Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 05-13 CCM Special Work Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL WORK SESSION MAY 15, 1995 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS l CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. MAYORAL COMMENT Mayor Kragness read the following statement: "As mayor of the City of Brooklyn Center and president of this Council, I am asking for a point of privilege.. In a statement I made to Cable 12 regarding the meeting of May 8th, I may have overstepped my bounds. I have personal feelings regarding the situation which I should have kept to myself. My professional feeling is this Council must work together as a five- member team, not in twos or threes. I would like to see us go forward with this intention; we have work to do; let's do it. Our work session will follow the printed format. There will be no discussion regarding the City Manager. There is rumor that individual councilmembers may be putting themselves and the City at risk relating to violation of the open meeting law by independently discussing with the City Attorney regarding termination of the City Manager. Brad Hoffman will be facilitating our meeting this evening. Mr. Splinter has requested to be excused." DISCUSSION OF 1995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF 1996 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Director of Community Development introduced the topic. The Director of Public Services stated she would be providing information on financing as it relates to capital improvements. She noted that when people think of "the budget" or of City spending, they are usually thinking of the general fund budget. There are other budgets in addition to the general fund budget. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a type of budget, except that it does not include only 5/15/95 - 1 - approved projects, it includes all contemplated projects and functions as a planning tool. It lists potential projects for the purposes of identifying funding sources and ensuring the financial capability to perform a given project. The presence of a particular project on the program list does not necessarily mean there is a commitment to carry it out. Not all capital expenditures are included on the CIP. A project must only be listed if it requires a substantial amount of funding. Maintenance projects are funded through other budgets. Generally, a project listed on the CIP would be a new item, an improvement, or a major expenditure. There are different funding sources for the Capital Improvement Program. Each funding source has unique requirements and limitations. The City Council has little discretion to move funds between accounts; the requirements must be followed carefully. The Capital Improvement Program usually lists projects expected over a five -year period and summarizes projects anticipated the following five years. Ten -year projections are difficult in some areas but it is necessary to at least attempt to make the projections to ensure availability of funding. The CIP includes some projects in general and some in detailed form, depending on the level of knowledge of needs and financing. A capital expenditure is a one -time expense with a lasting value. In general, an expenditure in an amount above $500 would be considered a capital expense whereas a project under that amount would fall in the category of supply expenditure. In order for a project to be included in the CIP, it would require an amount of $10,000 or more. A project under $10,000 would be considered maintenance, while a project over $10,000 would be considered an improvement. There is a procedure in place for developing the CIP. At this point, the City of Brooklyn Center is at the point of collecting ideas for projects to be included. Later, the CIP document will be created, reviewed, and refined by the addition of projected amounts. The CIP becomes part of the general budget process and is adopted in December for the next year. The Director of Public Services next explained the funding sources for capital improvement projects. She identified the public utilities funds, the street improvements funds, and the Capital Improvement Fund. The three public utilities funds (water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage) are the most restrictive in terms of their use. Public utilities cannot, by law, be profitable but reserves can be kept for future projects. The street improvements funds are generally the State Aid accounts. Brooklyn Center has 21 miles of roadway designated as State Aid routes for purposes of funding from the accounts. State Aid funds are doled out for transportation uses such as maintenance, repair, and reconstruction. The regular State Aid account is credited with approximately $830,000 per year. The City must make application, by project, to use the money and must meet project requirements. There is a limit as to how much money may be reserved in the account. 