Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 11-27 CCP Regular Session r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER NOVEMBER 27, 1995 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order a 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies�_'a 4. Council Report 5. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. September 11, 1995 - Regular Session 2. October 30, 1995 - Special Work Session -3. November 6, 1995 - Special Work Session (7 p.m.) r° ` 4. November 20, 1995 - Work Session b. Development n Performance ran Release/Reduction: Gua tee 1. Brookdale Car Wash - 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard 2. Evergreens at Earle Brown Farm - 6001, 6011 and 6021 Earle Brown Drive C. Resolution Approving Issuance of a Class A and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to GMRI, Inc., DBA the Olive Garden Italian Restaurant # 1253 d. Resolution Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget to Provide for the Purchase of Printers e. Resolution Amending the Foot Protection Policy to Increase the Maximum Reimbursement f. Resolution Authorizing the Entering of a Contract with the Anoka Hennepin School District for Reimbursement for D.A.R.E. Officer at the Evergreen • Elementary School CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 27, 1995 g. Resolution Entering Into an Agreement for the Reimbursement of Tuition for Technical Certification with the Minnesota Department of Transportation h. Licenses 6. Open Forum - f 7. Council Consideration Items a. 1996 City Council Meeting Schedule b. Presentation by Decision Resources, Ltd. of Results of Bond Issue Survey C. Preliminary 1996 Capital Improvement Program d. City Manager Employment Agreement e. Review of Remaining Proposed 1996 Annual Budgets #. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 8. Adjournment • r r • Coamcil Meeting Date November 27. 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Agm& Item Number -5 • Request For Council Consideration Item Description: City Council Minutes September 11 1995 - Regular Session P � g October 30, 1995 - Special Work Session November 6, 1995 - Special Work Session (7 p.m.) November 20, 1995 - Work Session Department Approval: 6 //,1 Tide Deputy Ci y Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • Recommended City Council Action: Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) September 11, 1995 - Regular Session Barb Kalligher was absent from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. October 30, 1995 - Special Work Session Barb Kalligher was absent from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. November 6, 1995 - Special Work Session (7 p.m.) Barb Kalligher was absent from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. November 20, 1995 - Work Session Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, and Debra Hilstrom were absent from the meeting and the minutes will reflect their abstention from the vote on these minutes. • There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to . table the following items until September 13, 1995, at 5:00 p.m.: • Resolution to Adopt the 1996 Preliminary Budget; and • Resolution to Authorize a Preliminary Tax Levy for 1996 Appropriations for the General Fund, the Street Improvement Debt Service Funds, the E.D.A. Fund, and the H.R.A. Fund Budgets; and A Resolution Approving a Preliminary Tax Capacity Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Providing Information Service and Relocation Assistance Pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 Through 469.047 of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1996; and Set Dates for Truth in Taxation Public Hearings. The motion passed unanimously. PROCESS TO STUDY ORGANIZED COLLECTION A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Council Mann to decline participation in the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) study passed unanimously. RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN /DOT FOR A LIMITED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW • CONSTRUCTION OF A BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ON MN /DOT RIGHT OF WAY Councilmembers indicated concern about exposure to uninsured liabilities as described by the City Attorney in a letter to the Director of Public Services dated September 6, 1995. The Director of Public Services informed Council the City has to have a limited use permit in order to complete construction of the trail. She urged Council to approve the resolution stating she did not foresee the State having a problem with the City Attorney's proposed language changes in the agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -206 Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its approval contingent upon an agreement being reached that addresses the City's concerns: RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN /DOT FOR A LIMITED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ON MN /DOT RIGHT OF WAY • 9/11/95 -11- 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 NOVEMBER 6, 1995 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:53 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Kristen Mann. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, and Director of Finance Charlie Hansen. Councilmember Barb Kalligher was absent. 1996 BUDGET PROCESS The Finance Director noted at the September budget work session several issues were left open. He stated decisions to cut specific dollar amounts from certain departments had been made but the Council has not decided on specific items to be cut. He suggested the Council • may wish to take those issues up at this meeting. He added the Council has the option to make any other changes they would like to the 1996 budget with the exception of increasing the property tax levy. He noted changes can be made up until adoption of the budget in December. Councilmember Mann stated she would like the Truth in Taxation hearing be part of her decision process with regard to the Contractual Services /Social Service funds. She added if the rest of the Council would like to discuss this issue this evening that would be fine also. Mayor Kragness noted she had received several phone calls regarding cutting these funds completely for some services. She inquired if it may be better to split the funds among the services than to cut some of them completely. She added it would make it more fair. Councilmember Carmody pointed out for there are joint powers agreements for three of the programs. She explained when she was on the Human Rights and Resources Commission the Commission would go through a process of ranking the programs which were requesting funding. The Commission would then make a recommendation to the Council and the Council would basically ignore it. Councilmember Hilstrom added that frequently the staff recommendation is different than the Commissions recommendation. Councilmember Carmody asked why he City is funding two youth diversion programs. She Y tY g Y P � didn't quite understand the difference between the INVITE Inc. and Peacemaker. • 11 -6 -95 -1- I Councilmember Hilstrom added $5,000 is given to North Hennepin Mediation and one of their primary objectives is also youth diversion. There was some discussion as to whether . North Hennepin Mediation deals primarily with youth diversion programs. The Director of Finance stated his understanding is that INVITE Inc. hires a worker that goes into the community and interacts with the kids. He stated his understanding of Peacemaker is that it is more of a mediation type program. Councilmember Hilstrom pointed out that in addition to funding INVITE Inc. the participants in INVITE Inc. also swim at the Community Center for free. Mayor Kragness asked if staff knows what the participation is in that part of the program. The Director of Finance stated he did not have that information. Councilmember Mann stated she would like to receive a copy of the information that is submitted by each of the human service program providers when requesting funding. Councilmember Carmody stated a frustration that she had while on the Human Rights and Resources Commission was that Peacemaker could never provide information on the success rate of their program. She noted that youth diversion is important but she would like to see information that shows the program is successful. Councilmember Carmody asked if the Council chose to fund those three programs that have joint powers agreements would there still be money left to fund North Hennepin Human Services Council, CEAP and INVITE Inc. The Director of Finance stated there would not be enough left to fund INVITE Inc. Councilmember Carmody asked if INVITE Inc. is an all or nothing proposition. The Director of Finance stated INVITE Inc. would have to be • approached on that issue. He noted there would be approximately $6,315 after fully funding Project Peace, fully funding Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, fully funding CEAP and funding the Five Cities Transportation Program through April 30, 1996. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the City has the money to fund the assessment stabilization program. She noted the City is proposing improvements to one of the poorest areas of the community and added this program is, in a way, also a human service program. The Director of Finance stated the assessment stabilization program has been funded for the past two years out of the Municipal State Aid (MSA) construction fund. He stated that is not something he would like to divert over to this type of program. Councilmember Hilstrom stated she felt the stabilization of the streets and sewers is much more important to this community than some of these programs and that is one area the City will need to have money to put into. The Director of Finance noted that one of his concerns with the assessment stabilization program is that it is draining funds from the MSA fund. He added even with it scaled back the City will not be able to continue for more than a few years using the MSA fund to pay for this. He stated he has recommended at the staff level levying a property tax for this just as we levy for the portion that we know the City has to pay out of the property tax. Councilmember Mann inquired if there are enough funds available to fund the 1996 projects. The Director of Finance stated he was not certain but he would look into that question. Councilmember Mann stated she would have to take into consideration the availability of funds for the assessment stabilization program for 1996 • 11 -6 -95 -2- before making any decision on the human services programs. • The Council proceeded to review the data processing budget. The Director of Finance stated what he is proposing two items: that the Council approve $67,555; and that the Council approve a listing of permitted capital outlay items. He explained the staff could look at pricing and technology after the first of the year when we are ready to buy things and proceed down this list as far as we are able to get before the money runs out. He added it is difficult to predict what the pricing is going to be in February. Councilmember Mann inquired what the miscellaneous software items covered. The Director of Finance stated this line item gives staff the flexibility to upgrade our software without runnin back to the City Council for every $100 item. Councilmember Mann questioned the portable computer for the MIS Coordinator. The Director of Finance stated the main purpose is to allow the MIS Coordinator a faster way of diagnosing problems with the desk top PC's. He explained the fastest way to determine if a problem is PC based or network based is to unplug the PC and plug something else in. He noted this is rather cumbersome if you have to move another desk top PC into an office to do this but a portable can be plugged in very quickly and the MIS Coordinator could determine very quickly whether it was the PC or the network that was the problem. He noted the portable would also have a number of other uses. He added this would improve the MIS Coordinator's productivity. He explained the other proposed uses for the portable make it more expensive than the portable proposed for the Police department. ® Councilmember Mann questioned the Recreation League Scheduling software. She noted she had spoken with the Recreation Director and he had indicated there is already software in place and he wasn't aware that they were looking at league scheduling software. She asked if this software is something the Recreation division must truly have. The Director of Finance stated the request came from the Recreation division and he was under the impression this software would do something different than the software they already have. Councilmember Mann referred to the justification prepared for this item but noted the justification does not say this software will do more than our existing software. She asked if staff would give her more information on this software. The Director of Finance stated he would get more information on this item. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the capital outlay listing which the Director of Finance provided is listed in priority order. The Director of Finance stated the list is pretty much in his priority order but when it came time to actually purchase the equipment he would want the Data Processing Committee to review the list and make recommendations. He stated if the Council would like to change the priority listing or make some specific direction on the priorities that would be fine. Councilmember Mann stated she felt the priority listing was fairly accurate but she would be concerned if items 10 and 11 were to move up on the listing. The Director of Finance stated if that is the Council's direction he would convey that to the Data Processing Committee before any decisions were made. Councilmember 11 -6 -95 -3- Mann stated she wants to Police department to have up to date equipment but she did not believe it made sense to spend money on ergonomically correct work stations and then ask the officers to work on a portable in their squad car. She added if their space needs are met in this next year it would make more sense to get them a desk top PC at a little less money. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the $67,555 would cover the 10 additional PC's that were requested. The Director of Finance stated his concern in limiting this budget to $67,555 is there may be equipment that breaks down and there wouldn't be replacement for it. He stated he believed if 18 PC's were purchased we would be far enough ahead so that we would be able to handle any breakdowns and we would be getting the ones that are a maintenance problem out of our inventory faster. He added it would still take some purchases in 1997 before we would be getting rid of the entire group that he views as being a problem. The Director of Finance stated he feels that items one through six are definitely in priority order and items seven through eleven could possibly be traded back and forth for priority levels. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the number of PC's to be replaced be should be raised to 20 or 22 versus 18. The Director of Finance stated all the PC's would not fail at once and if we purchase the 18 standard PC's there will be enough new ones coming in so we can handle any failures. The Director of Finance stated that a number of items purchased in 1995 came in under budget so there is some money left over in 1995. He noted there are some printers that have been worked quite hard and replacements were requested in the 1996 budget. He stated he would like to propose that the left over money in the 1995 data processing budget be authorized for the purchase of printers in 1995. He added this would take care of the printer need before we begin 1996 and then printers would not have to be purchased in 1996. He added if the Council does not approve this suggestion then he would have to reprioritize the list and put some printers back into the list for 1996. He stated there is approximately $12,000 left over and each year we budget money for emergency replacement of equipment which totals $4,000. He added this would be enough to replace all the old printers that are in the inventory. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if staff had any estimates as to what would be left over at the end of 1995 to be put into the fund balance. The Director of Finance stated it is hard to predict what the year end fund balance would be because a number of factors affect this but they do not occur until year end. He stated he did not believe it would be as large as 1994's surplus. He stated it could be anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000 for 1995. Mayor Kragness stated she had spoke with the Recreation Director regarding the 25C increase in admissions and he didn't seem too clear on this increase. The Director of Finance stated the Public Services Director has spoken with the Recreation Director about this and the recommendation is to increase admission fees by 25C. Councilmember Hilstrom asked at what point will it be determined if this increase will be enough considering the figures on who is using the pool. The Director of Finance stated he does not recall when • 11 -6 -95 -4- the last study of the community center fees was completed. He noted in the past few years • some members of the City Council have been opposed to increases in the community center fees so there was not a lot of time spent studying the issue. He added if the Council is now interested in a full scale study of this issue then the staff will undertake one. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if it is possible to prepare a report based on the information that is collected at the time of registration and membership purchases instead of launching a full scale study. The Director of Finance responded affirmatively. He added from past experience in other cities it is not uncommon for half or more of the users of a recreation program come from outside the sponsoring community. Councilmember Carmody stated she would prefer it if staff could finish the Heritage Center and Liquor Store studies before they start on another project. The Council agreed and stated it would be good to have the information on the Community Center before the budget process starts for the 1997 budget. Mayor Kragness stated she would also like information on the cost of family memberships and if the fee is the same for residents and nonresidents. She suggested asking the Lions Club and Rotary Club if they would sponsor some low income families for memberships. It was agreed to increase the admission fees by 25c. Councilmember Carmody asked if it was necessary to cut $3,900 from the Street Department or does the Council want to hold that until after the public hearings. The Director of Finance stated the Council could deal with that issue tonight or put it on hold. He noted • the Public Services Director has indicated that in view of the fact that the City is going ahead with the reconstruction program she could cut back a little bit on the sealcoating program and the $3,900 could be cut out of streets contractual services. Councilmember Hilstrom asked what the implication of cutting the sealcoating program would be on the streets. The Director of Finance stated the City spends in excess of $100,000 on sealcoating so it would be a small cut in sealcoating. He stated he is not sure how many streets /blocks that would translate into. Councilmember Hilstrom stated she would rather not see the cut made to the street maintenance. Councilmember Mann stated she would have to concur with Councilmember Hilstrom and added she has a concern with the tire balancer. She asked if City staff is trained on how to use the balancer or are we going to have to take on new staff, and in addition to the staff the benefits etc. The Director of Finance stated that he was fairly confident that the existing staff could quickly learn how to balance the tires. He noted it is a question of efficient use of the mechanics time. He explained if they have a car in the shop that they are doing a tune -up on, the tires could be balanced in a matter of a few minutes. Whereas, if the car has to be taken out to have the tires balanced someone has to actually take the car and wait their turn. Councilmember Mann stated that reasoning makes sense as long as in the 1997 budget there won't be a request for the position of tire balancer. The Director of Finance stated there would not be a request for additional personnel in 1997. Councilmember Hilstrom inquired if staff could ask the Public Services Director if there is 11 -6-95 -5- another area, than the sealcoatin budget, that d tin a, can be cut She added cut g g the sealcoating budget is not an option for her, The Director of Finance suggested putting the 0 $3,900 cut on hold until the next meeting. Councilmember Mann requested the Street department prepare other options for the budget cut. The Director of Finance asked if before they move through the budget they could give him some direction with regard to the printers. It was agreed that the funds left over in the data processing budget should be used for the purchase of printers in 1995. The Director of Finance stated he would prepare a resolution for the next council meeting authorizing the expenditure and there will be backup material which will explain where those printers are needed and what staff proposes to buy. The Director of Finance stated the next areas to review would be the HRA and the EDA and noted there is a minor change that is precipitated by new information from the State of Minnesota on homestead credits. He added in this case the homestead credits are going down by $79. He explained there was a small contingency account built into the EDA and the best way to balance out their budget is to take it from the contingency account. Councilmember Mann inquired what the contingency account balance for the EDA is at this time. The Director of Finance stated it is $7,981. Councilmember Mann asked if typically the balance is carried over. The Director of Finance explained there are two ways that cities handle contingencies. He noted some cities create a separate contingency fund and if there is money that is appropriated to that contingency fund for that year and it is not spent it carriers over to the next year. The other approach is to not have a separate fund • but have it operate in the general fund and money is appropriated each year in the general fund for the contingency g cy account. He noted if it is not spent during the year it becomes part of the general fund balance. He stated the second method is the one that Brooklyn Center has always followed. Councilmember Mann asked if $7,000 is about average for each year. The Director of Finance stated he does not recall what has been in the account in past years but it is r obabl fain al P Y Y typical. . I The Director of Finance noted potentially the City does have about $10,000 of additional revenue in the general fund compared to what the figures showed in September. He explained that part of it is the estimate the State gave for the homestead credit went up slightly, by about $700, and then the tax levy that is required for the special assessment bonds that were sold is less than what had been budgeted. He noted between those two there is potentially $10,000 more that the Council could spend. Mayor Kragness asked if the $10,000 could be put back into human services. The Director of Finance stated that could be done or as Councilmember Mann suggested the Council could cut the tax levy by that. Mayor Kragness stated she would like to see it put back into human services. Councilmember Hilstrom requested a report on the grant stabili zation program and noted that she felt the streets and sewers are critical. She also asked how much money the City was planning to spend in 1996 on parks. The Director of Finance stated Engineering is working on that and noted they are talking about two to four playgrounds, a couple would 11 -6 -95 -6- be minimal work and then one or two might be the more extensive work. He added they • also have discussed resurfacing of one or two tennis courts. He stated he believed the report would be brought to the Council sometime in November. Councilmember Hilstrom asked when the enterprise funds would be discussed because it is an issue that has been talked about at a couple of work sessions. The Council agreed to discuss this issue at the November 20, 1995, work session. Councilmember Carmody asked to discuss the facility rental charges. Councilmember Mann stated this item should not have been brought to the Council at this time because the steering committee will be reviewing this issue at their November 17, 1995, meeting. The steering committee would like to have the opportunity to discuss the issue before it is brought to the Council. A discussion then ensued regarding whether the committee will ask the City to pay these fees or not and what the original intent of the committee was. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor • 11 -6-95 -7- 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 OCTOBER 30, 1995 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kristen Mann. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, Director of Finance Charlie Hansen, and Council Secretary Connie Beckman. Councilmember Barbara Kalligher was absent and unexcused. