makes a speech or answers questions as part of a program. This exception probably permits only principal speakers at meetings to receive gifts of food or beverage. There are no blanket social exceptions to the law prohibiting gifts to local officials. But, gifts given because of the recipient's membership in a group, a majority of whose members are not local officials, is permitted if an equivalent gift is given to the members of the group who are not local officials. And, gifts given by an interested person who is a member of the family of the recipient are permitted, unless the gift is given on behalf of someone who is not a member of that family. The law prohibits gifts to city officials, not to cities. Thus, an interested person can give a gift to a city. If the giver has no control over who will receive the gift, and the gift was not targeted to a specific person, perhaps a city official could benefit from that gift. However, if the person who benefits has any control over the decision to have that gift benefit that person, the gift would be prohibited. For example, if an interested person gave five tickets to a football game to a city, the council could not decide to use the tickets themselves. 64. Conflicts cif intorest There are two types of con - liccs of int} rust that a councilmember may encounter: Minn. St at. 471.87 and 412.311 . See League memo, Official x., iel (LMC 140a.3). A counci lmember of a statutory city may not have a direct or indirect personal, financial interest in any sale, lease, or contract they are authorized to make in their official capacity. There are limited exceptions to this law. But, unless there is an exception, any contract made in violation of this law is void. That is, neither the councilmen er t may enforce the contract. Also city b who benefits from the contract nor the city Y councilmembers who knowingly authorize a prohibited contract even though h the do not benefit from it, 5/18/2001 3:00 PN/ 4 http:// www. imnc. org/ search97cgi/ s9... DFO %22E %3Co %3EB &Dir= O &Inctx= data34 . Role of the individual councilmember Councilmembers' statutory duties are to be performed, almost without exception, by the council as a whole. The council, not individual members, must supervise administrative officers, formulate policies, and exercise city powers. Even the duties of city employees are the direct or indirect responsibility of the council. Councilmembers should devote their official time to problems of basic policy and act as liaisons between the city and the general public. Councilmembers should be concerned, not only with the conduct of daily affairs, but also with the future development of the city. Minn. Stat. $ 412.191. suhd. 2 The most important single responsibility of a councilmember is participation at council meetings. Each councilmember, including the mayor in statutory cities, has full authority to make and second motions, participate in discussions, and vote on every matter before the council. In a statutory city, any two councilmembers of a five-member council can call special meetings. Three members of a seven - member council may call a special meeting. As individuals, councilmembers have no administrative authority. They cannot give orders or otherwise supervise city employees unless specifically directed to do so by the council. As a council, however, councilmembers have complete authority over all administrative affairs in the city. In Plan B cities, this authority is restricted to conducting investigations and establishing policies to be performed by the manager. Minn. Smt. 412.101 See, e. Minn. Stat. 6 169.98. suhd. ]a: Minn. Stat. b 626.862 ; Minn. Stat. � 626.863. In Standard Plan and Plan A statutory cities, all members of the council, including mayors, are "peace officers." Councilmembers are authorized to suppress any "riotous or disorderly conduct" in the streets or public places of the city. Considerable care should be taken in attempting to exercise this authority because of liability issues. Other statutes preclude any person who is not a state - licensed peace officer from carrying a firearm, operating marked police squads, stopping other vehicles, or issuing citations. Therefore, unless licensed as peace officers, councilmembers should refrain from exercising these powers, except in serious emergencies, due to the potential criminal and civil liability exposure. i _ snfIq S /1R / , )M1 .-no P7U