5/15/95 -2- The City also maintains two local State Aid accounts. One account is restricted and one is unrestricted. The Director of Public Services explained the difference between the two accounts. Funds obtained through bonding are deposited in local State Aid accounts. The City of Brooklyn Center usually does one or two projects per year which involve State Aid funding. Councilmember Carmody asked whether the local State Aid accounts are listed in the general budget. The Director of Public Services indicated the accounts are listed in the CIP, but are not specifically a part of the general fund budget. Councilmember Carmody asked what fund would be used for a project if there was not adequate funding for it in the State Aid accounts. The Director of Public Services said a project would not be done if the State Aid accounts could not fund it. Mayor Kragness commented the use of the regular State Aid fund is a case of "use it or lose it." Councilmember Kalligher asked whether unspent monies can be held over without penalty. The Director of Public Services stated it can be held over without penalty unless the next year's allotment of $830,000 brings the account balance over the limit. There was a discussion regarding the balances on the bonds for the 69th Avenue project. There was also a discussion of "off- system" expenditures on county projects. Regarding the Brooklyn Boulevard project, the Director of Public Services identified the combination of funding sources involved, which includes a part of the $830,000. Construction of the road is expected to cost $400,000 to $500,000 and it may be necessary to commit $200,000 or $300,000 from State Aid. The figures will be more definite at the time the budget t is completed. t Councilmember Kalligher left at 8:10 p.m. k The Director of Public Services noted the policy regarding special assessments was updated in December of 1994 and has remained fairly consistent for the past 30 years. The assessments for road improvements are currently charged at 35 percent for residential properties and at 70 percent for commercial properties. The Director of Public Services explained the Capital Improvement Fund. It is the primary source of funds for permanent facilities costing in excess of $25,000, for example park or government building improvements. The Capital Improvements Fund Expenditure Policy includes other stipulations such as the project must have been included in a CIP and for projects in excess of $200,000 there must be a public hearing before funding approval. The Finance Director indicated that City policy requires that a balance of $3,125,000 be maintained in this fund. Other funds, such as Heritage Center Fund, TIF, CDBG, etc., are available for specific uses. The Director of Public Services also noted an important point is that capital projects usually 5/15/95 -3- cross fiscal years, as opposed to projects which are funded through the operating budget which must be completed with a fiscal year. The Director of Public Services reviewed some of the projects listed on the current CIP. She indicated some of the projects have been approved in full and some have been approved for research. The CIP also includes general fund capital improvement projects such as replacement of computers and vehicles. The CIP crosses over the entire budget process. The CIP is used to try to summarize coming projects so all involved parties are aware of the project, planning is completed, and the projects are taken into consideration when other budgets are set. At the end of 1994, the Capital Improvement Fund balance was approximately $4.2 million. The Director of Public Services answered specific questions regarding the special assessment policy. REVIEW OF DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY SURVEY The Director of Community Development introduced the topic. The Director of Public Services noted the general reaction from Councilmembers and Staff regarding the draft for questions for the opinion survey was that although some were good questions, others were very confusing. In particular, the question "How much would you be willing to pay for..." was challenged. She said she believed it was a large amount of questions but the staff of Decision Resources have assured her the public enjoys the opportunity to offer opinions. She asked the Council to give input on what questions should be included from the draft and any additional questions which should be added. Councilmember Mann suggested the question regarding a new ice arena include the names of the four school districts which will be involved in the effort. The Director of Public Services stated the school districts are hesitant to commit to the project at this point and it is safer to word the question in this way. Councilmember Hilstrom said she would like to see the question reflect more of a breakdown of issues so it is obvious which issues the residents strongly favor. For example, one question should not include multiple issues, such as one that mentions both the City Hall and the Police Department. Councilmember Mann agreed with the concern but noted the new Question No. 59 does clarify the issue better. The Director of Public Services commented the proposed improvements should be described more clearly in the questions. Mayor Kragness asked about the phone survey itself. She believes people should be told before beginning the survey that it would take some time. The Director of Public Services said there is a standard statement made before the questioning begins. 5/15/95 -4- Mayor Kragness asked whether the surveyor will be knowledgeable enough to answer questions during the survey. The Director of Community Development said the callers for Decision Resources specifically attempt not to answer questions so that the survey is not skewed. Mayor Kragness said a person might not answer a survey question at all if he or she did not understand it and the caller didn't give further information. She asked whether the survey could be mailed out ahead of time so residents could be prepared to answer the questions. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested the City newsletter include a notice the survey will be underway and include some specific information on projects. The Director of Public Services said Decision Resources may believe those actions would change the conditions of the survey. The Director of Community Development agreed. Decision Resources has been hired by the City to use its expertise in these matters. Mayor Kragness expressed concern the phone surveyors might call residents who are not knowledgeable enough to answer the questions. Councilmember Carmody noted those same people will be the ones voting on the bond issue. The Director of Community Development stated there is a selection process for the survey. A cross - section of residents will be called, regardless of knowledge of City issues. Mayor Kragness said the survey is long and calls for important decisions and maybe residents should be prepared for it. The Director of Public Services noted those surveyed will only be giving their opinions; they will not be making final decisions. There was a discussion of certain specific questions on the draft survey. Councilmember Mann suggested Question No. 69 be rewritten on the order of the previous question, with residents being asked to put the issues in order. The Director of Public Services stated Staff is recommending the survey draft be changed in several places to read "Which issue has the highest priority to you" rather than "How much are you willing to pay.... " After discussing Questions No. 28 and 29, and agreed a question should be added asking respondents how well they thought the current mix of recreational programming met the needs of the community. The Director of Public Services pointed out some survey questions are included for the purpose of updating the community survey. She asked whether other areas should be included in this purpose. Mayor Kragness asked the date of the survey. The Director of Public Services stated the survey will need to be revised and approved by the Council in final form. There are slots available for the phone survey in June and in July. It is believed 400 to 500 residents will participate in the phone survey. 5/15/95 - 5 - I i Councilmember Mann suggested Question No. 2 be expanded to include a breakdown of single - family home, apartment residence, or commercial property. Councilmember Mann expressed concern the revised version of the questionnaire be available for the June 12 Council work session. A resident who was present spoke on the issue of the ice arena. He said he would like to see an arena be included in the survey and was told the issue is in the survey. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the City has considered building an ice arena in past years. The Director of Community Development stated he believed an ice arena was part of a park bond issue approximately 20 years ago. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Mann referred to two memos from Councilmember Carmody. The memos concerned ownership of apartment buildings and responses to citizens' calls to Councilmembers. She asked for the issues to be included on a Council agenda. Councilmember Carmody explained her concern that there be a system developed to ensure a citizen's call is addressed but that each Councilmember doesn't answer the call individually and that all Councilmembers are aware of the answer the citizen was given. There was some general discussion of the matter. The Director of Public Services noted there is a computer database available to track citizen i l complaints. The system has not been used but could be researched for usability. Mayor Kragness recommended a weekly or monthly report be issued on complaints received. All members of the Council need to be informed how the complaint was answered. The Director of Community P suggested Development Staff could send copies of answers to g Councilmembers. Councilmember Carmody asked the status of tenants in a particular building. The Director of Community Development said the building will be empty soon and there will be proposals for other uses of the building presented at a June Council meeting. In particular, there is a group which works with juveniles which would like to use the building as a headquarters and there is also a party interested in purchasing the building and others surrounding it for an office /warehouse. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the City has a policy regarding vacant, boarded buildings. She referred to a building which was boarded but vandals removed the boarding. The Director of Community Development said there is no official policy. The boarding of buildings is done due to seasonal needs and there is no alternative to replacing boarding again and again if it is removed. The buildings are checked several times each week when they are 5/15/95 -6- in that condition. Usually the boarding is only required on a short-term basis so it is not a continuing problem. Mayor Kragness expressed concern the City might be imposing constraints on itself in this regard. The Director of Community Development said there are some constraints. There was further discussion regarding adopting a policy for vacant, boarded buildings. However, it was noted a resolution would be needed so the issue needs to be placed on an agenda as a discussion item. ADJOURNMENT The Brooklyn Center City Council was adjourned by Mayor Kragness at 9:05 p.m. nn Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial i 5/15/95 -7-