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRESENTATION Copies of a memorandum from the Interim City Manager were distributed to Council members offering an introductory explanation of capital improvement needs and respective potential bond • issue to assist in addressing those needs /mandates. An accompanying list of major capital outlay needs was also distributed. The Director of Public Services explained to Council members the budget addresses equipment needs to meet mandated and /or necessary improvements, many of which relate to the mandated improvements in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Director of Finance distributed information to Council members regarding the capital improvement program resources including combinations of balances in the Capital Improvements Fund, general tax levy, and various options of bond proceeds. The Director of Finance reviewed the history of the CIP Funds, and the CIP Expenditure Policy Estimate of Available Resources whose goal is to have at least a $3 million reserve to address any unforeseen catastrophes. He indicated that approximately $2,800,000 should be able to be generated over the next five years to finance capital improvements. In response to a question by Councilmember Hilstrom the Director of Finance responded that interest payments have been made by the golf course, but given the need in 1994 for reconstruction of a pedestrian bridge totaling $70,000 - 80,000 along with a couple of bad operating years no payments were made on the principal. In response to Councilmember Hilstrom's question about using the golf course for something in the off - season (i.e. cross country skiing). The Director of Public Services said that previous examination of such a use • 10/30/95 -1- indicated no such possibilities. Councilmember Mann inquired about the golf course shelter being used as a driving range with q g g g g a net concept. The Director of Public Services said such a facility could not be expected to even meet operating costs. Councilmember Hilstrom asked about funds for the liquor stores remodeling. The Director of Finance indicated options include: 1) bonds obtained by the liquor stores or; 2) a loan from the investment trust fund. The Director of Public Services displayed a map of residential properties with colored areas reflecting the time period in which residential areas were constructed. The majority of houses in Brooklyn Center were built between 1951 -1959. Councilmember Mann inquired about potential action taken against the City should mandated and /or necessary improvements not be fully completed. The Director of Public Services indicated that in- process approach to the improvements in the wading pool might be unacceptable to the Health Department, resulting in revocation of the City's license. Councilmember Mann P inquired about ark improvements. The Director of Public Services q P indicated approximately six park shelters are used in the winter as warming houses. Mayor Kragness left the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Mayor Kragness returned to the meeting at 7:44 p.m. The Director of Finance reiterated that amounts are only estimates and suggested using an architect to provide more refined data. CIP -FIRE STATION Councilmember Hilstrom requested additional information regarding proposed improvement needs for the fire stations. The Director of Finance suggested that the Council tour the existing facilities to observe needs. He also cited OSHA requirements relating to these projects. Councilmember Mann uestioned whether rearranging of existin s ace was an option. The q g P P Interim City Manager, Director of Public Services, and Director of Finance indicated this was not. The Director of Public Services said currently there is 8,700 square feet whereas the needed amount is 15,000. The Interim City Manager suggested Council have a tour of the Fire Stations. Councilmember li Hilstrom agreed, but reiterated her desire for written needs information prior to the visit to help better realize actual needs comparisons. The Interim City Manager suggested a summary report be prepared for Council review. 10/30/95 -2- Councilmember Hilstrom left the meeting at 8:03 p.m. • JAIL FACILITY Councilmember Hilstrom returned to the meeting at 8:04 p.m. The Director of Public Services stated there have been about five different designs proposed in different stages since 1988. Councilmember Carmody left the meeting at 8:05 p.m. In referring to the jail facility, the Director of Public Services indicated the facility can't be remodeled given code requirements (windows on outside of building, exercise area, etc.). Councilmember Carmody returned to the meeting at 8:08 p.m. The Director of Public Services indicated the heating and ventilation system is not adequate and said an architect should be used to consider such improvements. Councilmember Hilstrom requested information be provided regarding the jail facility prior to meeting with an architect. Councilmember Mann expressed desire to have Decision Resources address Council regarding its survey results. • PARKS The Director of Public Services talked about updating of playground equipment. Approximated costs for updating the equipment is as follows: $20,000- 25,000 for a small playground; $45,000- $50,000 for a big playground including a shelter. Councilmember Hilstrom and Mayor Kragness inquired about funding and alternative funding sources. The Director of Finance indicated the CIP Fund or a bond issue would be possible. Decision Resources will be asked to address Council and the Financial Commission regarding survey results. The Director of Public Services said parks improvements are prioritized on the basis of the condition of equipment. COMMUNITY ED MEETINGS Mayor Kragness asked Council to indicate preferences to attend the Community Ed meetings. Councilmember Mann plans to attend the December 19, 1995, meeting. ORCHARD LANE EAST INFORMATIONAL MEETING The Director of Public Services reported on a preliminary study. Sanitary sewer is much worse • 10/30/95 -3- than previously believed. Replacement of a lot of services in that area is a necessity. Costs appear to be in line with estimations. Resident responses have been positive and in line with • what was initially thought of by City staff. WOODBINE Mayor Kragness questioned progress of this project. The Director of Public Services said the project is essentially complete. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. passed unanimously. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Connie Beckman Timesaver Off Site Secretarial • 10/30/95 -4- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA A WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 20, 1995 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in work session and was called to order by Ma or Myrna Kragness at 7 p.m. Y ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmember Carmody. Also present were Cam Andre, Interim City Manager; Charlie Finance Director; or• Beckman. and Council Secretary Connie Councilmembers Debra Hilstrom, Barbara Kalligher, and Kristen Mann were absent and excused. • ADJOURNMENT Due to lack of a quorum the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by; Connie Beckman ?TmeSaver Off Site Secretarial • 11/20/95 _1_ Council Meeting Date 11 -27 -95 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number S Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Performance Guarantee Release /Reduction. Department Approval: 064� Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: It is recommended that the City Council take action to release the below listed Financial Guarantees in the amounts indicated. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached • 1. Brookdale Car Wash, Inc. 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard Planning Commission Application No. 94002 Amount of Guarantee - $2,000 (Certificate of Deposit) Obligor - Brookdale Car Wash, Inc. (Stephen T. Graham) All site improvements related to this 1994 addition have been .installed. The landscaping has been installed in the quantities required by the approved plan, but the applicant has provided other types of plantings in some locations because they will survive better and he also needed to relocate a couple of trees near the car wash exit for visibility purposes. It is recommended that the City Council release the Financial Guarantee for this project in its entirety. 2. Evergreens at Earle Brown Farm 6001, 6011, and 6021 Earle Brown Drive Planning Commission Application No. 92013 Amount of Financial Guarantee - $60,000 (Savings Certificate) Obligor - Evergreen Development Group (Robert A. Hopman) All site improvements related to the three buildings that make up the Evergreens assisted living complex have been completed for over a year. The City Council on August 22, 1994 authorized the reduction of the Financial Guarantee being held to assure the completion of site improvements from $60,000 to $5,000 to assure the viability of landscaping through the winter months and the filing of necessary storm sewer easement documents with Hennepin County. The landscaping has survived and the Engineering department has verified the filing of the • necessary easement documents. The applicant never submitted a reduced Financial Guarantee, therefore, it is recommended that the $60,000 Financial Guarantee be released in its entirety at this time. Council Meeting Date 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number s Request For Council Consideration Item Description: CLASS A AND SUNDAY ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO GMRI, INC., DBA THE OLIVE GARDEN ITALIAN RESTAURANT #1253 Department Approval: Scott Kline, Chief of Police Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: The City Council approve a Class A and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License in the name of GMRI, Inc., DBA The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 for the license period of 12/1/95 through • 12/31/96 per Department of Public Safety Liquor Control Division recommendation. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached The licensee holding the liquor license for The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 has undergone a corporate name change. General Mills Restaurants, Inc. has changed its name to GMRI, Inc. The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 is now owned and operated by the licensee GMRI, Inc. The same officers for General Mills Restaurants, Inc. are now officers of GMRI, Inc., and these same officers have previously undergone background checks by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The licensee has had no other changes other than the corporate name change. GMRI, Inc., DBA The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 has applied for a Class A and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant has had a Class A and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License since 1991. GMRI, Inc. is required by the State of Minnesota, Liquor Control Division, to obtain a new buyer's card immediately. In lieu of obtaining two separate approvals from the council, one being for the corporate name change and one for the 1996 liquor license renewal, it is requested that a 1996 license be issued to GMRI, Inc., DBA The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 to run from 12/1/95 through 12/31/96. The Department of Public Safety, Liquor Control Division, has recommended the renewing of this liquor license for the time period 12/1/95 through 12/31/96 to simplify and facilitate the 1996 • liquor renewal process. Nothing was found in the background investigation that would preclude the renewal of The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant's liquor license. All appropriate fees for 1996 have been submitted along with all required documentation. �c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A CLASS A AND SUNDAY ON- SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO GMRI, INC., DBA THE OLIVE GARDEN ITALIAN RESTAURANT 91253 WHEREAS, GMRI, Inc. has applied for a Class A and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for its establishment located at 1610 James Circle within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 was previously owned and operated by General Mills Restaurants, Inc.; and WHEREAS, General Mills Restaurants, Inc. has undergone a corporate name change to GMRI, Inc. and GMRI, Inc. is now the licensee holding the liquor license for The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253; and WHEREAS, GMRI, Inc. is required by the Department of Public Safety, Liquor Control Division to obtain a new buyer's card prior to next year's license renewal, it has been recommended by the Department of Public Safety, Liquor Control Division, that a liquor license be approved for the time period of 12/1/95 through 12/31/96; and WHEREAS, GMRI, Inc. has submitted all appropriate fess and necessary documentation for 1996 and a thorough background investigation has been conducted by the Brooklyn Center Police Department regarding the corporate officers and the corporation itself and nothing was found in that investigation that would preclude the issuance of a liquor license to GMRI, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the issuance of a Class A and Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to GMRI, Inc., DBA The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1253 for the license period of 12/1/95 through 12/31/96, is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in • favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Meeting Date 11/27/95 / City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number SCE Item Description:. Request For Council Consideration • Resolution Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget to Provide for the Purchase of Printers Department Approval: 1� dirt Charlie Hansen, Finance rector Manager's Review /Recommendation: _Zf 41A No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approval of the attached resolution. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached YES ) • At a recent City Council Worksession, I proposed to the City Council the idea of using money unspent in the 1995 data processing budget due to price reductions by manufacturers, to purchase printers. The purpose was to (1) remove printers from the 1996 budget which had be reduced by Council action, and (2) to replace a substantial number of our older printers. There were a dot matrix printer and five laser printers proposed by staff in the 1996 budget. Buying them with 1995 dollars allows the remaining 1996 budget to be concentrated on personal computers and software. The City Council tentatively approved this concept, but asked for a more detailed report. I had my staff do an inventory of printers in order to prepare this report. We had most of this information on our fixed asset system, but had never pulled it together as an inventory of only printers. The result yielded several surprises. First was that we have 39 printers in use, not counting any at the liquor stores or the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Second is that ten of these are dot matrix printers. These are used where we need to print on preprinted, multi part forms, or where a low cost single user printer is needed. Third is the high average age of our printers. More than half of them were purchased in 1989, 1990, or 1991. (See attached printer listings) A replacement is needed for the Texas Instruments dot matrix printer used in the Police dispatch center to connect with the State of Minnesota. The State will only allow certain printers to be connected to their system and so we must buy a replacement that meets their specifications. We estimate this printer may cost up to $1,000. We also propose to buy seven laser et printers. Six of these would be medium volume Hewlett Packard • Laserjet 4 Plus printers. One would be a high volume HP Laserjet 5 SI. The Police want this printer for its multiple paper drawers which will allow it to do multi -part reports in place of two dot matrix printers as well as to do heavy duty printing of single part reports. By the time we added the paper drawer option on to a Laser et 4 Pius, the price approaches that of the Laserjet 5SI, so we may as well Request For Council Consideration Page 2 get the printer with the feature built in. We also want to purchase additional memory for some of the • Laser et 4 Plus printers so that they will be able to do graphics without slowing down drastically. We will buy a HP Jetdirect card for each Laserjet so they can be installed as network printers to serve multiple PCs. The attached quotation is from Office Products of Minnesota. They were awarded a contract by LOGIS to provide computer equipment at a substantial discount off manufacturers list price. As a result of purchasing these eight new printers, nine old ones would be retired. The new printers will be installed in locations where the most intensive use of them will be made, existing printers will be shifted to locations with less intensive use. Even if we make these purchases, it is possible that one or two of the remaining printers could fail in 1996. The list of 1996 capital outlay items I proposed to you at the November 6 worksession, included item #4, Emergency replacement computer equipment, that could be used in that event. • 50 • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRINTERS WHEREAS, Section 7.06 of the City Charter provides that the City Council will adopt a budget which shall set forth the total for each budgeted fund and department with segregation as to the objects and purposes of expenditures for the purpose of budget control; and WHEREAS, the 1995 budget for the Data Processing Department included a list of capital outlays; and WHEREAS, these capital outlays have been purchased for substantially less than the amount budgeted due to price reductions by manufacturers; and WHEREAS, there is a need to replace a large number of old printers which are five or more years old and have been heavily used. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1995 General Fund Budget is hereby amended to allow the Data Processing Department to use unspent capital outlay appropriations of up to $16,400 to purchase a dot matrix printer and seven additional laser printers. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA DATA PROCESSING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED PURCHASES FROM 1995 CAPITAL OUTLAY SURPLUS BASED ON QUOTES FROM OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MINNESOTA Total Cost Including ITEM UNITS COST Tax ----------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 1. Replacement for Texas Instruments dot matrix printer 1 939 1,000 2. Hewlett Packard Laserjet 4 Plus printers 6 1,449 9,259 3. Hewlett Packard Laserjet 5S1 printer 1 2,819 3,002 4. Hewlett Packard Jetdirect cards 7 299 2,229 O 5. Additional memory moduals 3 275 879 I Object #4451 $16,369 I • 11/22/95 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LISTING OF PRINTERS AS INSTALLED IN 1995 YEAR PURCHASED PRINTER 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL HP Laserjet 4 Plus 1 2 3 HP Laserjet 4 M 3 1 4 HP Laserjet 4 L 1 1 HP Laserjet III 2 6 1 9 HP Laserjet Hip 1 1 HP Laserjet lip 1 1 HP Laserjet II 1 4 1 6 HP Deskjet 500C 1 1 HP Deskjet 500 2 2 HP Quiet Jet Plus 1 1 Okidata Microline 391 3 1 1 1 6 Panasonic 1624 1 1 Epson LQ570+ 1 1 Epson LX -810 1 1 Texas Instruments 1 1 • 2 2 7 6 9 5 4 2 2 39 DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT COM PRINTER ADM FIN ASS ENG POL REC FIRE DEV GAR TOTAL HP Laserjet 4 Plus 1 2 3 HP Laserjet 4 M 1 1 1 1 4 HP Laserjet 4 L 1 1 HP Laserjet III 3 2 1 1 1 1 9 HP Laserjet Illp 1 1 HP Laserjet lip 1 1 HP Laserjet II 1 2 1 2 6 HP Deskjet 500C 1 1 Hp Deskjet 500 1 1 2 HP Quiet Jet Plus 1 1 Okidata Microline 391 1 3 1 1 6 Panansonic 1624 1 1 Epson LQ570+ 1 1 Epson LX -810 1 1 Texas Instruments 1 1 • 4 5 1 2 14 2 3 3 5 39 One Deskjet 500 is installed at the Domestic Abuse office. deptl20 /PRINTERS.XLS 1995 installed 11/22/95 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LISTING OF PRINTERS AS PLANNED FOR 1996 YEAR PURCHASED PRINTER 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL Texas Instruments 1 1 HP Laserjet 5 SI 1 1 HP Laserjet 4 Plus 6 6 HP Laserjet 4 Plus 1 2 3 HP Laserjet 4 M 3 1 4 HP Laserjet 4 L 1 1 HP Laserjet III 2 6 1 9 HP Laserjet Illp 1 1 HP Laserjet lip 1 1 HP Laserjet II 1 1 2 HP Deskjet 500C 1 1 HP Deskjet 500 2 2 Okidata Microline 391 1 1 1 1 4 Panasonic 1624 1 1 Epson p on LX -810 1 1 • 0 0 2 6 9 5 4 2 10 38 DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT COM PRINTER ADM FIN ASS ENG POL REC FIRE DEV GAR TOTAL Texas Instruments 1 1 HP Laserjet 5 M 1 1 HP Laserjet 4 Plus 1 1 2 1 1 6 HP Laserjet 4 Plus 1 2 3 HP Laserjet 4 M 1 1 2 4 HP Laserjet 4 L 1 1 HP Laserjet III 2 1 3 1 2 9 HP Laserjet Illp 1 1 HP Laserjet lip 1 1 HP Laserjet II 2 2 HP Deskjet 500C 1 1 HP Deskjet 500 1 1 2 Okidata Microline 391 2 1 1 4 Panansonic 1624 1 1 Epson LX -810 1 1 • 4 4 1 2 13 3 3 3 5 38 One Deskjet 500 is installed at the Domestic Abuse office. deptlMPRINTERSALS 1996 plan 11/22/95 Council Meeting Date 11/27/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Resolution Amending the Foot Protection Policy to Increase the Maximum Reimbursement Department Approval: C "AL,. �'l a�rLa s�►� Charlie Hansen, Fina ceOirecto Manager's Review /Recommendation: , No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Adopt the attached resolution. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) On April 23, 1990, the City Council adopted by motion a policy of requiring employees who work in • hazardous conditions to wear steel toed boots and of reimbursing them for the actual cost of the footwear up to a maximum of $35.00. This maximum has remained unchanged even though there has been some inflation in the price of boots. Employees raised their concerns regarding the reimbursement with the Safety Committee. The Safety Committee took up the issue at a meeting on September 28th and recommended that the City consider increasing the reimbursement maximum. I have analyzed the data on the records of employee purchases for the years 1990 through 1995 and summarized it in the table below. AVERAGE PURCHASE REIMBURSED YEAR PRICE PERCENTAGE 1990 $49.86 70.2% 1991 $48.10 72.8% 1992 $57.30 61.1% 1993 $65.19 53.7% 1994 $50.62 69.1% 1995 $58.81 59.5% Based on this information, I recommend that we increase the maximum reimbursement to $40.00. If this rate had been in effect for the purchases so far in 1995, the percentage reimbursed would have been • 68.0 % instead of 59.5 %. The 1995 average purchase price is close to the average of the last four years and the reimbursement percentage at $40.00 is close to the same reimbursement percentage that was in effect the first year of the program. -51G • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FOOT PROTECTION POLICY TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT WHEREAS, on April 23, 1990, the City Council adopted a Foot Protection Policy requiring employees who work in hazardous conditions to wear steel toed boots; and WHEREAS, the policy provided for the reimbursement of the employees for the actual cost of the boots up to a maximum of $35.00; and WHEREAS, inflation since 1990 has increased the average price of footwear. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the maximum reimbursement for steel toed boots allowed by the Foot Protection Policy be increased to $40.00. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • there was no specific action required this evening. Councilmember Scott inquired if the Evanson's still own property in this area. The City Manager responded affirmatively but noted there are indications they may be interested in selling. The Director of Public Works stated staff needs to speak with the owners to find out which owners would be willing to cooperate and then choose an alternative that works best with those people. PROPOSED FOOT PROTECTION POLICY The C ity Manager explained g p d the Safety Committee has been working on a safety manual and noted this policy is part of the safety manual. The Personnel Coordinator went on to review the report prepared for this item and noted there would be a $35 reimbursement for those employees who purchase steel toe shoes. She stated this would promote safer working conditions for the City's employees. She added it would cost the City approximate) qualified employee purchased steel toe boots. y $2,000 annually if every There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson approving the foot protection policy. The motion passed unanimously. SANITARY SEWER BACKUP CLAIMS The Finance Director briefly reviewed the procedure which is used at this time if a resident calls regarding g g rdin a sewer backup the only legal basis there is for the insurance company to pay a s elaim is City is found negligent. He added generally most sewer claims are denied. He stated in some instances the residents do come to the Council requesting reimbursement. The Finance Director stated recently there have been a couple of articles in the League of Minnesota Cities magazine dealing with sewer backup claims. He stated it is his recommendation the City continue its present policy of leaving the payment of sewer backup claims to the City's insurance carrier who pays only when it is determined rmined the City has a legal obligation to pa the claim. y OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager stated he would like authorization to sign the contract with the facilitators for the annual planning meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the facilitators of the annual planning meeting. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to.. adjourn the meeting. g- motion assed unanimously. City P sly. The Brook) Center Co Brooklyn Council 1 adjourned at 10 :40 .m. P City Clerk May • 4/23/90 -13- 09 Q P -a( v pp'se 9 6—Z —b X rd Q6�r� � L - - -- S6 � � _ fib' � � -�-s� Ma �� ��� '',� 'I 7w (70 Y5 6 "b Z 6.6 s f��� °� d �o - Nn 001 5b s6 s -*kq /M--- - - - - -- _sa (��ap a u�-,�� ��5��� Gla /� � 015 ll► i<� - - - -- —; _ � � -I(mow� Are -5111r v J51'7 ,��1%00' NCo7/d �o2J Q66/ P P-6� U �g - - -- -- A,, - -- AX V/s/oj 62�21 a r1p w P W� rr� PwL@� t 22' pw P 0" Ckl �I PK � 1 � P w c.e 7 q, 129. �35do 7 -/- it 1 , 2A L nW l �Z, oo �' ;3 - 00 to -- z -. TOO 0- W, 9 00 #-2Z4 I' q �q'_____ 40 A j�JA - MI Z— )5:76D7 - 1 A- Al - r -- '`� a w _ n_d L ut s ?JAJ bla- 1 JU r ;I - l t: � 1� IS �C 1 e l y�� SD YA- v"� i� �C.IJ 1 �� � � � V v \. vl ' �j( f wCJ Y� �t �. ✓ J r (J 1 ' � —C 57-- - r� s.fLtd z _p _ w Strom �3 9 S'� Q�_ -? l o n , � -e x--18 qoob --�= 65 8 -. S mod_ t -i gi q 4,, J V Q - --7 i ? 51` - -_ 35.0d ..t 4q -.So D _ jc �A_n � 1, < 2 .. 0 ._�_ -__..- - - -- _ - - -. � - �•��LY -�S , .__.. - - -•� -- - - -. � J Li:�._��_ ___ _��.�D.�..�_______.. ___1." s' c `{<►�� - -- `o�.v�r, a- r.�__ -._- _ � 1_. 3 5.0 , ty - t�--- tR_(�sf� Sz31 -�i: J �'• °lie _ -_ . _ - _ W co -CL l � _ - 11 1 ? s . 3 i Council Meeting Date / 7196 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number s - / CZ of Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENTERING OF A CONTRACT WITH THE ANOKA HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR D.A.R.E. OFFICER AT THE EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Department Approval: Scott Kline, Chief of Police Manager's Review /Recommendation: f6x' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approval Of The Resolution Authorizing The City To Enter Into A Contract With The Anoka Hennepin • School District 11 For A Partial Reimbursement For Cost Of Services For Providing A D.A.R.E. Officer At Evergreen Elementary School. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attache The State of Minnesota passed a law authorizing the school districts to collect a supplemental levy in their districts for the express purpose of offsetting some of the costs of the D.A.R.E. program or police liaison officers in their schools. The Anoka Hennepin School District opted to take advantage of this levy and began collecting monies from residents within the district. The law requires that the city and the school district enter into a contract each school year for these services and by virtue of this contract the city is reimbursed with the 1995 -96 reimbursement totalling $768. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENTERING OF A CONTRACT WITH THE ANOKA HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR D.A.R.E. OFFICER AT THE EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHEREAS, the Anoka Hennepin School District has levied for a partial reimbursement of costs associated with D.A.R.E. officers working within their district; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center does furnish a D.A.R.E. officer at the Evergreen Elementary School in the city of Brooklyn Center and also within that district; and WHEREAS, the City's portion of this levy allocation is $768; and WHEREAS, the City must enter into a contract with the school district to provide these services each school year; and WHEREAS, the police department does provide these services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. the City of Brooklyn Center does enter into a contract for D.A.R.E. officer services with the Anoka Hennepin School District 11 for the school year 1995 -96. 2. the monies received from the contract are to be placed into the 1995 -96 general fund budget as the dispersements are made after December 1, 1995, and after March 1, 1996. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • Contract for School Liaison and D.A.R.E. Officer Services Between the Anoka - Hennepin School District No. 11 and the City of Brooklyn Center This contract by and between the City of Brooklyn Center (hereafter referred to as "City ") and Anoka- Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 (hereafter referred to as "District ") is entered into under Minnesota law. 1. DEFINITIONS. Police Officers working in the District will be engaged in two authorized programs. The School Liaison Officers in the middle schools and high schools will serve students and staff primarily in the area of crime prevention. Officers in the D.A.R.E. program in the elementary schools will present the approved prevention program which is a part of the fifth grade Health curriculum. 2. OFFICER EMPLOYED BY CITY. City shall employ (or assign) in accordance with applicable state statutes a police officer or officers to serve as D.A.R.E. officer(s) in District schools. The selection or assignment of such officers shall be done by City. City shall assume all obligations and payments with regard to officers' salaries and benefits including workers compensation, PERA, withholding taxes, etc. District will reimburse City as defined in Part 10 of this document. 3. TERM OF CONTRACT The term of this contract shall be July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, District fiscal year. 4. ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITIES Law enforcement services rendered to District shall be at the sole direction of City. Standards of performance, discipline of the officer assigned, and other internal matters, shall be under the authority of City. If requested, District shall provide City with an appraisal of the services received. 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE The officer will respond to emergency calls within the boundaries of City and attend police training and special duties as as v f ll g it p b Cit while _u_fi._m the requ of a F � � n b q this contract. Time spent on emergency calls, police training, etc. shall not be considered to be time spent as a D.A.R.E. officer. Time in excess of eight hours per day shall be paid according to the officers' contract, providing such additional time has been approved in advance by City and District. Blanket approvals will not be accepted. 6. DUTIES OF OFFICER The list of basic duties and work schedule of the officer(s) shall be cooperatively developed between City and District. • 7. CLOTHING, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 0 City shall provide any required clothing, uniforms, vehicle, necessary equipment and supplies for officer to perform law enforcement duties. 8. SCHOOL CALENDAR District shall provide City with a school calendar. 9. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice of such termination. All payment due hereunder shall be prorated in the event of such termination. 10. DURATION AND COST For and in consideration of the provision of D.A.R.E. Officer services in accordance with the terms of this contract, District shall pay City the sum of 50% of the levy allocation upon the preliminary notification by City that officer has been assigned and there is proof of service. This should be completed by December 1, 1995. The remaining amount shall be calculated and paid to City after March 1, 1996. Proof of service shall be considered to be the successful scheduling and implementation of the D.A.R.E. program in each of the schools listed in this contract. 11. SERVICE TO SCHOOLS The following elementary school shall receive D.A.R.E officer program services as a result of this contract: Evergreen Park 12. SCOPE It is agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this agreement supersedes all oral and written a and negotiations between the parties relating to the u p g subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunder to set their hands City of Brooklyn Center Anoka - Hennepin School District No. 11 by: by: its its Superintendent Date: Date: • Council Meeting Date 11/27/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number - S • Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Resolution Entering Into an Agreement for the Reimbursement of Tuition for Technical Certification with the Minnesota Department of Transportation Department Approval: ScW A. Brink, ity En ineer Manager's Review /Recommendation: , No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve the attached resolution and agreement authorizing Mn/DOT to reimburse the City for costs incurred by the City to train City Technical Staff for State Aid Certification. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached YeS ) As a result of requirements from Mn/DOT, certified technicians are to be used for all roadway work that utilizes State Aid funds. The certification required generally involves construction inspection, material testing requirements, and contract administration. The City has completed all appropriate and required training for Staff State Aid Certification. Mn/DOT will reimburse cities for the cost of this training in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00. The costs incurred by the City of Brooklyn Center for this training total approximately $2,000.00. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution and authorize the City Engineer and City Clerk to sign the attached agreement with Mn/DOT in order to expedite the reimbursement of these expenses to the City. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF TUITION FOR TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has provided for and funded the tuition and training for technical certification for certain employees of the City, and; WHEREAS, said technical certification is required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for projects utilizing Municipal State Aid funds, and; WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation agrees to reimburse the City for said expenses b the terms of an Agreement. P Y g NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The City shall enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of . Transportation to provide for the reimbursement of tuition for technical certification. The City Engineer shall be authorized to execute said agreement accordingly. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT TERIvt # ACCT. ID ORG. F.Y. REQ.# VENDOR # TYPE SOURCE S.ACT TASK S.TASK 630439 V COST, JOB OR CLIENT CODE AMOUNT SUFFIX OBJECT SEND $ 01 729 TYPE OF TRANSACTION Entered by Entered by Vendor name Brooklyn Center City Engineer Address 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the State of Minnesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "MN /DOT ") and Brooklyn Center (hereinafter referred to as "Recipient "). WHEREAS the State is authorized to administer the State Aid Administrative Account pursuant to MN Statute 162.06, Subd. 2; *HEREAS the Division of State Aid requires all personnel working on State Aid work be certified; WHEREAS the certification of technicians will ensure consistent inspection hereinafter set forth, the parties to this Agreement mutually agree as follows: I. Term of Agreement This agreement shall be effective upon such date as it is executed as to encumbrance by the Commissioner of Finance, and shall remain in effect until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled or December 31, 1995, whichever occurs first, by which time all requests for reimbursement must be received in the State Aid Office. II. Conditions of Agreement All personnel working on State Aid work, including, but not limited to, construction inspectors, and field testers, must be certified through the Technical Certification Program on all work beginning on or after January 1, 1994. III. Reimbursement by MN /DOT MN /DOT agrees to reimburse the Recipient an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 total tuition costs incurred for personnel working on State Aid work for the successful completion of classes taken between November 1, 1992 and July 31, 1995. Recipient agrees • to pay all costs not included in, or which exceed, said amount. A: Recipient must submit a resolution from the County Board/City Council approving the agreement. B: Request for reimbursement must be submitted on Recipient's letterhead indicating each participant's name, title of each course taken, and amount to be reimbursed for each course. C: Recipient must submit a copy of payment voucher or a copy of the canceled check as proof of payment for each course. D: Request must be submitted to: Assistant State Aid Engineer Dept. of Transportation, M.S. 500 • 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 IV. Audits All records, books, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this agreement are subject to audit and examination by MN /DOT and either the Legislative Auditor or State Auditor as appropriate. V. Termination of this Agreement MN /DOT may withhold payment or terminate this Agreement at any time if the Recipient does not comply with the provisions of this Agreement. VI. General Provisions The Recipient agrees to indemnify and save and hold the State, its agents and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising from the performance of this agreement by Recipient's participants or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies Recipient or its participants have for the State's failure to fulfill it's obligation pursuant to this agreement. VII. Any amendments to his agreement shall be in writing and shall be approved by MN /DOT and the Recipient. 0 APPROVED: RECIPIENT: COMNIISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION BY: BY: City /County Engineer DATE: DATE: BY: ATTORNEY GENERAL: City Clerk/County Auditor BY: DATE: DATE: DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT. OF FINANCE BY: BY: • DATE: DATE; MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION October 1, 1992 TO County Highway Engineers Municipal Engineers Distribution 613 Distribution: 650 FROM Dennis C Ca rlson a ryson Division Director SUBJECT : Technical Certification Reimbursement of Tuition The State Aid for Local requires Transportation Division e r '-' es that certified technicians be used on all state aid work beginning on January 1, 1994. I have determined that the tuition cost for these • classes is eligible for reimbursement from the Administrative Accot.nt for any class taken after November 1, 1992 and before July 31, 1995 Each local agency wi11 be limited to a total ` reimbursement of $5000 order to process your reimbursement request: 1. Submit a copy of the County Board /City Council resolution approving the attached agreement. 2• Submit a copy of th e e agreement signed by yourself auditor or clerk. th Your agreement must be on file in our office, and the dollars encumbered as required by law, prior to the completion of the class YOU are requesting reimbursement f or. w Y ou should submit for each i participant: �E -• A o � request for reimbursement on your letterhead indicating each participants name, the title and date of the course taken and I the amount to be reimbursed for each course taken; and 2. a copy of the ,- payment voucher or check showing proof of payment for each course. I Co mcil Meeting Date 117/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number — Item Description: P Requ F Co uncil Consideration • Licenses Department Approval: Patti Page, Interim ministrative Assistant Manager's Review /Recommendation: 42 /Zi I No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve list of licenses. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway 4,�{'\ LQ.l -e-Z Deputy City Clerk (� MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air One Mechanical Corp. 6317 Welcome Ave. N. Harris Air Systems 230 Territorial Rd. Suburban Air 8419 Center Drive .Q Building Official RENTAL DWELLING Beverly Wolfe 1707 Amy Lane Director of Commu . Development TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS Brooklyn Center Municipal #1 1500 69th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Municipal #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. ` / L/ Brooklyn Center Municipal #3 1966 57th Ave. N. !T Deputy City Clerk tv • Camcil Meeting Date 11/27/95 3 Cary of Brooklyn Center AgW& Item Number 7 Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: 1996 City Council Meeting Schedule Department Approval: P n it' Patti Page, Interim Admistrative Assistant Manager's Review/Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve the proposed 1996 City Council meeting schedule. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached • Following s the r g proposed 1996 City Council regular session meeting schedule. Meetings have not been schedule for December to allow some flexibility with regard to budget hearings. January 8 July 8 January 22 July 22 February 12 August 12 February 26 August 26 March 11 September 9 March 25 September 23 APB 8 October 14 April 15, Board of Equalization October 28 April 22 • May 13 November 11 May 28, Tuesday November 25 June 10 June 24 City of Brooklyn Center City Council Regular Session and Work Session Schedule 1995 i U1 TV UL irk January 0 July �d 7 January 9 -A a- July ;4 ,-�. } jul 31 Work Cession _ February 14 1 �" Feb I=y2t, August 1 t a, February 0 026 ,�,�•. ,. �, W,,,. �,�;�_ August March 13' Ik a r,z �. ,In z> > r�Zef� t �� i September 1-� `9 • March 27'' 5 } September April 201? tS +fLcic� tq, . UU i October , Tae�s April ?. .2 a E)ctobei t6, October X 2.% May +8' 0 November 6, Budget Work Session November 13 May 1"LLc- c�. November 20, Work Session 6 November 27 Jar , December 6, Truth in Taxation Public Hearing June 1 December 11 December 13, Truth in Taxation Public Hearing December 18, Special Session June A; yL . • Council Meeting Datc 11128!91 City of Brooklyn Center agenda Item Number — Z2Q / Request For Council Consideration Item Description: 1995 City Council Meeting Schedule Department Approval: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk 12 1 Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve the proposed 1995 City Council meeting schedule. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) Following is the proposed 1995 City Council regular session and work session meeting schedule. Meetin have not been scheduled for December to allow some flexibility with regard to budget hearings. January 4 Work o Session Wednesday Jul IO Y Y January 9 July 17, Work Session January 23 July 24 January 30, Work Session - February 13 August 14 February 21, Work Session, Tuesday August 21, Work Session February 27 August 28 March 13 September 11 March 20, Work Session September 18, Work Session March 27 September 25 . April 10 October 10,` Tuesday April 17, Board of Equalization' October 16, Work Session April 24 October 23 May 8 November 13 May 15, Work Session November 20, Work Session May 22 November 27 June 12 June 19, Work Session June 26 Council Meeting Date 11/27/95 —7 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number / Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Presentation by Decision Resources, Ltd. of Results of Bond Issue Survey Department Approval: Diane Spector, Director yf Public Services Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Discuss information and provide direction to staff. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) • Staff from Decision Resources, Ltd. will be in attendance to present the results of the their 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Residential Survey. Attached are copies of final draft versions of the survey results and the Executive Summary of Findings. 1995 City of Brook&n Center Residential Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Methodology: This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the community between July 18 and 26, 1995. The average interview took twenty -two minutes. in general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Brooklyn Center residents within t 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases. Residential Demographics: Brooklyn Center remained a very mature, inner -ring suburban community, however, it will also begin to evidence a greater residential turnover than in the past. The median longevity residents was 20.5 years. Eleven percent of the sample reported moving to the during the t past two years; while forty-nine percent had been there over two decades. Almost s" g had no plans to move, or felt they would remain in Brooklyn Center for at least ten year , bunt 19% reported an intention to move during the next two years. Seventy -three percent owned their. • residents, while twenty -seven percent reported renting- Thirty-two percent of the households contained senior citizens. Twenty -six per reported the presence of school -aged children; white eleven percent contained pre - school children. The average age of adult respondents was 51.0 years old. one percent reported ages under 35 Years old, while forty-three percent were 55 years old or der. Women outnumbered men by five percent in the sample. The occupational structure of the community reflected a split between Blue Collar households and retirees. Blue Collar households w o were 24 /o while - , e retiree headed h o households were 30 /o. Up- scale White Collar households -- headed by holders of Professional- Technical or Owner- Manger jobs -- comprised 25% of the sample. Clerical -Sales households numbered an additional 16 %. The median household income in the community was $37,875.00, about $5,000.00 lower than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. The location of the residence of each respondent was noted Twen -ei ty ght percent lived in Precincts One or Two; while 29% resided in Precincts Three or Four. Precincts Five and Six accounted for 23% of the respondents; and Precinct Seven and Eight were 21% of the sample. Qu of Life Rating: • Seventy -eight percent rated the quality of life in Brooklyn Center as "excellent" or "good;" g , 1995 City of BrookJyn Center Residential Survey • 2 twenty -two percent rated it lower. These ratings were twelve percent below the suburban norm of ninety percent favorableness. The 13% "excellent" ratings placed the City of Brooklyn: Center within the bottom quartile of communities in the Metropolitan Area. Like Most and Least about the Carnmunhy: Convenient location was the most Eked feature of the city. At forty -three percent it far outdistanced all other responses. Shopping convenience was specifically mentioned by another 11%. Quiet and peacefulness ranked third, pointed to by ei ht p ercent. Strong neighborhood and nice people followed at seven percent d six percent, respectively. Fewernumbers ccited s good schools, well-run community, small town ambience, parks, housing, and safety. Examining things liked least, one factor led the list: crime, mentioned by tw nine percent. Apartments were cited tw perce Deteriorating housing was mentioned by nine Fewer residents talked negatively about cit g overnment , � percent. d ty g t, poor location, poor schools, businesses leaving city services, minorities, poor people, low income housing, and city image or reputation. It was also noteworthy that six percent reported there was "nothing" they disliked about the community, this "booster" segment, though, was only one suburban norm. Crone, suburban renewal, and the challenge of diversity comprise the three k issues in the minds of most residents. • Most Serious Issue Facing the City: Crime was cited by forty -four percent as the most serious issue facing the City of Brooklyn Center today. Deterioration and low income housing followed, at ten percent and nine percent, respectively. City government reform ranked next, at six percent. Fewer residents cited high taxes, minorities, poor people, image/reputation of the community, traffic congestion, and While crime was the paramount issue housing stock and c demographics growth concerns about the future: 1 phics were also key Property Tares: In comparison with other nearby suburban areas, 47% d rate the � property taxes in Brooklyn Center as "about aver age• Thirty percent saw them as `very high or somewhat high," Seven percent felt their taxes were "somewhat low." And, 16% were unsure. These results suggested a benign tax climate -- a rarity across the present Metropolitan Area. • 1995 City ofigrooklyn Center Residential Survey 3 av Services. Police service, fire protection, storm water run -off control, snow plowing, and park- maintenance each posted approval ratings over eighty percent. At the neat level of overall satisfaction, Pavement repair and patching on city streets, trail maintenance, recreational programs, and code enforcement received over sixty percent approval ratings. These results were generally above or at the suburban norm. Only two services rated bothersome disapproval ratings_ pavement repair and Patching on city streets, at 32 %, and code enforcement, at 33 %. The former rating was actually lower than the suburban area norm and stemmed from numerous potholes; the latter, however, was higher than the norm, and was a reaction to messy Y yards and dilapidated housing. While Brooklyn Center makers may wish to examine the services urrent gorrous ofco e�enforcement he area, decision- Value of City Services: In considering the general value of city services, severity -eight percent felt it was "excellent" or "good." Just fourteen percent saw it as "only fair" or `door." These results were among the most positive in the Metropolitan Area and exceeded the norm by almost ten percent. Clearly, residents placed a high value on the city services they received. • Appearance o Ned hborh l g ood Nmety -two percent of the sample rated the general appearance of their neighborhood as either "excellent" or "good." Only eight percent rated it lower. This rating was above the suburban norm Lower ratings were based upon numerous messy yards, unkept houses, and rundown commercial properties in the community. This rating tied to the low evaluation of code enforcement strongly suggested that "trouble spots" were perceived in the city that required attention. Fortunately, the result also suggested that the more blighted areas were not widespread. PwWcipation in City- SponsoredAcxrvdtdes. Thirty percent of the sample reported they or members of their households had participated in organized activities sponsored by the City of or baseball lea Broo softball � Center. Six percent had enrolled in gues; while five percent had taken part in swimming classes and four Percent each had participated in sports programs or city events. "Earl Brown Days" had also attracted four percent of the households. Neighborhood Watch and crime prevention programs also were cited by three percent. City participation in organized activities was two percent higher than the suburban norm. Among participants, 96% reported "satisfaction" with these programs. 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Residential Survey • 4 Park and Xecreadional Facilities: Eighty -three percent rated current park and recreational facilities in Brooklyn Center as "excellent" or "good." Only six percent rated them more critically. A solid 83% felt the current mix of recreational facilities in the City met their households' needs; only five percent felt they fell short. Similarly, 77/o felt the current mix of recreational facilities met the needs of the community, again, o a small six p ercent �'Y p cent took exception. The small number of critics pointed to three facilities: playground equipment, more facilities for children, and an ice arena. Tax Increases for Park System Inprovements and Ad& ons. By a 67 -19% split, residents supported a property tax increase for the replacement and improvement of dated playground equipment in neighborhood arks. Almost identically, ro P ' a 64 %- 25% verdict endorsed a p tax increase for the completion of the trail system to connect all neighborhoods across the city. A 57 % -21% judgment favored a tax increase for the acquisition of the Joslyn Property in Southwest Brooklyn Center. These three components of a potential bond referendum proved very popular with residents. One proposal, however, was greeted with more mixed reactions. Fifty -three cent would l� favor • a Property tax increase for the reconstruction of park shelter buildings in larger city - thirty - one Percent opposed a propert tax increase for this purpose. While a majority supported this Proposal, it scored more weakly than the other three components. Coeastntaon of Ice Arena/Youth Activities Facility: Sbct3' Percent supported the construction of an ice arena/youth activities facility jointly sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Center and area school districts. Thirty -one percent opposed the construction of this facility. Intense support was twice as large as intense opposition. As long as residents were informed about the joint nature of the project and its need to satisfy federal mandates, residents were generally supportive of an ice arena/youth activities facility. Public Safety Concerns: Fifty percent selected `residential crimes" as the "greatest" or "second greatest" public safety concern in Brooklyn Center. Thirty percent icked ` outh .� o " P � s while 28 / 23 » 8� , o chose % pointed to `violent crime. Fewer residents selected "traffic congestion" or `business crimes." Public safety concerns in Brooklyn Center resembled Minneapolis results rather than other suburban communities. • 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Residential Survey 5 Sixty -four percent felt that crime in Brooklyn Center had increased" during the past five years. While 2I % fielt it had ` remained about the same," nine percent felt it had "decreased," Public Safety Services: Sixty-five percent rated the amount of police patrolling the Department did in their neighborh "too much. ood was "about zis3ht." Thirty percent considered it Moo small ;" while only two percent felt it was Only nine percent had contacted the Brooklyn Center Fire Department for emergency service during the past few years. All of these respondents, though, rated their response time as "excellent" or "good." Qwtacting Brooklyn Center C4 Hall: Thirty -six percent reported contacting Brooklyn Center City Hall, either by telephone or in person. In thinking about their last contact, 31 % reported they had contacted the Police Department; while 18% each had coy whed Utility Billing or Planning and Inspection. An additional 15% had talked with Administration. Ninety -two percent were treated courted while 87% reported being generally satisfied with the assistance and/or Wormation received. Seventy-six percent felt that the current hours of operation of the Brooklyn Center City Hall were either `wry convenient" or "somewhat convenient." Only six percent were more critical in have the facility stay open later in the day. their evaluations. If they could make one change or improvement in City Hall operations, 1 S% would Tax Increases, for Changes and Improvements in City I&WFtre Stations: By an overwhelming 73°/4-14% judgment, residents supported a tax increase for the expansion the two Fire Stations to provide more efficient storage of fire - fighting equipment and g of facilities. Just behind, at 70° /4-I 5% and 70 % -14% splits, residents favored tax increases both the expansion of Police Department office space to allow for more space and replacement of some aging fire engines and rescue/salvage vans. A 62 % -19 verdict endorsed higher taxes for the expansion of the holding cell and interview areas; while a 61%-21 % judgement favored improved handicapped accessibility in both City Hall and the Community Center. While 57 °/a supported completion of energy efficiency projects at City Hall; 22% opposed it. In each case, residents overwbelminglY supported each change or improvement proposed for City Hall or the Fire Stations. 1995 City of '.Brooklyn Center Residential Survey 6 X"Shing Community Centers: Dung the Past Year, 44% reported that household members had visited the Broo Community Center swimmin Fyn Center g pool or another activity in the Community Center. in addition, 24% said that household members visited another city's Community Center, principally the facilities at Brooklyn Park and Crystal. Tax Increases for Community Center Remodeling and Renovations: Residents were somewhat more critical about tax increases for Community Center remodeling and renovation. The only decisive favorable judgment was on the construction of a senior citizen drop - in center: 61 %supported it; while 26% opposed it. A somewhat more mixed, but favorable, result surrounded the issue of the expansion of the competition-type oriented pool area, with 52% in favor and 36% opposed. swimming pool into a family_ Three projects registered either pluralities or majorities against them. By a 44/-41 0 ! � � ud � ��t residents opposed the addition of a BYmnasium to the Community Center. A 55°/. -23% verdict opposed the construction of additional community meeting rooms. And, a 59 % - 24% split opposed the construction of an indoor playground at the facility. . Residents were not as enthusiastic about Co Cent er changes. "fingness to .btcrease .PrVperty Taxes for a Capital Improvements Referendum: The median resident of Brooklyn Center would support a monthly property tax of $7.60 per month to fund a bond referendum for park improvements, ice arena and youth activities center, Police Department addition, Fare Stations additions, City Hall remodeling, and Community Center remodeling. This translated into a $91.20 per year increase in property taxes o residence in Brooklyn Pr P rtY n the average amount and 14% were about their acre unwilling to raise their property taxes by any peaked around the $8.00 per month level: this indicated very little up support and the distinct possibility of major losses in support if the plan were unacceptable or the cost increased. Reactions to a Ten llfiillron Dollar Capital Improvements Bond Referen&m: While 50% would either `strongly support" or "support" a ten million dollar proposal, 39% would oppose it. The size 4£ the opposition at this level strop campaign would be r uire to strongly suggested that an aggressive �l guarantee success, In addition, the quick ratio" -- the difference between, "strong support" and total opposition -- was -13 %, indicative of the need for a major • 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Residential Survey 0 campaign effort to secure a majority at the polls. Supporters pointed to a number of reasons for their decision: 22% felt the improvements were `deeded;" while 13% thought it would be "good for the city." Fow percent felt it was a "good idea;" while a similar number pointed to the `need to maintain current facilities." Opponents cited three key objections: 3I% felt that "takes were too high;" while five percent felt the changes were `Sot needed" and six percent regarded the proposal as "too extravagant." Importanee of the Components of the Bond Referendum: Residents were asked to indicate the two most important improvements for inclusion in the bond tnferendum. Sicxy -two percent tanked the "Police Department Additions" as their first or second Priorities, Forty-three percent similarly regarded the `Fire Station Additions." Twenty -five Percent rated the "Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center" as important. Smaller numbers felt identically about `''ark Improvements," "Community Center Remodeling," and "City Hall Remodeling." They were then asked about the two components they would most definitely oppose. Twenty - three Percent indicated opposition to the "Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center." Seventeen percent would not support "City Hall Remodeling," while fifteen percent felt the same way about • Coni munity Center Remodeling." Less than ten percent each opposed the other three components. Looking at net effects the strongest components were "Police Department Additions" and "Fire Station Additions." Both "parr Improvements" and "Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center" registered small positive impacts; while "Community Center Remodeling" was a small net negative. "City Hall Remodeling' had a moderate negative influence on residents. Sources oflnform4don: The `Fost" was cited as the principal source of information about City government and its activities by 36 %. Newspapers, generically, were relied upon by 15% of the sample. Twelve Percent cited the "Sun." Similarly, 12% mentioned the "City Newsletter." The "grapevine" was also pointed to by nine percent. Smaller numbers also cited meetings, mail, cable television, and the "Star - Tribune." If they could choose, 52% said they preferred to receive information about City government and services in a `entailed newsletter." `Local newspapers" were also popular with 17 %. Cable television ranked third at four percent. Eight percent stated they liked the status quo. The city newsletter proved to be a key communications vehicle, then, within the community. • 1995 City ofBrooklyn Center Residential Survey 8 Summary and Conclusions: Several general conclusions can be reached from the results of this study: A. Residential opinions about the Brooklyn Center, in general, reflected a pessimism similar to results in the core cities, Crime and fear of crime were dominant issues in the community; dilapidation and diversity were related lesser concerns. B. City services were rated high in comparison with other suburban communities. In particular, both fire protection and police protection were very well- regarded. C. The widespread antipathy o prop �Y pr P y evidenced in man other suburbs mitigated in Brooklyn Center. Y barbs was greatly D. Residents would support a carefully crafted Capital Improvements Bond proposal; however, a tent million dollar proposal would prove difficult to pass. E. In constructing an acceptable bond referendum, the following be kept in mind: preference hierarchy should Fire Stations Additions Police Department AdditionlCity Hall Remodeling Senior Citizen Drop -In Center Park Improvements Jointly-Operated Ice Arena Expansions/Improvements at the Community Center Difficulty in passing a capital improvements bond increases as projects from the lower categories are added to the mix. • Decision Resources, Ltd. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 3128 Dean Court RESIDENTIAL SURVEY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL DRAFT VERSION 40 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources Ltd, a oll' p ing firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Brooklyn Center to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city council and staff are interested in your opinions and sug- gestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 31 you lived in Brooklyn Center? ONE OR TWO YEARS....... 8°s THREE TO FIVE YEARS ... 11b SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 13a 11 TO TWENTY YEARS .... 15a OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 49%7 REFUSED ................0� 2. As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 0 the future do you expect to live ONE TO TWO YEARS ...... 11°k in Brooklyn Center? THREE TO FIVE YEARS ... !Q SIX TO TEN YEARS ....... 0 OVER TEN YEARS ........ 36b DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 221 3. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT .............1A ,life in Brooklyn Center -- ex- GOOD.. .651 cellent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR .............18b POOR.... ­ ..Q DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... Ib 4. What do you like most about living in Brooklyn Center? DON'T KNOW /NOTHING, 81; LOCATION, 43t; PEOPLE, 61; SHOP PING /CONVENIENCE, lib; SCHOOLS, 3b; WELL -RUN, 41; QUIET /PEACEFUL,` 81; SELL TOWN, 41; PARKS, 21; NEIGHBOR- HOOD, 71; HOUSING, 2b; SAFE, 21; EVERYTHING, 20. 5. What do you like least about it? DON'T KNOW, 231; NOTHING, 6b; TRAFFIC, 51; CRIME, 221; TAXES, 21; APARTMENTS, 61; CITY GOVERNMENT, 41; LOCATION -, 30 DETERIORATING, 91; SCHOOLS, 21; BUSINESS LEAVING, 31; CITY SERVICES, 31; MINORITIES, 21; POOR PEOPLE, 33; LOW INCOME HOUSING, 30; REPUTATION /IMAGE, 31; SCATTERED, M. i 6. what do you consider to be the most serious problem facing the City of Brooklyn Center? DON'T KNOW /NOTHING, 14$; CRIME, 44�k; TAXES, 2%-; MINORI- TIES, 3t; CITY GOVERNMENT, 6 DETERIORATION, 100; POOR PEOPLE, 3$; IMAGE /REPUTATION, 4.5; TRAFFIC, 1 LOW INCOME HOUSING, 9t; GROWTH, 20; SCATTERED, 4t. Moving on.... 7. in comparison with nearby suburban VERY HIGH .............lot areas, do you consider property SOMEWHAT HIGH......... 200 taxes in Brooklyn Center to be ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 47% very high, somewhat high, about SOMEWHAT LOW ........... 7% average, somewhat low, or very VERY LOW ...............00 low? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 16% As you may know, the City share of the property tax is about twenty percent, or about $19 per month for a typical Brooklyn Center home. 8. When you consider the property EXCELLENT .............16%- taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD..... .62a city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR..... .lit you rate the general value of city POOR ....... ...........3a services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 9$ fair, or poor? • I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC GOOD FAIR POOR DKR 9. Police protection? 26%- 66% 7t 00 2t 10. Fire protection? 28t 60%; 2t 0% 10t 11. Pavement repair and patching on city streets? 8b 590 21%7 lit 20 12. Storm water run -off control and flooding in your neighborhood? 170 63a 120 60 30 13. Snow plowing? 410 540 50 i0 0%. 14. Park maintenance? 200 630 60 23 lot 15. Trail maintenance? 150 520 50 la 28•; 16. Recreational programs? 160 52% 40 3- 280 17. Code enforcement, such nuisances as junk cars or poorly kept up houses? 7!k 56-1 22% 110 5!k IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #9 -#17, ASK; 2 18. Why did you rate as (only fair /poor)? (N =232) NOT ENFORCED, 29%-; POTHOLES, 28%; 3 OR MORE COM- PLAINTS, 14b; RUN -OFF /FLOOD CONTROL, 13t; PLOWING, 2t; POTHOLES /RUN -OFF, 3b; POTHOLES /CODES, 4b; PARKS AND TRAILS, 2W; RECREATION PROGRAMS, 2$; SCATTERED, 3!k. 19. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT .............30t appearance of your neighborhood -- GOOD ..................62° excellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR ..............7% poor? POOR. ................... 1% UNSURE .................ot 20. Why did you rate your neighborhood appearance as only fair or poor? (N =31) DON'T KNOW, 3b; YARDS, 36W; HOUSES, 39 RUN DOWN COMMERCIAL, 10b; CARS, 3b; SCATTERED 10t. Moving on.... 21. During the past year, have any members of your household participated in organized activities sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Center? (IF "YES," ASK:) What were they? DON'T KNOW, 70$; PARADE, 2b; SOFTBALL /BASEBALL, 6b; EARL BROWN DAYS, 0; SWIMMNG, 5b; CLASSES, 2b; NEIGHBORHOOD ® WATCH /CRIME PREVENTION, 31; SPORTS, 4b; EVENTS, 4b; SCATTERED, 2b. IF "YES," ASK: 22. Were you generally satisfied SATISFIED .............. 96b or dissatisfied 5 led with the pro- DISSATISFIED ........... 3b gram(s)? (N =121) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 1%� 23. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT .............23b reational facilities in Brooklyn GOOD ..................60°; Center -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR ..............5� fair, or poor? POOR...... DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... lit 24. Do you feel that the current mix YES ...................83b of recreational facilities in' he NO. .5b City meets the needs of members of UNSURE. • .13b your household? " ' " " " 25. And, do you feel that the current YES.. .77! mix of recreational facilities in N0. .63 the City meets the need of the UNSURE. ......17 community? ............ 3 IF "NO" IN EITHER OF TWO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS, ASK: 26. What additional recreational facilities would you like to see the City of Brooklyn. Center offer residents? (N =35) DON'T KNOW, 20t; BALLFIELDS, 31�; PLAYGROUND EQUIP - MENI', 14�; MORE FOR KIDS, 20 ICE ARENA, 11�; SENIOR, 9t; SCATTERED, 23t. The City of Brooklyn Center is considering a multi- purpose bond referendum for facility needs in the community. Part of this referendum proposal might include additions and improvements to the park system. I would like to read you a short list of poten- tial components of the bond referendum. For each one please tell me whether you would strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax increase for that Purpose. If you have no opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE LIST) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 27. Replacement and improvement of dated playground equip- ment in neighborhood parks? 23a 44!k 95S l00 14- j 28. Reconstruct park shelter buildings in larger city parks? 1 42% 130 16! • 29. Acquisition of the Joslyn Property in Southwest Brooklyn Center adjacent to Twin Lake for development of trails, athletic fields, and preservation of wetlands? 25$ 32% 100 11% 22° 30. Completion of the trail system to connect all neigh - borhoods across the city? 26% 38� 14t lit 12� The City of Brooklyn Center and area school district are consid- ering the construction f o an ice arena /youth activities facility. The arena would be used jointly by the City and by the school districts serving Brooklyn Center. As you may know, there is a need for more ice sheets in this area because of federal mandates requiring equal opportunity for participation by both boys and girls. 31. Would you favor or oppose the con- FAVOR/STRONGLY ........ 35a struction of an ice arena /youth FAVOR .................25's activities facility in Brooklyn OPPOSE ................14 °; Center, to be used jointly by the OPPOSE/STRONGLY ....... 17% City and school districts? Do you DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....10°s • feel strongly that way? 4 Turning to the issue of public safety in the community.... I would like to read you a short list of public safety concerns. • 32. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest concern in Brooklyn Center. If you feel that none of these problems are serious in Brooklyn Center, just say so. (READ LIST) 33. Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining problems are serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE FIRST CHOICE AND RE- READ LIST) GREATEST SECOND violent crime 140 9a Traffic congestion 6%- Drugs 12$ 16% Youth gangs 12a 18� Business crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud 8 8 Residential crimes, such as burglary, theft, and vandalism 343 16b ALL EQUALLY 10!� NONE OF THE ABOVE o DON'T 40 1 � 2% KNOW REFUSE / D a 3b _%- • 34. Do you feel that crime in Bro oklyn INCREASED .............64 Center has increased, decreased, DECREASED ............... 9%. or remained about the same during REFINED ABOUT SAME ... 21!� the past five years? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.....6%- 35. How would you rate the amount of T00 LITTLE ............ 30% police patrolling the police de- ABOUT RIGHT....... .651; partment does in your neighbor- T00 iv_UCH ........... 2!k hood -- too little, about right, DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 3a or too much? 36. During the past few years, have YES/EXCELLENT .......... 7%- You or membe rs of our household ld YESJGOOD ...............2%� had the occasion to contact the YES /ONLY FAIR .......... 0%- Brooklyn Center Fire Department YES /POOR ...............0 for emergency service? (IF NO. .91%- "YES," ASK:) How would you rate DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% their response time -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 37. During the past year, have you had YES ...................36!k any contact with Brooklyn Center NO... .. .64% City Hall, either by telephone or DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... l% in person? 5 IF "YES," ASK: Thinking about your last contact by telephone or in person.... 38. Which Department did you con- POLICE DEPA.RTMENT ..... 31* tact -- the Police Department,UTILITY BILLING ....... IS� Utility Billing, Assessor's ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ...... 4!k Office, Planning and Inspec- PLANNING & INSPECT .... 18!k tions, Engineering, or Ad- ENGINEERING ............ 8% ministration? (N =144) ADMINISTRATION ........ 15! DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 6t 39. Were you generally satisfied SATISFIED .............87b or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED .......... 13% assistance and /or information DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 1;; you received? (N =144) 40. Were you treated courteously, YES ...................92% or not? (N =144) NO .....................4%� DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 4.1 41. How convenient for you are the VERY CONVENIENT ....... 37b current hours of operation of City SOMEWHAT CONVENIENT... 39 ° s Hall -- very convenient, somewhat SOMEWHAT INCONVENIENT..4t convenient, somewhat inconvenient, VERY INCONVENIENT ...... 2°s or very inconvenient? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....18b 42. If you could make one change or improvement in the hours of • operation or location of City services, what would it be? DON'T KNOW /NONE, 73t; STAY OPEN LATER, 19 SATURDAY, 3b; OPEN EARLIER, lb; SCATTERED, 4$. The City is also reviewing space needs in the Civic Center and the two Fire Stations serving the community. Let's talk about changes and improvements in City Hall and the Fire Stations first. I would like to read you a list of components which might be included in a bond referendum proposal. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax increase for that purpose. If you do not have an opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE LIST) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 43. Improved handicapped access- ibility in both City Hall and the Community Center? 27% 34%- 13 8%- 20!� • 6 STS SMS SMO STO DKR 44. Expansion of Police Department • office space to allow for more space for detectives, locker rooms for female police offi- cers, space for programs such as DARE, senior TAP, crime Prevention, and other pro- grams? 3 V 39%- 9_W 61 16%- 45. Expansion of the holding cell and interview areas, to Der - mit separation of adult and juvenile offenders, men and women, and victims and the accused? 25!k 37-� 10•; 9�; 21W 46. Completion of energy effi- ciency projects at City Hall, such as roofing, lighting, and window replacement? 18t 39%- 141 8t 22% 47. Expansion of the two Fire Stations to provide more efficient storage of fire- fighting equipment and train- ing facilities, adding locker • rooms for our female fire- fighters, and providing space to station an ambulance from North Memorial Hospital? 35t 38* 6! 9%_ 13% 48. Replacement of some aging fire engines and rescue/ salvage vans? 30W 400 6 8% 17t Moving on...... 49. During the past year, have you or YES ...................44!� other household members visited NO. .56%- the Brooklyn Center Community DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0t Center swimming pool or another activity in the Community Center? S0. Have you or any household member YES ...................24% visited another city's community N0. .76ro center? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.....it IF "YES," ASK; 7 51. Which city's community center have you visited? (N =96) DON'T KNOW, 2g; ROBBINSDALE, 4%�; BROOKLYN PARK, 350; CRYSTAL, 30 NEW HOPE, 5�; SHOREVIEW, 6 MINNEAPO- LIS, 5 %; BLAINE, 26; SCATTERED, 90. A second area of identified needs at the Civic Center involves remodeling and renovation of the Community Center. I would like to read you a list of components which could also be included in a bond referendum. For each one, please tell me if ou would d strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly Oppose a property tax increase for that purpose. If you do not have an opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE LIST) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 52. Construction of an indoor playground? 9b 15% 28%- 31 160 53. Addition of a gymnasium? 11 30% 190 25% 160 STS SLATS SMO STO DKR 54. Construction of a senior citizen drop -in center? 236 38!� 136 130 13g 55. Expansion of the competition -type swimming pool into a family- oriented pool area, • with accessibility for young children, seniors, and the handicapped, shallow depth areas, and water fountains? 230 29° 17!� 190 13•°s 56. Construction of additional community meeting rooms? 66 176 280 270 220 Now, let's talk for a moment about all of the bond referendum proposals we have discussed. Suppose the City of Brooklyn Center were to propose a bond referendum for six different types of facility needs at the next election -- park improvements; a combination patio n ice arena and youth activities center; Police Depart- ment addition; Fire Station additions; City Hall remodeling for energy efficiency; and, Community Center remodeling. 57. How much would ou be willing zlling to NOTHING. .......... .1g� see your MONTHLY property taxes $4.00. _ increase to fund this entire pack- $8.00. .26� age? Let's say, would you support $12.00 ............., ..15a a tax increase of $ er month? 1 p $ 6.00 ............... 6k (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; $20.00 .................73 MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RE- DON'T KNOW ............ 13% SPONSE) How about $ per month? REFUSED ................10 (REPEAT PROCESS) 8 I would like your reaction to a specific referendum proposal.... Suppose the City proposed a ten million dollar bond package, ® which included these six components. If approved, owners of a $70,000 home in the city would see their property taxes increase by about $7.25 per month or $87.00 annually for fifteen years. 58. If the bond referendum were today, SUPPORT /STRONG...... 26%- would you support or oppose it? SUPPORT ...............24% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel OPPOSE .................11% strongly that way? OPPOSE/STRONG ......... 28%- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... lit 59. Could you tell me one or two reasons for your decision? DON'T KNOW, 7$; TAXES HIGH, 31t; NEEDED, 22a; GOOD FOR CITY, 13%:; NEED TO MAINTAIN, 4t; GOOD IDEA, 2t; NEED INFO, 7a; PRICE IS RIGHT, 4$; NOT NEEDED, 5t; TOO EXTRAV- AGENT, 6t. Legs talk about the six components for a few more minutes. To review, the six different types of improvements were: park im- provements; a combination ice arena and youth activities center; Police Department addition; Fire Station additions; City Hall remodeling for energy efficiency; and, Community Center remodel- ing. 60. Which, if any, of the six types of improvements is most • important to you? (ROTATE AND READ LIST) 61. Which, if any, of the five remaining.components would you rank second highest? (ROTATE, DELETE FIRST CHOICE, AND READ LIST) 62. Is there any of the six components you would definitely Oppose in a bond referendum? Which one? (RE -READ LIST IF NECESSARY) , 63. Is there a second component you would definitely oppose? (RE -READ LIST, OMITTING PREVIOUS CHOICE) FRST SCUD OPP1 OPP2 Police Department Addition 43� 19t 2t 1%r Park improvements 8-� 8t 4t 5t Fire Station Additions 12t 31a 2t 2t Ice Arena and Youth Activities Center 16% 9b 20 °s 3t Community Center Remodeling 4% 10° 7t 8t- City Hall remodeling for energy efficiency 3%� 4% lit 6!k ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 4t 4b 7g 7t NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) 7g 10t 41t 57s DON'T IO`1OW /REFUSED 4t 6t 8 ° s 12%- 9 Moving on.... 64. And, what is your primary source of information about City . government and its activities? DON'T KNOW /NONE, 31; PEOPLE, 9t; "POST", 36t; "SUN ", 12t NEWSLETTER, 12$; MEETINGS, 2t; LOCAL PAPER, 151; MAIL, 31; TV, 61; STAR TRIBUNE, 31. 65. If you could choose, how would you prefer to receive infor- mation about City government and services? DON'T KNOW /NONE, 12l; PEOPLE, 1W; "POST ", 41; NEWSLETTER, 291; MEETINGS, 21; LOCAL PAPER, 161; AS IS, 81; MAIL, 231; TV, 41; SCATTERED, 21. Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest. Be sure to include yourself. 66. First, persons 65 or over? 0 ................68 1 ................171 2 ................15$` 67. Adults between the ages of 45 and 64? 0 ................581 1 ................18 • 2 ................241 68. Adults between the ages of 18 and 44? 0 ................471 1 ................20% 2 ................311 3 OR MORE,........3 69. Children between the ages of 5 and 17? 0 ................ % I................M 2 ................101 3 OR MORE ......... Q 70. Children under the age of 5 years old? 0 ................898 1 .................71 2 OR MORE......... 41 71. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation of your spouse or partner? PROFESSIONAL- TECHNICAL, 71; OWNER - MANAGER, 180; CLERICAL - SALES, 161; BLUE COLLAR, 241; RETIREES, 301; SCATTERED, Q. 72. residence? or rent your present OWN ...................731 RENT ..................27; • DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 01 10 73. What is your age, please? 18 -24. .5t (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25- 34 ................. 16t 35- 44 .................18 45- 54 .........17 55 -64. ........ .17W 65 AND VE 0 R...........26%- REFUSED ................Og And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your an- swers are held strictl con fident ial y al.... 74. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12,500..........61 pre -tax yearly household income. $12,501 - $25,000.......16! Does the income lie.... $25,001 - $37,500.......18 $3 - $50,000.......20 $50,001 - $62,500.......10% $62,501 - $75,000........7 OVER $75,000...........3 DON'T KNOW .............7t REFUSED ...............14W 75. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE ..................480 FEMALE ................53W 76. REGION OF CITY (FROM LIST) PRECINCT 1............15 PRECINCT 2............13 PRECINCT 3............15 PRECINCT 4............14! • PRECINCT 5 .............9� PRECINCT 6. 14a PRECINCT 7............10% PRECINCT 8............11 11 Council Meeting Date 11/27/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 7 L'—• Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Preliminary 1996 Capital Improvement Program Department Approval: Diane Spector, Director of Pubali Services r- \ Manager's Review /Recommendation: `l No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Review and comment. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) As the Council is this evening being presented with the results of the 1995 Residential Survey, which addresses questions of residents' evaluation of capital needs and bond referendum interest, it is appropriate to have available the latest version of the City's proposed 1996 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City's CIP is reviewed in parallel with the operating budget. The Council has at various times through the year focused on the street and utility portions of the CIP, and to some extent on the community development portion. Much of the sections of equipment are being considered via the budget discussions. g s ussions. The Council has at various times during the year and again recently focused on government building and park needs. It is expected that these discussions will be ongoing and will continue into 1996. However, two items relating o arks which ' s attention are these: h I bring to the Council g P g 1) It is staff's recommendation that the Council consider the following as a minimum level of park capital improvement projects (that is, those funded from the Capital Improvement Fund and not from the budget) in 1996: Replacement of playground equipment at West Palmer Lake, Marlin, Grandview, and Garden City Parks. In addition, administrative staff at Garden City Elementary have expressed an interest in a cooperative playground project to replace the school's wood • and tire playground apparatus next to Brooklane Park (65th & Drew). Replacement of the tennis court surface at Northport Park. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 • Repair of a Shingle Creek retaining wall and rehabilitation (dredging and edge stabilization) of the Central Park Plaza pond and boardwalk. Additional improvements to Orchard Lane and Marlin Parks which the Orchard Lane East neighborhood may identify as a part of the neighborhood street improvement program. Examples include additional picnic tables, perhaps covered with a small canopy or picnic shelter; glider swings for adults; additional landscaping. These improvements total in the neighborhood of $250,000- 300,000. The costliest items are the playground replacements, which average $40,000 each for larger parks and $25,000- 30,000 for smaller or cooperative projects. Staff are in the process of evaluating alternatives for the retaining wall and pond rehabilitation item, and refining cost estimates. The neighborhood has not yet come to a consensus on park improvements. 2) At its regular meeting on November 21, 1995, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council approve the replacement of playground equipment in six parks in 1996 and five in 1997 (see attached memo from Jim Glasoe). If the Council were to approve an additional two park equipment replacements in 1996, we would recommend consideration be given to Kylawn and Bellvue Parks. • • Public Services Department M ° MEMORANDUM Govt Buildings TO: Diane Spector Dy FROM: Jim Glasoe . Engineering ..;:; SUBJ: Parks and Ike' ' eation Commission Recommendation Streets ' J IT", DATE: November 22, 1995 Parks * At their meting last evening, the Parks and Recreation Commission Public Utilities discussed the time table for replacement of playground equipment in city parks. Commissioner's focused discussion on the playground equipment Recreation replacement time table that was developed in 1993. It called for all a parks to have equipment replaced by the Fall of 1997. Current CIP funding would have this replacement completed in 1998. Central Garage As a result of their discussion the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved a motion "recommending the City Council amend the Capital Improvements Program to provide funds to replace playground equipment in six (6) parks in 1996 and five (5) in 1997. " They further directed that staff should determine the priority for the aforementioned replacements. If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please let me know. cc: File 1996' Capital x Impr6vement-,- P y • 0 City of Brooklyn Center November, 1995 i TABLE 1 - Capital Improvement t ram - Summa b Functional Area P 9 Summary Y "Where The Funds Would Be Spent" 21 .................... ....._.................::.............:....:.: 6.::.: ..:;.;::.:::>::;;::::>::::>:::::::...;:'[ �9�'...................................' E998.................:.:_........:::: 1. 9: 99 ::: >::::: <i:::::;:::;:..::.:..> bt�0 -.�0 ;...:: PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS: Water Utility Capital Projects 165,780 500,000 705,000 1,025,000 385,000 5,325,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Projects 982,300 1,250,000 425,000 300,000 495,000 1,250,000 Storm Drainage Utility Capital Projects 1,775,000 3,600,000 510,000 250,000 350,000 1,875,000 SUBTOTAL $2,923,080 $5,350,000 $1,640,000 $1,575,000 $1,230,000 $8,450,000 SIDEWALK/TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: Off - Street Trails 0 0 125,000 0 0 0 On- Street Trails 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Sidewalks 75,000 25,000 85,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 SUBTOTAL $75,000 $35,000 $220,000 $35,000 $35,000 $175,000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS $72,700 $269,200 $3,314,900 $4,200,000 $0 $0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $2,950,000 $950,000 $6,200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,250,000 PUBLIC BUILDINGS $563,600 $0 $12,355,000 $0 $0 $750,000 I STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Sealcoating 120,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Signals 0 0 275,000 0 0 0 State Aid Street Projects 593,480 4,062,000 0 953,000 378,000 1,272,000 Other Street Projects 988,500 630,000 1,900,205 540,000 40,000 270,000 Landscaping 0 0 170,000 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $1,701,980 $4,792,000 $2,445,205 $1,593,000 $518,000 $2,042,000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: Data Processing 118,030 97,000 455,000 100,000 90,000 580,000 Other Equipment 414,200 485,000 1,000,000 250,000 0 0 City Vehicles 367,700 675,440 980,600 447,000 278,200 1,381,800 SUBTOTAL $899,930 $1,257,440 $2,435,600 $797,000 $368,200 $1,961,800 GRAND TOTAL $9,186,290 $12,653,640 $28,610,705 $8,400,000 $2,351,200 $14,628,800 i City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program, 1995 -2004 By Functional Area Other Street Improvements Water 1 1 State Aid Streets 8% Sanitary Sewer 10% — _ _- 6% Storm Drainage _= I 11 % ' i Community Development 15% Trails & Sidewalks 1% I Capital Equipment Public Buildings 10% 18% Park Improvements 10% I Total Proposed = $75,830,635 i • TABLE 2 - Capital Improvert Program - Summary by Fund "Where the Funds Would Come From" :;.:. 21 . 1� :...... �OQQ 2Q04 WATER UTILITY $220,780 $942,000 $1,307,125 $1,345,000 $395,000 $5,437,000 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY $1,005,170 $1,284,000 $527,125 $334,000 $546,000 $1,289,000 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY $1,655,170 $1,090,000 $697,150 $260,000 $350,000 $1,875,000 MSA- REGULAR ACCOUNT #1496 $362,340 $2,865,000 $174,025 $628,000 $269,000 $768,000 MSA - LOCAL ACCOUNT #2900/11 $207,900 $489,000 $1,052,030 $93,000 $36,000 $514,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $538,000 $3,482,000 $512,500 $333,000 $77,000 $234,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND $512,700 $465,000 $1,647,500 $0 $0 $0 I GOLF COURSE FUND $26,100 $15,640 $160,100 $200,000 $0 $0 LIQUOR STORE FUND $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CENTRAL GARAGE FUND $286,600 $534,800 $696,600 $447,000 $278,200 $1,381,800 EDA LEVY $21,900 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 TIF FUNDS $3,300,000 $800,000 $6,393,750 $150,000 $0 $0 CDBG FUNDS $75,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $625,000 HERITAGE CENTER REVENUE $37,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER FUNDS $75,000 $75,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,375,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $645,700 $125,000 $14,551,800 $4,000,000 $0 $0 GENERAL FUND $216,130 $221,200 $341,000 $210,000 $200,000 $1,130,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTS $0 $190,000 $300,000 $200,000 $0 $0 GRAND TOTAL $9,186,290 $12,653,640 $28,610,705 $8,400,000 $2,351,200 $14,628,800 City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program, 1995 -2004 By Funding Source General Fund 3% Water Utility Other Funds 13% 19% Sanitary Sewer Utility — =_ 7% �,h� � � Other Enterprise Funds Storm Drainage Utility = � � � � � � ,� $% Capital Improvements Fund MSA Regular 3% Special Assessments M 7 % SA Local 7% 3% GO Bonds 25% Total Proposed = $75,830,635 TABLE 3 - Capital Improvement Program - Cash Balance Analy p p g ys s "Can We Afford To Make These Capital Outlays" 22- Nov -95 1998: Balance Jan 1 $4,755,150 $5,127,975 $4,781,885 $4,050,005 $3,296,555 Revenues Investment Interest 299,580 294,750 250,000 250,000 250,000 User Fees 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,080,000 1,128,000 1,128,000 Bond Proceeds Other 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 35,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 220,780 942,000 1,307,125 1,345,000 395,000 Debt Service Operating Costs 807,975 800,840 824,755 856,450 882,140 Balance Dec 31 $5,127,975 $4,781,885 $4,050,005 $3,296,555 $3,432,415 SANTAR1fEV1ER UTI�.ITY Balance Jan 1 $3,419,200 $3,163,975 $2,496,450 $2,625,965 $3,007,670 Revenues Investment Interest 215,410 183,500 203,125 200,000 200,000 User Fees 2,237,415 2,237,415 2,326,185 2,463,160 2,537,050 Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays 1,005,170 1,284,000 527,125 334,000 546,000 Operating Costs 362,580 373,780 384,745 399,975 411,970 Debt Service MCWS Charge 1,341,300 1,431,660 1,488,925 1,548,480 1,594,930 Balance Dec 31 $3,163,975 $2,496,450 $2,625,965 $3,007,670 $3,192,820 ..................................................... ............................... ..... Balance Jan 1 $2,019,250 $885,130 $368,615 $170,670 $400,150 Revenues Investment Interest 22,675 117,200 43,800 12,000 12,000 User Fees 780,000 832,000 858,000 884,000 884,000 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 1,655,170 1,090,000 697,150 260,000 350,000 Operating Costs 141,500 116,780 111,000 113,000 115,000 Debt Service 90,625 198,815 241,595 243,520 244,000 Management Costs 49,500 60,120 50,000 50,000 50,000 Balance Dec 31 $885,130 $368,615 $170,670 $400,150 $537,150 TABLE 3 - Capital Improvement Program - Cash Balance Analysis Can We Afford To Make These s Capital Outlays" Y 22- Nov -95 �99a' '199 <g97 "t99 ;....1!9$9 N1UNI�IPAL STATE AI[� �t!EG ACCOUNT 1496 _ Balance Jan 1 $1,472,775 $1,564,110 ($848,763) ($571,376) ($747,854) Revenues Intergovernmental 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 1,023,000 Expenditures Capital Outlays* 362,340 2,865,000 174,025 628,000 269,000 Transfers to Other Funds 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 75,000 Debt Service 306,325 307,873 308,588 308,478 307,560 Balance Dec 31* $1,564,110 ($848,763) ($571,376) ($747,854) ($376,414) IL1tPIK - iiA Balance Jan 1 $2,629,000 $2,552,550 $2,191,178 $1,248,706 $1,218,142 Revenues Investment Interest 131,450 127,628 109,559 62,435 60,907 Other Expenditures Capital Outlays 207,900 489,000 1,052,030 93,000 36,000 Other Balance Dec 31 $2,552,550 $2,191,178 $1,248,706 $1,218,142 $1,243,0 CARI`i'Ali* PRO EGTS F DN© Balance Jan 1 $5,164,900 $4,858,600 $4,767,440 $3,486,920 $3,779,300 Revenues Investment Interest 206,400 373,840 366,980 292,380 304,890 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 512,700 465,000 1,647,500 0 0 Debt Service Balance Dec 31 $4,858,600 $4,767,440 $3,486,920 $3,779,300 $4,084,190 * Some part of the 69th Avenue bridge project is eligible for federal funding. That amount is not known at this time, the total cost is shown as being funded by the regular state aid fund. It is not anticipated that the fund will actually outspend its balance. In addition, final project costs have not yet been determined for some 1994/1995 projects. • TABLE 4 - Capital Improvement Program - Summary By Function and Fund 21- Nov -95 t!995 ` t 996:*: 1997': .. :2EH1E 20.04; PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS: I ter Utility 165,780 500,000 705,000 1,025,000 385,000 5,325,000 'ary Sewer Utility 982,300 1,250,000 425,000 300,000 495,000 1,250,000 m Drainage Utility 1,775,000 500,000 510,000 250,000 350,000 1,875,000 Special Assessments /Other 3,100,000 SUBTOTAL $2,923,080 $5,350,000 $1,640,000 $1,575,000 $1,230,000 $8,450,000 SIDEWALKITRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: TRAILS State Aid - Local Accounts #29111 #2900 0 10,000 135,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 SIDEWALKS State Aid - Local Accounts #2911/ #2900 75,000 25,000 85,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 SUBTOTAL $75,000 $35,000 $220,000 $35,000 $35,000 $175,000 PARKIMPROVEMENTS Capital Projects Fund 72,700 265,000 100,000 0 0 0 General Fund 0 4,200 101,000 0 0 0 Golf Course Fund 0 0 132,100 200,000 0 0 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 0 0 0 0 GO Bonds 0 0 2,981,800 4,000,000 0 0 SUBTOTAL $72,700 $269,200 $3,314,900 54,200,000 $0 $0 PUBLIC BUILDINGS General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Improvements Fund 50,000 0 792,500 0 0 0 Water Utility 0 0 81,250 0 0 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 81,250 0 0 0 Heritage Center /Other Revenue 13,600 0 0 0 0 750,000 GO Bonds 0 0 11,400,000 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $63,600 $0 $12,355,000 $0 $0 $750,000 STREET IMPROVEMENTS MSA - Regular #1496 362,340 2,865,000 174,025 628,000 269,000 768,000 MSA - Local #2911/ #2900 132,900 464,000 842,030 68,000 11,000 389,000 Water Utility 0 167,000 10,875 70,000 10,000 112,000 O ary Sewer Utility 22,870 34,000 10,875 34,000 51,000 39,000 n Drainage Utility 40,170 590,000 101,150 10,000 0 0 Special Assessments 378,000 382,000 512,500 333,000 77,000 234,000 GO Bonds 645,700 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund 120,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 TIF Revenue 0 0 393,750 150,000 0 0 Other Governments 0 190,000 300,000 200,000 0 0 SUBTOTAL $1,701,980 $ 4,792,000 $2,445,205 $1,593,000 $518,000 $2,042,000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CDBG 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 625,000 EDA Levy 0 0 0 0 0 0 TIF Revenue 3,300,000 800,000 6,000,000 0 0 0 Other Funds 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 625,000 SUBTOTAL $3,450,000 $950,000 $6,200,000 $200,000 $ 200,000 $1,250,000 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT: DATA PROCESSING General Fund 96,130 97,000 200,000 100,000 90,000 580,000 1 Other Funds 21,900 0 255,000 0 0 0 OTHER EQUIPMENT General Fund 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 Heritage Center Revenue 24,200 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Improvements Fund 390,000 200,000 750,000 0 0 0 Water Utility 275,000 250,000 250,000 CENTRAL GARAGE VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT Central Garage Fund 286,600 534,800 696,600 447,000 278,200 1,381,800 Golf Course Fund 26,100 15,640 28,000 0 0 0 GO Bonds 0 125,000 170,000 0 0 0 Water Utility 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage Utility 0 0 86,000 0 1 0 0 SUBTOTAL $899,930 1 $1,257,440 $2,435,600 1 $797,000 $368,200 1 $1,961,800 GRAND TOTAL $9,186,290 1 $12,653,640 $28,610,705 $8,400,000 $2,351,200 $14,628,800 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................ ............................1 -2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM A. Public Works Street Improvements ............. ............................... 10 Sidewalk/ Trail Improvements ....... ............................... 11 Water Utility ................. ............................... 12 Sanitary Sewer Utility ............ ............................... 13 Storm Drainage Utility ........... ............................... 14 B. Parks and Recreation ............... ............................... 15 C. Facilities and Equipment Government Buildings ........... ............................... 16 Data Processing ............... ............................... 17 Vehicles and Equipment .......... ............................... 18 D. Community Development ............. ............................... 19 TABLES Table 1: Summary By Functional Area .............................. 3 Table 2: Summary By Fund ...... ............................... 5 Table 3: Cash Balance Analysis ... ............................... 7 -8 Table 4: Summary By Function and Fund ............................. 9 • FIGURES Figure 1: CIP, 1995 -2004, By Functional Area .......................... 4 Figure 2: CIP, 1995 -2004, By Funding Source .......................... 6 APPENDIX A Capital Improvements Fund Expenditure Policy DETAILED SCHEDULES OF IMPROVEMENTS Table A: Water Utility Capital Improvements Table B: Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvements Table C: Storm Sewer Utility Capital Improvements Table D: Sidewalk and Trail Improvements Table E: Park Improvements Table F: Public Building Improvements Table G: Street Improvements Table H: Equipment Table I: Central Garage Vehicles and Equipment Table J: Community Development i 1995 -2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center believes that it is a necessity to periodically review and update its Capital Improvements Program (CIP). By such a review, the Council and staff are better prepared to evaluate needs, meet the financial restrictions facing governmental bodies, and adjust to changing conditions. No city can afford to accomplish every proposed project. Therefore, a methodology must be devised to determine which projects are of highest priority. The CIP presents a schedule of public improvements for the community over a ten year period. This program takes into consideration the community's financial capabilities as well as its goals and priorities. Consideration of this report in concert with the annual budget review provides a better understanding of the demands on the City's financial resources in the coming years. For the purposes of this report, a capital improvement can be defined as any major non - recurring expenditure or any expenditure for physical facilities of government. Typical expenditures are the cost of land acquisition or interest in land, construction of buildings or other structures; construction of roads, utilities, or park improvements; and acquisition of vehicles and data processing and other equipment. Most capital improvements are typically funded from revenue sources other than the general fund. Maintenance of these improvements is primarily funded by the general fund. The CIP is directly linked to the goals and policies, land use and community facility sections of the Comprehensive Plan, since these sections indicate general policies of development, redevelopment, and the maintenance of the community. Consequently, the primary objective of the CIP is to integrate the specific goals, policies, and recommendations contained in the City's plan with its capability to pay for and maintain capital improvements. City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1995 -2004 A summary of the proposed capital improvements by functional area for the ten year period of 1995 through 2004 is shown in Table 1. A summary by funding source is shown in Table 2. These tables are summaries of the detail expenditures shown in Exhibit A. All costs shown are based on 1995 estimated costs, with no adjustment for inflation. Table 3 shows the effect the proposed capital outlays would have on some of the various sources available to fund them. Certainly not all of the capital improvements to be undertaken during this time period are known at this time. Rather, the information contained in these tables represents a best estimate based on present knowledge and expected conditions. It must be understood that the scheduling of various improvements, especially those that are related to development or redevelopment can change substantially from year to year. However, the overall level of improvements shown in this CIP represents the City's judgment of what is necessary to maintain its infrastructure in good condition, and to provide those facilities which are necessary to support the public services (public safety, park and recreation, senior programs, etc.) through the year 2004. The Capital Improvements Fund Expenditure Policy (see Appendix A) details requirements which must be met for projects proposed to be financed through the Capital Improvements Fund. The Capital Improvements Fund is the primary "unrestricted" fund for capital improvements available to the City Council. Other funds are limited to specific types of improvements, such as water system improvements, road construction, or vehicle replacements. Projects financed via this fund typically include park improvements, and repair, remodelling, or construction of community facilities, such as the Community Center, City Hall, the two Fire Stations, and the Central Garage. City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 2 A. PUBLIC WORKS While most of the i C ty of Brooklyn Center is fully developed, some new development areas and redevelopment areas require the installation of public improvements. The City requires developers to finance and install all public improvements necessary to service their developments. Any oversizing of facilities to provide capacity to service an area greater than the project area is financed by the City through such sources as the Municipal State Aid Street funds, water and sewer utility funds, storm drainage utility funds and tax increment financing (TIF) funds. The City's program also provides for a high level of maintenance of the existing infrastructure and for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of facilities as needed to improve their functionality, safety, or serviceability. A twenty year program to systematically address neighborhood street and utility needs was begun in 1993. By way of this program, one or more neighborhood projects comprising two to four miles of streets each are improved with rehabilitated or reconstructed streets and public utilities. 1. Street Improvement and Maintenance Programs The City's programs relating to streets under its jurisdiction include the following: • An annual high -level maintenance program which includes the sealcoating of City streets. This sealcoating is done in accordance with the recommendations of the • Pavement Management Program. • The Municipal State Aid Street program, to which the State of Minnesota provides annual funding (about $850,000 annually) to maintain and improve the 21.3 miles of collector streets which are designated as MSA streets. • Review and possible construction of traffic signal systems at intersections with growing traffic volumes. • Several landscaping and "streetscaping" projects to enhance the appearance of the City. • Rehabilitation and reconstruction of residential streets. Using the Pavement management Program, Local Storm Water Management Plan, or water or sanitary sewer utility maintenance records, a plan of neighborhood street improvements has been developed. These improvements are financed through a combination of public utility funds, Municipal State Aid, special assessments, and general obligation bond proceeds. • An Assessment Stabilization Program financed by Local State Aid funds provides grants to low income property owners to assist in paying special assessments. City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 10 2. Sidewalk /Trail Improvements The City has established and constructed a comprehensive sidewalk system which serves all major activity areas and corridors of pedestrian traffic. Only a few segments of this system remain to be completed. In addition, the City has developed a plan for development of a comprehensive trail system to provide recreational trails for pedestrians and transportation trails for bicyclists. Both on- street and off - street trails are being developed, and integrated into the regional trail system which serves the Twin City metropolitan area. Where feasible, trail construction is being coordinated with other construction projects to assure lowest cost development of this system. Funding for sidewalk and trail improvements is provided by two accounts within the Municipal State Aid Construction fund: (a) MSA Local Account #2900 The source of funds for this account consists only of investment interest earnings which have not been appropriated to construction projects or other costs. (b) MSA Local Account #2911 The source of funds for this account consists of surpluses from projects which have had more than 100% of the project cost recovered due to duplicate charges to the regular MSA fund (Account #1496) and special assessments. Activities included in the CIP for future consideration include: • Construction of several trail segments, with emphasis given to segments which connect major trail systems. • Some high priority sidewalk segments. • Consideration of the Twin Lake Trail system and trail head improvements is shown under Parks and Recreation. i City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 11 3. Water Utility Proposed activities relating to the public water supply /distribution system include the following: • A routine well inspection and maintenance program to assure the continued functioning of the existing wells. • Painting of the water towers. • Installation of various O &M features to improve the operability of the system. • Installation of new water mains as needed to serve new developments or redevelopment areas. • Consideration of construction of two new supply facilities (one storage reservoir and one additional well) to assure the system's ability to provide needed capacity during peak demand periods and for fire protection. • Consideration of construction of a tie -in with Brooklyn Park's water system, to help meet demand during emergencies (e.g., a major fire, a disaster, the breakdown of one or more wells). • Installation of various water distributions stem improvements to assure the system's Y P Y ability to deliver needed capacities to all portions of the City during peak demand periods and for fire protection. All costs for water supply, distribution system, O &M, and improvements are financed through water use charges, connection charges, and lateral assessments. Water use charges and connection charges are adjusted annually based on a comprehensive rate study analysis which reviews operation, maintenance, depreciation and construction costs as related to projected water consumption demand. • City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 12 4. Sanitary Sewer Utilitv Proposed activities relating to the sanitary sewer collection system include the following: • A routine sewer and lift station inspection and maintenance program. • Replacement of the existing lift station monitoring system, to improve its reliability. • Installation of new sewers as needed to serve new developments or redevelopment areas. • Replacement of several segments of sewer which have been identified as needing replacement by the television inspection program. • Replacement of one major lift station and associated force main, to insure its reliability. All costs for sanitary sewer system O &M and improvements are financed through sewer use charges, capital improvement bonds, connection charges and lateral assessments. Sewer use charges and connection charges are adjusted annually based on a comprehensive rate study analysis which reviews operation, maintenance, depreciation and construction costs, as well as sewage treatment charges from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (formerly Metropolitan Waste Control Commission), which provides wastewater treatment for the entire Twin City metro area. • City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 13 • 5. Storm Drainage Utility Phase I of the Local Water Management Plan has been completed and approved. This plan, which is a comprehensive engineering evaluation of the City's storm drainage system, outlines deficiencies in the existing system, and will be used to develop plans for specific capital improvements. High- priority areas of deficiency are being evaluated on a faster track, and the CIP includes projects to address those high priority concerns. Proposed activities relating to the storm drainage system include the following: • Operational p atlonal activities include storm drainage system maintenance and a street sweeping program • Management activities include participation in two Watershed Management Commissions. These activities also include the development of a public education program relating to surface water management • Major improvements to be considered include construction of a storm drainage pond to serve the Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Avenue redevelopment area, and a joint project with the City of Minneapolis to construct a drainage pond to serve the Brookdale commercial area and some residential areas. • Storm drainage improvements are proposed to be completed in conjunction with most • of the proposed neighborhood street improvement projects. All costs for storm drainage system O &M and improvements are financed through the storm drainage utility (SDU) user fee system which was adopted in 1991, capital improvement bonds, and special assessments. SDU use charges will be adjusted annually based on a comprehensive rate study analysis which reviews all costs relating to the storm drainage system. City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 14 B. PARKS AND RECREATION • Park and Recreation facilities were comprehensively reviewed in 1993. It has been concluded that the substantial needs for park facility rehabilitation and replacement would best be considered through a general obligation bond issue. It is anticipated that such a referendum would be placed on the ballot in 1996. While continuing the current level of operation and maintenance of the park and recreation system /program, the Capital Improvement Program anticipates the following expenditures: • Replacement of playground equipment in most of the City's neighborhood parks over the next three years. • Acquisition of new park land. • Development of the Twin Lake /Preserve /Kylawn nature area and Twin Lakes Trail system, in cooperation with the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale. • Comprehensive review of shelter building needs, and repair or replacement of most shelter buildings over the next five years. • A major study of the Shingle Creek corridor, from the south City limits, through the golf course, Central Park, and Palmer Lake to the north City limits. The study would encompass recreational opportunities, water quality issues, and condition of existing facilities. • Consideration of major new facilities, including a hockey arena or a golf dome. These items r would only be considered by referendum. Some items are proposed for funding from the Capital Improvements Fund. Other major capital improvements are proposed to be funded with general obligation bonds authorized by referendum approval. City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 15 I C. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 1. Government Buildings Proposed major improvements to be considered over the next several years include: • An addition to the City Hall building with the emphasis on providing additional space for the Police Department, alleviating severe space needs, improving the Council Chambers, meeting ADA accessibility requirements, correcting code violations, and upgrading mechanical systems. • An addition to the Community Center with the emphasis on providing space for senior activities. • Replacement of the City's vehicle fuel system and construction of an additional storage building at the Central Garage to provide increased protection for the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment. • Construction of additions to both of the City's fire stations to provide improved training facilities and increased vehicle storage space. Proposed funding for the improvements would come from several sources. The Capital Improvements Fund would finance some of the proposed projects; the water and sewer utilities would contribute to the cost of the Garage improvements. Other improvements would be considered for funding from General Obligation bonds. It is expected that a referendum considering authorization of the sale of bonds would be placed on the ballot in 1996. • City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 16 2. Data Processing The City currently obtains its data processing services from two sources: major data processing systems (financial, utility billing, payroll) through LOGIS, a consortium of 19 suburban cities and the Metropolitan Council; and through desk top PC applications served by a Local Area Network (LAN) and the LOGIS Wide Area Network (WAN). This area has experienced rapid growth, and a substantial investment in DP equipment has been made. The City has completed a management information systems (MIS) strategic plan. It is intended that this plan provide a basis on which proposed expenditures for data processing equipment can be evaluated. An important component of the plan is an information system relationship analysis, which provides a method for detecting duplications of data, equipment, and effort. Additions of new hardware and software and replacement of hardware are evaluated through the annual budget process. Acquisition is funded primarily through the general fund budget, although the various enterprise funds are charged the cost of requisite equipment. Proposed major improvements include: P J P • Periodic upgrades of the LAN to provide for increased opportunities for data, application, and hardware sharing and productivity enhancements. • Acquisition, replacement, or upgrade of major applications. • In the long term, installation of a mini - computer or client- server system in the Civic Center to convert Brooklyn Center to a LOGIS distributed site • Continued replacement of hardware and software as necessary. • Replacement of the City's telephone systems at the Civic Center, Heritage Center, and Central Garage. • Replacement of the City's public safety and public works radio systems. • City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 17 3. Vehicles and Equipment The City policy for the replacement of vehicles and equipment establishes a projected reasonable life cycle for each item. Annually, the life cycles are reviewed and updated on the basis of experience or changed circumstances. Also, new vehicles and equipment are proposed for addition to existing inventories and replacement schedules when new needs are clearly demonstrated. Additions of new vehicles and equipment are requested through the annual budget process. In 1994 the City implemented a Central Garage Internal Service Fund, which now owns virtually all vehicles and major equipment. The cost of owning (depreciation, license, insurance, overhead) and operating (preventative maintenance and repair) vehicles and equipment is charged back to the departments using the equipment. Replacement of existing equipment is funded from the Fund. The addition of equipment is considered for funding from a variety of sources: the General Fund, enterprise funds, etc. • City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 18 D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Community Development improvements fall into two categories: community development and Heritage Center operations. 1. Community Development The major community development activities are commercial development and redevelopment and residential redevelopment. • Redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard has entered its third phase, that is implementation of redevelopment opportunities. The first phase took a basic approach to identifying options for redevelopment. The second phase identified specific themes, improvements, planning considerations, etc., to be used in guiding redevelopment. The City has received a $500,000 grant from federal ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) funds to finance enhancements to Brooklyn Boulevard, such as undergrounding overhead utility lines; adding ornamental pedestrian lighting; and adding landscaping, street furniture, and other beautification. These enhancements will be constructed concurrent with Hennepin County's 1997 project to improve Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th and 71st Avenues. • Community Development continues to work together with the Brookdale Shopping • center to provide support for redevelopment. Community Development and Engineering are working together with Brookdale to develop options for meeting storm drainage and water quality requirements which will be in effect if Brookdale undertakes any major remodelling and expansion (see Table C, Storm Drainage) • It is anticipated that the program of purchasing dilapidated single family houses and apartment buildings will continue as funds are available 2. Heritage Center Operations • Included for consideration is acquisition of additional land near the Heritage Center to serve as overflow parking, and the eventual construction of the G bam • Replacement or acquisition of major equipment is included for consideration Community Development activities are funded from a combination of TIF revenue, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the EDA levy, and Heritage Center revenue. A category of "Other funds" is shown on Table J to indicate that funding has not been identified for some proposed activities. City of Brooklyn Center Capital Improvement Program 1995 -2004 Page 19 APPENDIX A CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CAPITAL EVIPROVENIENTS FUND EXPENDITURE POLICY POLICY OBJECTIVE The City of Brooklyn Center makes unrestricted capital expenditures through one of two P � funds. Generally, small capital expenditures are funded through the general fund and planned for as part All the annual budgeted process for the general fund. Large unrestricted capital expenditures are funded through the capital improvements fund based on resolution 68 -246, which was approved in 1968. Capital expenditures are also made through other funds such as the M.S.A. construction fund, the special assessment construction fund, the water fund, the sanitary sewer fund, and the storm drainage fund. These funds each have restrictions in place to guide their expenditures. The objective of this policy is to clarify funding for all unrestricted capital expenditures by specifically defining which capital expenditures are eligible for funding through the capital improvements fund capital expenditures not meeting the criteria for the capital improvements fund must be made from the general fund operating budget. Specifically xcluded from this policy are c expenditures that are t Y P y p p o be reimbursed by insurance proceeds. These may be accounted for through the capital improvements fund at the discretion of the Director of Finance. SOURCE OF FU MS The sources are ad- valorem taxes, issuance of bonds, state and federal grants, transfers of unrestricted balances from other funds and investment earnings. USE OF FUNDS The following defines general expenditure criteria for the utilization of the improvements capital im b Pe P P fund balance. o0 A.) Major: Any capital expenditure that exceeds 525,040. Capital expenditures of less than S25,000 are to be made through the general fund operating budget. B.) Permanent: Any capital expenditure that has an estimated useful life of 10 years or longer. C.) Facility: Buildings, improvements to real estate, the acquisition of land for city purposes. This definition excludes the acquisition of land for development or resale and excludes vehicles. Additionally, the capital improvements fund may be used to provide loans to other funds maintained by the City. However, loans from the capital improvement fund may only be made to proprietary funds which have the ability to generate revenue and repay the loan within 10 years at prevailing interest rates. AUTHORITY TO SPEND Expenditures meeting the above criteria may be funded through the capital improvements fund based on the following authority limits: A.) Expenditures from $0 to $25,000: Not eligible for funding from the capital improvements fund. Funding is required through the general fund operating bud y B.) Expenditures from $25,001 to $200,000: The City Council may, through simple majority, approve these expenditures. C.) Expenditures over $200,000: Following a public hearing, City Council may, through a 4 /5th's majority, approve expenditures in this category. SPEiNDLNG LLVIITATION /FUND BALANCE REOUIRVY[ENT The objective as described above and previously defined in Resolution 68 -246 requires the capital improvements fund to be a permanent source of funding for planned major expenditures. As such, the following criteria is established to comply with that intent: . A.) Planned Expenditures: If the proposed capital expenditure is in excess of $200,000 it must have been included in the five year capital improvements plan ' for at least two years. f Additionally, the five year capital improvements plan must be approved by the City Council at a public hearing on an annual basis. B.) Fund Balance Requirements: A minimum fund balance shall be maintained with g a beginning balance of 53,000,000 as of January 1, 1993 and increased by the Consumer Price Index each year thereafter. POLICY AMENDMENT i f Amendments to this policy require a 4 /5th's majority by City Council vote. E i I • TABLE A - Capital Improvemer0rogram - Detail of Capital Outlays 0 Water Utility Capital Improvements . 0 21-Nov-95 905 ND: EXPENDITURES: WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Pkwy to Dupont 300,000 $0 All water utility Neighborhood Street Improvements 65,780 140,000 300,000 120,000 150,000 $750,000 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 2 MG Reservoir & Pumping Station $3,300,000 Construct Well #11 $1,000,000 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, 7 30,000 $0 Emergency tie-in to Brooklyn Park 225,000 $0 WATER TOWERS Repair Paint on Tower #1 180,000 $0 Repair Paint on Tower #2 225,000 $0 Replace Paint on Tower #3 625,000 $0 Landscape Tower #1 10,000 $0 MISCELLANEOUS Routine Well Maintenance 50,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 $275,000 SCADA Hardware & Software Update 20,000 $0 SCADA Replacement 125,000 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $165,780 $500,000 $705,000 $1,025,000 $ 85,000 $5,325,000 FUND SOURCES: Water Utility 165,780 500,000 705,000 1,025,000 385,000 $5,325,000 TOTAL "165,7801 $500,000 1 $705,000 1 $1,025,000 1 $385,000 1 $5,325,000 1 TABLE B - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Improvements 21- Nov -95 NI S'QURC EXPENDITURES: All San Sewer Utility LIFT STATIONS Replace Lift #1 and Forcemain 50,000 1,100,000 $0 Replace Lifts 10 & 11 100,000 120,000 $0 SEWER REPLACEMENT: Trunk line, 69th Avenue to Lift Station #1 800,000 $0 Neighborhood Street Improvements 132,300 150,000 200,000 300,000 250,000 $1,250,000 MISCELLANEOUS INTRAC Replacement 125,000 125,000 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $982,300 $1,250,000 $425,000 $300,000 $495,000 $1,250,000 FUND SOURCES: Sanitary Sewer Utility 982,300 1,250,000 425,000 300,000 495,000 $1,250,000 TOTAL $982,300 $1,250,000 $425,000 $300,000 $495,000 $1,250,000 TABLE C - Capital ImprovemerAgogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Storm Drainage Utility Capital Improvements 0 95 ...;::.;1g5;.... .......19i fiUNE7`SaUFiC. EXPENDITURES: Water Quality Improvements 0 100,000 50,000 100,000 50,000 $500,000 All storm drainage utility 69th Avenue, Beard to Shingle Creek Pkwy $0 Neighborhood Street Improvements 530,000 400,000 210,000 150,000 300,000 $1,375,000 1694 /Brooklyn Boulevard Pond* /65th Ave 1,245,000 $0 Shingle Creek Regional Pond 3,100,000 $0 1/4 SDU, 3/4 assessments Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Pond 250,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,775,000 $3,600,000 $510,000 $250,000 $350,000 $1,875,000 FUND SOURCES: Storm Drainage Utility 1,615,000 500,000 510,000 250,000 350,000 $1,875,000 Special Assessments /Other 160,000 3,100,000 0 TOTAL 1 $1,775,000 $3,600,000 $510,000 $250,000 $350,000 $1,875,000 *Includes pond, park, and 65th Avenue realignment improvements TABLE D - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Sidewalk and Trail Improvements 21- . .: ; .... 1`3 »:::;�1:` 2►pE 044....Nt CURC:: EXPENDITURES: OFF- STREET TRAIL: NSP Easement Trail, Knox to Dupont 50,000 $0 Local State Aid Willow Lane, 1694 to West River Road 25,000 $0 Local State Aid 69th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway- Dupont 50,000 $0 Local State Aid ON- STREET TRAIL: Marking and Signage 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $50,000 General Fund SIDEWALK: Miscellaneous Repairs 75,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 $125,000 Local State Aid Northway Drive 25,000 $0 Local State Aid 55th Avenue, Lions Park to Logan 35,000 $0 Local State Aid TOTAL EXPENDITURES $75,000 $35,000 $220,000 $35,000 $35 ,000 $175 FUND SOURCES: State Aid - Local Accounts #2911/ #2900 75,000 25,000 210,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 General Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 TOTAL $75,000 $35,000 $220,000 $35,000 $35,000 $175,000 NOTE: The sidewalk and trail plan is currently undergoing comprehensive review. i TABLE E - Capital ImprovemerlDrogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements : » > >::: �{ "[fig' .:::.:::..... ... <::. ". >::: �►.::..,.:: , C:..::....:::...1.�:. ::::. ..:.:...;; '1.'9; ..:...DfO » 21- Nov -95 QC4:.... ; 111�1DC1RE:: EXPENDITURES: Shingle Cr Corridor Rec Facility Study & EAW 50,000 $0 Capital Impr Fund ADA: Trails & curb cuts 72,700 $0 Capital Impr Fund Park at Park and Ride See Table C $0 Storm Drainage Utility Repair ped bridges in parks /golf course 100,000 $0 Capital Impr Fund /Golf Crs Replace bleachers 56,000 $0 General Fund Twin Lake Trail 450,000 $0 GO Park Bonds, ISTEA Twin Lake trailhead acq & improvements 300,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Acquisition & development of Joslyn site 200,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Hockey arena 4,000,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Golf dome 200,000 $0 Golf Course Fund INDIVIDUAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS Bellvue Shelter 120,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 35,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Brooklane Shelter 12,800 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equip (w /Garden City School) 20,000 Cap Impr Fund Central Fix ball diamonds 20,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Centerbrook Golf Course Rehab shelter building 12,100 $0 Golf Course Fund Build picnic shelter 120,000 $0 Golf Course Fund Expand clubhouse ? $0 Golf Course Fund TABLE E - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements :; >... 21- Nov -95 .. 19..::,.9...... _._...197:;:: >`> >:... �i99 1399.....< �UL1p 20t 4 ;FIND S'Q![[RCE I. Evergreen Shelter 120,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Ball field lights 100,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Move hockey rink 40,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Storage buildings 10,000 $0 General Fund Satellite enclosures 5,000 $0 General Fund Firehouse Shelter 120,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Freeway Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Garden City Shelter 4,200 $0 General Fund Playground equipment 40,000 $0 Cap Impr Fund Enlarge parking lot 30,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Grandview Shelter 45,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 40,000 $0 Cap Impr Fund Move rink 12,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Ball field lights 100,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 14,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Happy Hollow Picnic Shelter 60,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 35,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Kylawn Shelter 120,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 35,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Hockey lights 50,000 $0 GO Park Bonds is • • TABLE E - Capital Improvemen0ogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements 21- Nov -95 99 :: >::; <:: >: >::. <:::< > >::: ..:..:: ........ ; 9 i..;::.;::.;.:....... ......::: >:...:::.;:.;:' Lions Marlin Playground equipment 35,000 $0 Cap Impr Fund Northport Shelter 100,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Rehab tennis courts 40,000 Cap Impr Fund Storage buildings 10,000 $0 General Fund Orchard Shelter 100,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds E Palmer Shelter 100,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 35,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds W Palmer Shelter 80,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 40,000 $0 Cap Impr Fund Storage buildings 20,000 $0 General Fund Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Nature Area Build picnic shelter 80,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Repl nature trail chips w /crushed limestone 25,500 $0 GO Park Bonds Riverdale Picnic shelter 60,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment 1 1 35,000 $0 IGO Park Bonds TABLE E - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Park Improvements 21- Nov -95 U:NQ ... DURGE Twin Beach Playground equipment 35,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Fishing pier, including parking lot 64,000 $0 GO Park Bonds /DNR? Extend trail 7,500 $0 GO Park Bonds Wangstad Playground equipment 35,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Willow Lane Shelter 100,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Playground equipment $0 Capital Impr Fund Ball field lighting 50,000 $0 GO Park Bonds Trail lights 7,000 $0 GO Park Bonds TOTAL EXPENDITURES $72,700 $269,200 $3,314,900 $4,200,000 $0 $0 FUND SOURCES: Capital Impr Fund $72,700 $265,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 General Fund 0 4,200 101,000 0 0 0 Golf Course 0 0 132,100 200,000 $0 GO Bonds 0 2,981,800 4,000,000 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility See Table C 0 0 0 $0 TOTAL $72,700 $269,200 $3,314,900 $4,200,000 $0 $0 TABLE F - Capital Improvemen6rogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements 21- Nov -95 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 -2004 FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURES: CIVIC CENTER SHORT TERM, INTERIM REMODELLING Minor City Hall remodelling* 50,000 $0 Capital Impr Fund LONG TERM NEEDS Construct Public Safety addition and 6,000,000 $0 GO Bonds remodel existing City Hall space $0 GO Bonds OPTIONAL APPROACH: Piecemeal Remodelling Remodel Community Development office ? ? $0 Some combination of Replace HVAC system ? ? $0 GO Bonds, Cap Impr Fund, Remodel Council Chambers ? ? $0 General Fund Expand Police into file storage room ? ? $0 Remodel Finance Department reception ? ? $0 Remodel Administration (Main) reception ? ? $0 Add 2 conference rooms ? ? $0 Remodel Engineering offices ? ? $0 Cage phone /MIS area in basement ? ? $0 Construct MIS Center ? $0 Replace underground storage tanks ? ? 0 p g 9 $ I Replace roof ? ? $0 ADA Compliance ? ? $0 TABLE F - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements 21- Nov -95 x!59 ::: >; »::: .. :::<'�9:;;:::. >:::: <;.:: 1'T::.::.'i:::..QI 2QU'NpURCB COMMUNITY CENTER OPTION 1: Space Needs Study Activity & Fitness Center 10,000,000 GO Bonds OPTION 2: Alternative Approach Activity Center 2,500,000 $0 GO Bonds OTHER NEEDS: Replace carpet throughout 90,000 $0 General Fund Pool ozonation system 40,000 $0 General Fund Renovate wading pool 50,000 $0 General Fund CENTRALGARAGEIMPROVEMENTS Building improvements $0 Capital Impr, Utilities Site improvements 325,000 $0 Capital Impr, Utilities Additional Storage 450,000 $0 Capital Impr, Utilities FIRE STATIONS Remodel East Station 1,600,000 $0 GO Bonds Remodel West Station 1,300,000 $0 GO Bonds TOTAL EXPENDITURES $50,000 $o $12 ,355,000 $0 $0 $0 I TABLE F - Capital Improvemenlel - ogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements 21- Nov- 95: >:: »:; >: 20A4 UNC3UFt.:. FUND SOURCES: General Fund $0 Capital Improvements Fund 50,000 792,500 0 0 $0 Water Utility 81,250 0 0 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 81,250 0 0 $0 EDA levy $0 GO Bonds 11,400,000 $0 TOTAL $50,000 $0 $12,355,000 $0 $0 $0 * Project also includes acquisition of workstation furniture and high density storage, which is shown in Table H: Equipment. VIII I TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements 21- Nov -95 19 ,.... 't 197 EXPENDITURES: SEALCOATING 120,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $500,000 General Fund SIGNALS Brooklyn Blvd & 51 st Avenue 150,000 $0 Local State Aid Summit & Earle Brown W (Target Entrance) 125,000 $0 Special Assessments & Local State Aid STATE AID STREET PROJECTS 57th Avenue, Logan to Lyndale 1,130,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 404,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 76,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 50,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 10,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 400,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Hennepin County 190,000 $0 Henn Coun Humboldt Avenue. 69th to N City Limits 552,180 MSA - Regular #1496 335,540 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 102,900 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 0 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 22,870 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 40,170 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 50,700 $0 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvemearogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements N 9::.. >:. >: ;.::: >::: > >:: <:'t.9�:;::::: <.; ..lpQUR:::.;:: 73rd Avenue TH252 to Humboldt 200,000 50% Brooklyn Park MSA- Regular #1496 175,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (51,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 31,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 5,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 40,000 $0 Special Assessments Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Blv to N City Limi 41,300 MSA - Regular #1496 26,800 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 0 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 0 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 14,500 $0 Special Assessments Brooklyn Boulevard, 64th to N City Limits ROW Acquisition 600,000 $0 50% #1496, 50% #2911/ #2900 Road Construction 435,205 $0 Various Lighting, Landscaping, Other 1,425,000 500,000 $0 TI F, Sp Assess, #2911/ #2900 67th Avenue Humboldt to Dupont 189,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 148,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (41,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 14,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 7,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 10,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 51,000 $0 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements :.:;; . <:: '195 't9!6 1�7 ! 21- Nov -95 > ..: X99 2ft3Q 2+4 FUNS?QUFt ..> Logan Avenue N. 53rd to 57th 539,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 270,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 40,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 81,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 13,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 55,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 80,000 $0 Special Assessments 51st Avenue, Brooklyn Blvd to Xerxes 81,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 48,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 8,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 5,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 10,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 9,000 $0 Special Assessments 53rd Avenue France to 55th Avenue 415,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 247,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 51,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 25,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 25,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 67,000 $0 Special Assessments 69th Avenue. Oliver to Dupont 847,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 608,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 63,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility (see Table A) 0 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 3,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 25,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 148,000 $0 Special Assessments i TABLE G - Capital Improvemer0rogram - Detail of Capital Outlays 0 Street Improvements `< 21- Nov -95 ''' �... 19� .:.:;:<.... 19 .: 9 8 I�9 20�p ©+4 �I�ID SQU:RG . 69th Ave, Shingle Cr Pkwy to Oliver & Bridge 1,265,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 1,060,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (2,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility (See Table A) 0 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 100,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 105,000 $0 Special Assessments France Avenue, 69th to N City Limits 349,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 233,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 MSA -Local #29111#2900 18,000 $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 31,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 65,000 $0 Special Assessments 63rd Avenue, W City Limits to Brooklyn Blvd $1,002,000 MSA - Regular #1496 $596,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 $156,000 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $95,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $5,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $150,000 Special Assessments 63rd Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes $270,000 MSA - Regular #1496 $172,000 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 ($37,000) MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility $17,000 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility $34,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments $84,000 Special Assessments TABLE G - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements < >' >::: :: ' >.:>: >: 1� 'I3 21 Nov - 95 '1 ; 99 QiDQ X404. F.U:NQ'C3UFtE..... June Avenue, CSAH 10 to 63rd 378,000 $0 MSA- Regular #1496 269,000 $0 MSA - Regular #1496 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 (29,000) $0 MSA -Local #2911/ #2900 Water Utility 10,000 $0 Water Utility Sanitary Sewer Utility 51,000 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility Storm Drainage Utility 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Special Assessments 77,000 $0 Special Assessments NEIGHBORHOOD STREET PROJECTS Northwest/James /Knox Combination of GO GO Bonds bonds and special Special Assessments assessments Woodbine GO Bonds 645,700 Special Assessments 312,800 Orchard East ;James /Knox 55 -57th GO Bonds Special Assessments Orchard West; Redevelopment area GO Bonds Special Assessments South Garden City; High school area GO Bonds Special Assessments Wangstad area; south Northwest area GO Bonds Special Assessments Assessment Stabilization Program 30,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 270,000 Local State Aid I TABLE G - Capital Improvemen0rogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Street Improvements X . : i::yi;: . ' : i: i::Xii:•:. :i :jit ::.:.. :......is i':i ::::..::.f: - i..: ':. i:C:ii:' : M�' - •i::i::::i:::. :: 21- Nov -95 ::::..':.�< » >: >::::<::> :::;;.;':...: ; :::::::.:::.. 1:15:::::. �1. 99 ............lt�lt..n.:.:::.::: ULQQRE ....... LANDSCAPING Co Rd 10 Streetscape 100,000 1/2 MSA -2900, 1/2 Sp Asse: Xerxes Avenue Streetscape 70,000 MSA -Local #2900 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,701,980 $4,792,000 $2,445,205 $1,593,000 $518,000 $2,042,000 FUND SOURCES: MSA - Regular #1496 362,340 2,865,000 174,025 628,000 269,000 768,000 MSA - Local #2911/ #2900 132,900 464,000 842,030 68,000 11,000 389,000 Water Utility 0 167,000 10,875 70,000 10,000 112,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility 22,870 34,000 10,875 34,000 51,000 39,000 Storm Drainage Utility 40,170 590,000 101,150 10,000 0 0 Special Assessments 378,000 382,000 512,500 333,000 77,000 234,000 Bonds 645,700 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund 120,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 TIF Funding 393,750 150,000 0 Other Governments 0 1 190,000 300,000 200,000 0 0 TOTAL $1,701,980 $4,792,000 $2,445,205 $1,593,000 $518,000 $2,042,000 TABLE H - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Equipment .......... 21-Nov-95 96 .......... N.D $*QUR EXPENDITURES: DATA PROCESSING Network Upgrades 32,000 10,000 20,000 10,000 $30,000 General fund; Heritage CentE Optical Disk Management 0 125,000 General fund Software & applications 28,150 7,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $50,000 General fund Hardware 57,880 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 $500,000 General fund Replace cable 50,000 General fund; Heritage Radio networking 40,000 1/2 GF; 25% each utility LOGIS Distributed site 130,000 70% GF; 10% @ utility, 5%liq,5% HC OTHER EQUIPMENT Acquire ergonomic workstations & storage 390,000 Capital Improvements Fund Replace phone system 1 200,000 Capital Improvements Fund Replace pub safety/pub works radio system 750,000 Capital Improvements Fund Remote & regular water meters 275,000 250,000 250,000 Water Utility Replace chairs 10,000 General fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 $508,030 $582,000 $1,455,000 $350,000 $90,000 $580,000 FUND SOURCES: General Fund 96,130 107,000 130,000 100,000 90,000 580,000 Heritage Center Fund 21,900 0 50,000 $0 $0 Liquor Store Fund 0 $0 $0 Capital Improvements Fund 390,000 200,000 755,000 $0 $0 Water Utility 275,000 510,000 250,000 $0 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 10,000 $0 $0 TOTAL $5 08,030 $582,000 $1,455,000 $350,000 $90,000 $580,000 ® TABLE I - Capital Improvemen0ogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Central Garage Vehicles & Equipment 21-Nov-95 1:93 ..... :..:...:. :::::..�.:......:::.:::...::... EXPENDITURES: STREETS Ford 800 Flat Bed /Sander 77,000 $0 All Central Garage Fund Chipper 23,000 $0 except where noted Bobcat loader with planer 34,300 $0 Engineering survey van 16,000 $0 Sign shop truck 30,800 Pickups: Light Duty 15,000 14,000 28,000 $18,000 Pickups: Heavy Duty 31,320 $24,000 Grader 159,000 $0 3/4 Ton Van 26,600 $0 Ford 800 Dump 82,640 170,000 80,000 $164,000 Trackless Sidewalk Plow 47,000 47,000 $47,000 Air Compressor 14,900 $0 Crack sealing kettle /router 35,000 $0 Vacuum Sweeper 86,000 $0 Storm Drainage Utility Ford Tandem Dump 90,000 $0 Paint Striper 40,000 $0 Loader 126,000 $160,000 Ford 700 Dump $36,000 Dozer $35,000 Oil distributer & truck $89,000 PARKS Pickups 15,000 15,000 $0 Ford 350 Dump 28,640 27,000 $27,000 Tractors 28,000 $28,000 Mowers 65,000 45,000 $32,000 Concession trailer $20,800 TABLE I - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Central Garage Vehicles & Equipment 21- Nov -95 ....19i...: ::'.....;� >:::.. 'I ........9 1 �.99.....tQQQE�4 . U ; Nd S3IRE PUBLIC UTILITIES Emergency Utility Van 30,000 $0 Water Utility Sewer Jet 95,000 $0 Drill Rig 25,000 $0 Water Utility Pickups 48,000 34,000 $0 Ford 350 Dump /Utility Box 37,000 $0 Sewer Rodder $21,000 GOLF COURSE 3/4 Ton Pickup 15,640 $0 Golf Course Fund Mowers 26,100 28,000 $0 Golf Course Fund FIRE DEPARTMENT Salvage Van & rescue van 170,000 $0 GO Bonds Pumpers 125,000 $0 GO Bonds Ladder $0 Trucks /autos /vans 21,000 29,200 $0 Boat 10,000 $0 General Fund POLICE Squads 77,500 109,000 110,000 115,000 125,000 $680,000 Staff cars 21,300 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $367,700 1 $675,440 $980,600 $447,000 $278,200 $1,381,800 TABLE I - Capital Improvementeogram - Detail of Capital Outlays Central Garage Vehicles & Equipment 21- Nov -95 2Qa4: >: >:..... UND :SQtlR FUND SOURCES: Central Garage Fund 286,600 534,800 696,600 447,000 278,200 $1,381,800 Water Utility 55,000 0 0 0 0 $0 Storm Drainage Utility 0 0 86,000 0 0 $0 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Golf Course Fund 26,100 15,640 28,000 0 0 $0 GO Bonds 0 1 125,000 1 170,000 0 0 $0 TOTAL $367,700 $675,440 $980,600 $447,000 $278,200 $17381,800 TABLE J - Capital Improvement Program - Detail of Capital Outlays Community Development 21- Nov -95 EXPENDITURES: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brooklyn Blvd Redevelopment 800,000 800,000 ? ? ? ? TIF? Acquire single family houses 150,000 150,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 $1,250,000 1/2 CDBG, 1/2 Other ? Acquire apartments 2,000,000 6,000,000 $0 TIF HERITAGE CENTER Acquire land /build parking lot 500,000 $0 TIF Construct G barn $750,000 Other revenue Replace carpet 13,600 $0 Heritage Center Revenue HERITAGE CENTER EQUIPMENT Additional Conv Center equipment 24,200 $0 Heritage Center Revenue TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,487,800 $950,000 $6,200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $2,000,000 FUND SOURCES: TIF revenue 3,300,000 800,000 6,000,000 0 0 $0 CDBG 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $625,000 EDA levy 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Heritage Center Revenue 37,800 0 0 0 0 $0 Other Funds 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $1,375,000 TOTAL $3,487,800 $950,000 $6,200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $2,000,000 � I City of Brooklyn Center Memorandum 7 • o To: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: Cam Andre, Interim City Manager f DATE: November 21, 1995 SUBJECT: City Manager Employment Agreement Our City Attorney, Charlie LeFevere from Kennedy & Graven, is working on the details and final negotiation of the Employment Agreement with Mike McCauley. Attached is a copy of the contract as negotiated. Charlie LeFevere will discuss the details on the agreement with you Monday evening. • • City Manager Employment Agreement THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement ") is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City ") and Michael J. McCauley (hereinafter referred to as the "Manager ") as of the day of , 1995. WHEREAS, the City wishes to engage the services of the Manager as a professional employee; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the terms and conditions of their relationship in this contract in order to assure the requisite flexibility to enable the Manager to function as the City's chief administrative official; and WHEREAS, the nature of the Manager's position requires continued professional training and attendance at meetings during evenings and other non - traditional work times. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this agreement, City and Manager agree as follows: Section 1 Employment= Manager shall be employed by the City as City Manager commending on the 28th day y o December, 1995 • Section 2. Duties The duties of the Manager's position shall be as set forth in the City's Charter and ordinances and such other duties which are consistent therewith as may be assigned from time to time by the City Council. Section 3 Discharge of Duties Manager shall be paid a salary as a professional employee and shall not be paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per week and similarly shall be able to be absent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures. The discharge of Manager's duties requires work outside the normal work day for meetings and projects. To that end, the Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to Manager to discharge the duties of his position. Section 4 Evaluation_ Manager shall be evaluated on the performance of his duties in July of 1996 and at least annually thereafter by the City Council as a whole. Such evaluation shall be based on the written goals established by the City Council and the general duties set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. Section 5 Participation in Employee Benefits A) Health Insurance. The City shall provide health insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides health insurance for non -union employees. • B) Life Insurance. The City shall provide life insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides life insurance for non -union employees. -1- C) Except as otherwise specified within this Agreement, Manager shall receive or be eligible to participate in any other benefits provided for non. -union employees generally. Section 6. Vacation and Holidays Manager shall accrue days of vacation on the first day of each month equal to an annual rate of 20 days per year. Manager may accrue vacation to a maximum accumulation of 200 hours. Manager shall not be required to use vacation leave except for a whole day's absence from performing Manager's duties. The Manager may, at Manager's discretion take 1 /2 day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager's duties. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all accrued and unused vacation leave at the Manager's then current rate of compensation. Manager shall also have the same paid holidays off from work as the City's non -union employees. Section 7 Sick Leave Manager shall accrue days of sick leave at the same rate as other non -union employees. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all unused sick leave in accordance with the provision of the City's personnel code applicable to non- union employees. • Section 8 Compensation A) Initial Salary. The Manager's initial salary at the commencement of this contract shall be $76,000 per year. Such salary shall be paid at the intervals customarily used for other city employees. B) Evaluation and Salary Increases. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the Manager in July of 1996 and annually thereafter. The Manager's salary shall be reviewed in July of 1996. Thereafter, the Manager's salary shall be reviewed and considered at the same time as consideration of salary for other non -union employees of the City. Any changes in the Manager's salary shall be pursuant to the written agreement of the Manager and the City. C) Car Allowance. Manager shall receive $250.00 per month payable on the 1st of each month as a car allowance for the use of Manager's personal car in performing City duties. D) Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions. The City will pay the cost of membership in the International City /County Management Association, the Minnesota City/County Management Association, and like organizations and subscriptions to professional journals and publications. E) Participation in Professional Training /Development. The City will pay the cost of the . Manager's participation and attendance at the ICMA Annual Conference or similar national training opportunity, MCMA Annual conference, League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and miscellaneous professional training programs offered within the State of Minnesota. -2- Section 10, Moving ExMnses The City shall reimburse or directly pay for the manager's actual moving costs, up to a maximum of $3,500. Such payment or reimbursement shall be for the cost of a professional mover to move Manager's household possessions once to a location in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area, provided such move occurs within one year of Manager's employment with the City. Section 11. Exnen. Incurred in Performing Duties, The City shall reimburse or directly pay for actual expenses reasonably incurred by the Manager that are directly related to performing Manager's duties. The parties contemplate that the Manager will incur expenses for travel (other than for use of the Manager's personal car), attendance at meetings, etc. Section 12. Retire m _nt Benefits The City shall pay the employer's portion of the Minnesota Public Employment Retirement Association contribution on Manager's salary. The Manager shall, in addition to the retirement benefits provided above, be allowed to participate, at Manager's own expense, in IRS approved deferred compensation plans offered through the City. Section 13 Discontinuance of Employment Relation him Understanding that the Manager serves as the chief administrative official for the City and Manager's employment status can be affected by political influences that are independent of job performance, the parties wish to make arrangements that reflect the realities of the marketplace and are necessary to recruit qualified persons. The parties wish to assure flexibility for the council, while providing for the ability of the Manager to perform Manager's duties without undue concern for Manager's financial security should the need arise to seek new • employment. Therefore, the parties have made concessions and the Manager, as part of Manager's compensation agreement has made concessions in the amount of salary and other forms of compensation in return for the covenants contained in this section 13 relating to the discontinuance of the employment relationship. A) Manager shall give the City 30 days notice prior to discontinuing Manager's employment, where there has been no event constituting an involuntary separation as hereinafter set forth. B) In the event an "involuntary separation" occurs, the Manager may chose to resign prior to the effective date of any formal action by the City to terminate Manager's employment. C) Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement the term "involuntary separation" shall mean a formal request adopted at a public meeting by the City Council that the Manager resign or an action adopted by the City Council terminating this Agreement. The term "involuntary separation" shall also mean the resignation of the Manager within 30 days of the effective occurrence of any of the following: i) A change in the form of government at the City due to the adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter, election to adopt or repeal a particular statutory form of government (other than for a Plan B statutory form of government), or an ordinance /resolution changing the City's organizational structure relating to the Manager's duties or authority. • ii) A fundamental change in the duties and authority of the Manager adopted by the City Council, by special or general election, or by referendum or initiative such that the City of -3- Brooklyn Center's status as a council - manager plan city is changed by ICMA to some status other than a council - manager form of government. D) Payment upon Involuntary Separation. In the event of an involuntary separation, whether through a resignation or resolution /motion terminating the Agreement, the Manager shall be entitled to the following: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment by the City of the full cost of family health insurance, at level of coverage in effect just prior to the involuntary separation for a period of 12 full months from the date such involuntary separation becomes effective. In addition, the Manager shall be entitled, at Manager's own cost to continue participation in the City's group insurance plans for at least 18 months after the City is no longer required to make full payment of premiums for Manager's insurance coverage, provided the City's group insurance plan authorizes such continued participation. c) Severance Payment. The Manager shall receive the following severance benefits: i) Six (6) months salary computed at '/z the Manager's gross annual wages. ii Payment f y t o six months car allowance. i d Time of a ent. All payments due under this section shall be aid b P Ym P Y P Y noon on the day after the separation becomes effective. F) Payment Upon Voluntary Termination. Upon the Manager's voluntary termination of employment, he /she shall be entitled to full payment by the next following pay period of: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment of all wages for days worked since the last payroll period prior to separation. G) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or claims that either party may have beyond the compensation due in the normal course of the separation of the Manager from h Y p g the City's employ. Section 14. Term. This Agreement shall be for an indefinite term until terminated by one or both of the parties as set forth in this Agreement. • Section 15, Indemnification. The City shall defend and indemnify the Manager pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.07 and 465.76. The City shall also defend and hold harmless and indemnify the -4- • Manager from all torts, civil damages, penalties, fines, provided the Manager was acting in the performance of Manager's duties. Section 16. Merger. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written communications between the parties. Section 17 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the employment relationship between the City and the Manager and the parties agree that there were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this Agreement except as herein contained. Section 18 Severability, In case any one or more of the provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement will not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 19 Gov ruing Law, This Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 20 CoLntPrparts- This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will be constitute one and the same instrument. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, EMPLOYEE MINNESOTA By Myrna Kragness Michael J. McCauley Its Mayor By Camille D. Andre Its Acting City Manager • -5- MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor Myrna Kragness, Council Members Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Interim City Manager Cam Andre FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director CH DATE: November 16, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of Remaining Proposed 1996 Annual Budgets City Council review of the remaining budgets. In a series of meetings in September and one on November 6th, the City Council discussed and made some decisions on budgets for the five funds which levy property taxes. Funds still requiring City Council review and adoption included the following: Special Revenue Funds Six Debt Service Funds besides the two which levy property taxes Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds exist to meet the requirement to demonstrate that funds raised for a particular purpose were spent on that purpose. Debt Service Funds Debt Service Fund budgets don't require annual approval by the City Council because all required taxes are levied and a schedule of principal and interest payments are approved at the time of the bond sales. They are included in the city budget so as to provide a full picture of the g p p city's financial activities for that year. Utility Funds • Included in the enterprise fund category are the Recycling, Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage utility funds. On October 10, 1995, the City Council approved utility rate schedules for these funds which amounted to preliminary budget adoption for the utility funds since the study covered both revenues and expenditures. Between the time the City Manager's Proposed Budget was prepared in July /August and the time the utility rate study was prepared in late September, some adjustments were made to the estimated expenditures. Since the adoption of the rate study, some errors have been discovered. In the Water fund, I feel more confident in my original revenue estimates, and one expense was double counted in the rate study. In Sanitary Sewer, I feel the investment income estimate was a little high and the rate study erroneously changed the vehicle services charges. In Storm Drainage, the formula for estimating investment income calculated off an earlier, higher cash balance and the formula for adding operating expense left out $5,500 of expenses. Revised budget summary pages are attached to show the changes and the recommended final budget. I feel that none of these changes are significant enough to justify changing the adopted rate schedule. Unless the City Council wishes to conduct further review of the utilities, you could direct staff to prepare for final budget adoption for these funds on the basis of the final recommended amounts. Liquor, Golf, and Earle Brown Heritage Center Monthly profit & loss statements for these operations are attached. The Golf Course statement for October is available. Due to the greater size and complexity, October statements for the Liquor Stores and the Earle Brown Heritage Center aren't available and September is provided instead. Internal Service Funds These include the Central Garage Fund and the Employee Retirement Fund. There was some discussion of the Garage in the context of capital outlays and the effect these would have on the General Fund. The Garage budget should be reviewed in its entirety. The Employee Retirement Fund provides for post retirement health insurance benefits as provided for in Schedule K of the 1995 pay plan for full -time employees and severance benefits for laid -off employees as provided for in Schedule L of the 1995 pay plan for full -time employees. • EARLE BROWN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FUND HISTORY OF TIF DISTRICT Actual 1985 Thru Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated Proposed Projected Budget 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 REVENUES: Tax Increments $976,539 $1,377,594 $1,379,425 $1,508,964 $1,234,763 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 E.B. Commons Bankruptcy Settlement 280,000 95,000 Sale of Bonds 5,996,855 Land Sale 336,327 Total $0 $976,539 $7,374,449 $1,715,752 $1,508,964 $1,514,763 $1,595,000 $1,500,000 $1500,000 EXPENDITURES: Debt Service - Bonds of 85 $430,000 $475,000 $308,102 $560,000 $600,000 $640,000 Debt Service - Bonds of 91 728,732 620,000 640,000 650,000 645,000 $620,000 $600,000 Debt Service - Bonds of 92 250 560,000 640,000 Internal Borrowing Interest 390,387 229,446 119,511 97,653 81,656 98,000 90,000 80,000 Services and other charges 82,574 25,681 1,042 1,100 1,200 1,200 E.B. Commons Bankruptcy 72,270 Earle Brown Heritage Center: Operating Subsidy 429,700 359,125 334,727 84,810 124,842 Capital Outlay 6,197,332 4,632,762 380,729 137,590 Total $6,197,332 $5,882,849 $2,255,606 $1,545,861 $1,383,505 $1,528,768 $1,384,100 $1,271,200 $1,321,200 Annual Surplus or (Deficit) ($6,197,332) ($4,906,310) $5,118,843 $169,891 $125,459 ($14,005) $210,900 $228,800 $178,800 Ending Fund Balance ($2,653,752) ($7,560,062) ($2,441,219) ($2,271,328) ($2,145,869) ($2,159,874) ($1,948,974 ($1,720,174) ($1,541,374) TIFHIST.XLS 11/20/95 • City of Brooklyn Center Debt Service Funds COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 1996 Budget State Tax Tax Tax Tax G. 0. G. 0. Aid Increment Increment Increment Increment Refunding Improvement Improvement Street Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Totals Bonds of 1985 of 1991 of 1992 of 1995 of 1987 of 1994 of 1995 1996 1995 Revenues Property taxes $360,000 $65,583 $66,489 $492,072 $72,116 Special assessments $70,000 55,627 60,000 185,627 181,324 Intergovenmental revenue $308,273 308,273 306,725 Investment earnings $1,000 $5,000 $115,000 5,000 4,000 6,000 136,000 240,000 Total Revenues 308,273 1,000 5,000 115,000 365,000 74,000 127,210 126,489 1,121,972 800,165 Expenditures Principal $160,000 4,475,000 375,000 50,000 65,000 5,125,000 825,000 Interest 147,873 178,305 266,825 219,623 360,000 3,550 40,058 50,000 1,266,234 1,075,977 Fiscal agent fees 400 550 425 500 500 400 400 400 3,575 2,106 Total Expenditures 308,273 4,653,855 642,250 220,123 360,500 53,950 105,458 50,400 6,394,809 1,903,083 Excess or Deficiency ( -) of Revenues Over Expenditures 0 (4,652,855) (637,250) (105,123) 4,500 20,050 21,752 76,089 (5,272,837) (1,102,918) Other Financing Sources or Uses ( -) Operating transfers in 4,180,000 620,000 733,634 5,533,634 1,285,000 Operating transfers out (173,634) (4,180,000) (4,353,634) 0 Total Other Financing Sources or Uses (- 0 4,006,366 620,000 (3,446,366) 0 0 0 0 1,180,000 1,285,000 Surplus or Deficit 0 (646,489) (17,250) (3,551,489) 4,500 20,050 21,752 76,089 (4,092,837) 182,082 RECYCLING FUND 1996 Budget Comparison to Utility Rate Study POLICIES: + To continue an effective program of curbside recycling, while keeping costs as affordable as possible + Identify program needs and develop funding mechanisms which are fiscally responsible and provide adequate revenue The recycling fund accounts for the operations and administration of the cities, state mandated, curbside recycling program. It is primarily comprised of fees paid to the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) for recycling services and, the charges to households to cover those costs. Fees are collected on a per household /per month basis. The fund is managed by the Director of Public Services and is established as an enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are self supporting activities of the city which render services on a user charge basis to the general public. ACTIVITIES: Percent of Budget STAFFING: Curbside Recycling 100% 0.00 100% 0.00 Full -time Equivalents Utility Actual Adopted Original Rate Final Budget 1994 1995 Recommend Study Recommend REVENUES: Service to Customers $134,185 $213,366 $213,366 $213,366 $213,366 Investment Earnings $5,167 $3,900 $6,034 $6,034 $6,034 Container Sales 554 600 600 600 600 Total Revenues $139,906 $217,866 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 EXPENDITURES: Supplies 554 600 600 600 600 Other Contractual Services 111,447 208,404 209,000 209,000 209,000 Logis Charges 6,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Insurance 871 400 400 400 Total Expenditures $118,872 $215,004 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 Operating Income $21,034 $2,862 $0 $0 $0 Net Income $21,034 $2,862 $0 $0 $0 Staffing (FTE) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMMENTS: The rates and expenses for recycling were increased substantially for 1995 due to the reduction in reimbursements from Hennepin County. Collection costs increased by $1.00 per household per month, but the rate increase was held to $.90 per month. This was accomplished by the addition of the City of Brooklyn Park to the HRG, thereby allowing more efficient administration. WATER UTILITY FUND 1996 Budget Comparison to Utility Rate Study POLICIES: + Maintain a comprehensive system for water pumping, storage and distribution + Identify infrastructure needs and develop funding mechanisms which are fiscally responsible while providing adequate revenue This fund accounts for the provision of water to customers. Administration, wells, storage, and distribution are included. The fund is managed by the Public Services Director and has been established as an enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are self supporting activities of the city which render services on a user charge basis to the general public ACTIVITIES: Percent of Budget STAFFING: Well Maintenance & Repair 20% 0.48 Public Utilities Supervisor Tower Maintenance & Repair 2% 4.43 Maintenance II General Maintenance & Repair 21% 0.58 Part Time Work for Customers /Contractors 23% 5.49 Full -Time Equivalents Water Quality /Safety 17% Administration & Billing 17% 100% Utility Actual Adopted Original Rate Final Budget 1994 1995 Recommend Study Recommend REVENUES. Service to Customers $962,369 $1,032,000 $1,032,000 $1,032,000 $1,032,000 Meter Sales 33,140 19,000 30,000 20,000 30,000 Penalties 58,180 30,000 50,000 40,000 50,000 Investment Earnings 266,561 219,531 240,000 294,748 240,000 Special Assessments 16,177 20,000 20,000 10,000 20,000 Other Revenue 1,431 1 1,000 0 1,000 Total Revenues $1,337,858 $1,321,531 $1,373,000 $1,396,748 $1,373,000 EXPENDITURES: Personnel $230,609 $215,193 $231,398 $231,398 $231,398 Admin. Services Transfer 89,375 115,652 115,652 115,652 115,652 Supplies 79,614 92,700 95,165 95,165 95,165 Other Contractual Services 136,830 199,099 144,769 144,769 144,769 State Connection Surcharge 46,100 Vehicle Services 40,646 43,218 51,208 51,208 51,208 Utilities 148,962 142,113 162,649 162,649 162,649 Depreciation 236,850 260,000 248,000 248,000 248,000 Capital Outlay 0 31,000 25,000 0 25,000 Total Expenditures $962,886 $1,098,975 $1,073,841 $1,094,941 $1,073,841 Net Income $374,972 $222,556 $299,159 $301,807 $299,159 Staffing (FTE) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 COMMENTS: The above schedule does not include proposed substantial capital outlays associated with street or utility improvement projects. Please see the utility rate study for a more complete picture of the utility's financial condition. Substantial profits are needed to provide the cash flow for construction projects. WATER UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 1: Publutillwatrat96 08 :::: >:s: % #1:' ::: >:: > ? >:'•:$ <:: >: : #:<::: >:: >::': : <:s::s:: #:<:;: »:::z::: »:53 ?i :: : :5:•`:::::2:;» #:: >: >:<::: >:: `•:::: <: >:z: : >::: %�:::<:;:!: >:• #:<: #:: >:: >::'• ''> : #:«: > ?:::!«:::: > ?:`•:: ^ # >:::: >:!:' ;::::s:;:::; >:; EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 348,313 317,283 319,984 330,845 347,050 357,842 368,577 Contractual 173,799 144,216 136,830 199,099 144,769 149,112 153,585 Supplies & Materials 105,388 68,699 79,614 92,700 95,165 98,020 100,961 Heat, Light & Power 134,905 128,901 148,962 142,113 162,649 170,781 179,321 Interest on Debt 1,855 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Operating Costs 40,646 43,218 51,208 49,000 54,000 State Connection Surcharge 0 0 46,100 46,100 46,000 46,000 Depreciation Expense 233,447 267,279 236,850 260,000 248,000 275,000 295,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $997,707 $926,378 $962,886 $1,114,075 $1,094,941 $1,145,755 $1,197,444 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $843,697 $772,401 $962,369 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,080,000 1,128,000 Water in MGAL 1,320,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 : iY::::::::::: i::::::':: is :ii::::::i:::::: ?::Xi �i:,::i::i:i:t: i...... .i ... .................... ..... .......................... A........ ... ...... n ............:...... ...... ........ 3) Miscellaneous Operating 53,160 75,733 91,320 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 30,050 30,921 17,608 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 114,600 84,258 66,640 23,776 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $1,041,507 $963,313 $1,137,937 $1,125,776 $1;102,000 $1,150,000 $1,198,000 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... `i `: P. RQ���: �'. E. 17..{1 U: Ci3A��. �3�.) �1�5Sr .................. ............................... �f� ��f�Q...................# .. �....................� . ��...................>�..:� 7{iE:� :;...................�.� 0........................ ......�a. 6) 1/2 Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 171,901 196,602 199,921 275,798 294,748 266,534 241,589 11tE..IltfGt�f11(..fl ~<. 15 .................................. ............................... .. 9......... :.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... i : :`• ? `' ::;t :::i:::isE: is ; : %3 %:`: :: :`•:3 is ::::::i:i: i........... 0 .:::2E S: ?:::: <: ' 3? 2:i:::i;'�: ?i:::: Y ::::::: :`•r : %5 : ?; : ;i`:' 3 :' : :: <: f :'•i 'S �` :: %: EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS. 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $4,450,204 $4,665,394 $4,752,886 $4,755,146 $5,081,865 $4,595,422 $4,165,326 8) Capital Outlay (188,958) (413,324) (829,420) (220,780) (1,036,250)1 (975,875) (1,345,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 215,701 233,537 374,972 287,499 301,807 270,779 242,145 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) 1 1) Depeciation Add -back 233,447 267,279 236,850 260,000 248,000 275,000 295,000 :::;:12:::iul >iof.Y a�f>.... .. e 1 ... ............1...6............'8 X4422 ........#4.1.. 32i.... .. Restricted Inv• ::::............... ............................... 3 000 ..... 3 00 0 '::::.............::::: , 0 o0 :. •::..........:::::. 700 000 '::: :..........:::::: 0 0,000 Unrestricted Inv 965,394 1,052,886 1,055,146 1 1,381,865 895,422 465,326 (342,528) SANITARY SEWER FUND 1996 Budget Comparison to Utility Rate Study POLICIES: + Maintain a comprehensive system for collection and pumping of sanitary sewage + Identify infrastructure needs and develop funding mechanisms which are fiscally responsible while providing adequate revenue This fund accounts for the collection and pumping of sanitary sewage through a system of sewer lines and lift stations. Sewage is treated b the M 9 y e etropoiltan Council Wastewater Services whose fees co ac unt for approximately 75% of this fund's expenditures. The fund is managed by the Public Services Director and has been established as an enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are self supporting activities of the city which render services on a user charge basis to the general public. ACTIVITIES: Percent of Budget STAFFING: Lift Station Maintenance 6% 0.42 Public Utilities Supervisor General Maintenance 9% 2.20 Maintenance II Work for Customers 3% 0.20 Part Time Administration & Billing 7% 2.82 Full -Time Equivalents M.C.W.S. Charges 75% 100% • Utility Actual Adopted Original Rate Final Budg 1994 1 Recommend Study Recommend REVENUES: Service to Customers $2,126,822 $2,237,415 $2,237,415 $2,237,415 $2,237,415 Investment Earnings 202,997 152,647 100,000 183,509 150,000 Other Revenue 11,961 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total Revenues $2,341,780 $2,391,062 $2,338,415 $2,421,924 $2,388,415 EXPENDITURES: Personnel $96,248 $123,696 $117,488 $117,488 $117,488 j Admin. Services Transfer 89,375 77,102 77,102 77,102 77,102 Supplies 18,330 15,434 19,470 19,470 19,470 Other Contractual Services 50,869 82,952 63,859 63,859 63,859 M.C.W.S. Charges 1,395,261 1,394,964 1,450,763 1,431,659 1,431,659 Vehicle Services 27,508 68,237 74,353 71,649 74,353 Utilities 19,891 19,583 20,562 20,562 20,562 Depreciation 110,855 152,000 120,500 175,000 175,000 Capital Outlay 16,520 3,650 3,650 3,650 Total Expenditures $1,808,337 $1,950,488 $1,947,747 $1,980,439 $1,983,143 Net Income $533,443 $440,574 $390,668 $441,485 $405,272 I Staffing (FTE) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 • COMMENTS: The above schedule does not include proposed substantial capital outlays associated with street or utility improvement projects. Please see the attached utility rate study for a more complete picture of the utility's financial condition. Substantial profits are needed to provide the cash flow for construction projects. r SANITARY SEWER RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 2: No Bonding PURates \sewrat96 09-S % :::::::::::::::: :::::::::':::: f #;:•`:•`: #;i::i;: ` '.:: :i:2:iii::i:::2:::iii::i::E:::: ` ' '%: iSiii::i::r:::! %:iiiiiiiii::;:: •: ' ::::::::: ?:5::: <:':` ?; ::: i:::.: • '::;i::i::s:::::;::; :::;:::::::::;;.; >; •. • ...:.:..;<. 92 .....................::•.::,3. . . EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 199,990 182,430 185,623 200,798 194,590 200,428 206,441 Contractual Service 71,898 75,240 50,869 53,412 63,859 67,052 70,405 Supplies & Materials 12,995 13,999 18,330 19,247 19,470 20,444 21,466 Heat, Light, & Power 16,889 17,762 19,891 20,886 20,562 21,590 22,670 Vehicle Operating Costs 27,508 68,237 71,649 75,231 78,993 Depreciation Expense 194,879 126,055 110,855 152,000 175,000 244,000 235,000 Capital Outlay 3,650 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $496,651.00 $415,486.00 $413,076.00 $514,579.50 $548,779.85 $628,744.54 $634,973.22 MCES Charges $1,411,582.00 $1,379,868.00 $1,297,134.00 $1,341,312.00 $1,431,659.00 $1,488,925.36 $1,548,482.37 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,908,233.00 $1,795,354.00 $1,710,210.00 $1,855,891.50 $1,980,438.85 $2,117,669.90 $2,183,455.59 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,920,796 $2,114,429 $2,126,822 $2,237,415 $2,237,415 $2,326,185 $2,463,160 Residential Accts ; 6,845 6,827 6,650 6,610 6,610 6,305 6,280 .:,.;:_:::;:<:::::•<;,..:: 2:: :::::: ?:::::: ?:i''.::;::,:;,::: ":: 2:: zt: Y;: 5:.: : ":: " <:::;;:::::::::::i:: ::;F:. :: <::.;:;::: ::::i:::::::22:: <:: isi:::: >•.: "'' is _.:;::;::;:::;;:;:2::;::iSi 0 rteri Chsrr ::.::.................... 436.76 ......:. . Senior Accts 1,625 2,170 2,100 2,150 2,150 2,175 2,200 xxxx: a :z;: rt . .............................. ......................51,66... .......:;:::::;:.;::;::;::522: e! Y ...........:......:.................................................................... ............................... 0#...................... .....2.tQ...................... ::.::.:,,:,:,:,,...........................::.::.............:.:.:::::.............................. ...........................:.:: X23JO............ ........ ...... $23.4Ek................:::::::: 44.7 ........................ :. 8 .:,<. Apartment Accts 3,523 3,545 3,515 3,515 3,515 3,510 3,500 Quarterly Charge $25.03 $28.00 $29.75 $29.75 $29.75 $31.50 $33.25 Non - residential Water 234,600 285,000 285,000 290,700 290,700 296,500 302,400 '• 13 :::...., _.::.;..,.:. •'' `{ ' 'E S `E E ' is %> ` E ? i '`':` :.,' " :':: E: `: : is�:: 2::::'' . ::::;, : E::: ?i:: ':::::::: ; ?:: ?::ii:: EE:''' ":::; ":''`:::::::; :a : ;:tti::: I:::::::::::fi' ` ':E::: " "' :::::::::::::y : .........::E;: : >:? ::: ?' :: , .. ?i::::; .::;.`;;•::::;;; ... ....... .. ............:.:..:::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.: : ::.:.::::::...:..............: .:::::::::::::::..: :::::::: ., .:::::::.::................: #.. :•:::.::::.:::::::::: :. :: :�. +9Q:. % 3) Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 560 921 11,961 1,000 1,000 1 1,000 5) Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 88,619 60,327 50,744 17,096 TOTAL REVENUES $2,009,975 $2,175,677 52,189,527 $2,255,511 $2,238,415 $2,327,185 $2,464,160 . . �Pr:�.CI IE.i'i.T ,;: • FY4 <. < ? `: :: :' :: ::: >'` ;..,. .........: .:.....:: ..:......:'.:.:,,: ..,,.:..:: • a. : ':::; :::::::::: '::: "::::: :;'; ::::: >:zc :: :::: #:::<: ,...:::: :::: ii is :iiii: % % "::: `:: :•':: :: :::: :: i:>::ir' .:;.:. .,,:..:.;...: >:::::::: :;..... ...:: ....;: ,: <: ......... ........:.:...........::::::.:: $1 Q. ::. ..... :.:.:..:::...:..:......:.........................................Ut....... ..:..:.:..471.7::..::::.:.::.: . 6) Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 132,928 140,764 152,233 198,313 183,509 139,327 1 147,851 :'. 44 A . . .. .. ............. �................................. ...............:.::::::::: Eii!5#. '::`:` ?::'�:�..�� ' • '' :E�iii:::2 % % %•`:: %';:::i::::;:' <;:::: � �: ?:::;:; :''' :::::::::::::::: i::.:' � i::::::: 2: :::::::::::::::':::::::�i::j ;:::. i:: i`:::: i::::::::::::: ii :::'•i::i %;:;:.. ;::::: iii:: i::::::::: i:::: i::::::..: ; : .: . ".:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:; >:;::i '::::::::::: ii ' ?:::::i::: ''. >......:....: �.::..::.:: :... 3 ��3 .....................::. � 1584 ........:.:...:::::::::.::1: :............ ............ ........... ...........:..::.........:..:.: �`�5;:.:::.:;;:.:.:.;..; :.;.;:.;:.::;:.;::>:.. 1:#1 56;:.;:•;; ;::;• >::;...:.;;:.;::.::•:.;:.: •;:1:99.7..;:•;:.;::.;;::•::•:: <.;;:.;:.;; >::;:<:.. ;:.;:. >:.:.;:.;:. EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,566,312 $3,060,463 $3,307,320 $3,419,193 $3,163,956 $2,402,191 $2,549,157 8) Capital Outlay (935,398) (400,285) (965,070) (1,005,170) (1,378,250) (445,876) (334,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 234,670 521,087 631,550 597,933 441,486 348,842 428,556 10) Debt Service 11) Depreciation Add -back 194,879 126,055 110,855 152,000 175,000 244,000 235,000 .,,,..,.;.,,� �:.::.,,,. >:::::;:: • t, :; ' . ,`� :: .; >: ?::::: > }; ' • ?''s. >:.;`t•`':`'''''''fit ?�`'''��'� ".;;.:::.;.:.; ;:.;,.:.,.;:.;•.:..:...,'.:.,,: �:,.:y � <.. i r>: :'' r<>••: 1 �y • :''':` •• ' `:,;::.;;: •..,;, �.. � ... . ;:::::': y; :. ;�.�: +; �: ;; `'r:;'''�'� "; "'': 1':± 5::::: i :.: :: •>:. ; :;: : i :; ; >•< ::: >:.; r•; "'::::::>.: y`. r. : :;, >:.:: ................................... ............................... Unrestricted Investments 3,060,463 3,307,320 3,419,193 3,163,956 2,402,191 2,549,157 2,878,713 STORM DRAINAGE FUND 1996 Budget Comparison to Utility Rate Study POLICIES: + To develop a proactive system for storm water drainage, while keeping utility costs as affordable as possible + Identify infrastructure needs and develop funding mechanisms which are fiscally responsible and provide adequate revenue The storm drainage fund accounts for the operations and improvements of the storm drainage system. It incorporates not only the storm sewer system, but also water structures such as holding ponds and facilities to improve water quality. Fees are based on the amount of water running off a property and vary with both size and absorption characteristics of the parcel. The fund is managed by the Director of Public Services and is established as an enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are self supporting activities of the city which render services on a user charge basis to the general public. ACTIVITIES: Percent of Budget STAFFING: Maintenance 9% 0.00 Watershed Districts 91% 0.00 100% 0.00 Full -time Equivalents • Utility Actual Adopted Original Rate Final Budget 1994 1995 Rec ommend Study Recommend REVENUES. Service to Customers $685,011 $780,000 $780,000 $832,000 $832,000 Investment Earnings 39,930 21,365 21,365 117,117 28,000 Total Revenues $724,941 $801,365 $801,365 $949,117 $860,000 EXPENDITURES: Admin. Services Transfer $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Supplies 0 0 2,000 2,000 3,000 Other Contractual Services 95,046 49,500 60,120 55,620 60,120 Vehicle Maint. Reimburse 16,379 9 19,298 19,298 19,298 Debt Service 30,208 0 198,815 198,815 198,815 815 Depreciation 888 29,000 27,500 32,000 32,000 Total Expenditures $242,521 $188,228 $407,733 $407,733 $413,233 Net Income $482,420 $613,137 $393,632 $541,384 $446,767 Staffing (FTE) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMMENTS: The above schedule does not include proposed substantial capital outlays associated with street or utility improvement projects. Please see the attached utility rate study for a more complete picture of the utility's financial condition. Substantial profits are needed to provide the cash flow for construction projects. • STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 2: PURATES:sdurat96 Sep 95 .:.;<: > >:: >:<:.;: :.> :; >:.;;:•:<.;:•::.:.:•: :: : :: :.. : ::• : :........:::::::.:::... :.:::. ::::::::::::::..... .::.::. :::•:.::.. ::: ........................... EXPENDI TURES ........................:::: 1 .::.:..:::::::::::.>: ;.;::.:.a.*7.: >::•;;;::.;:•;::; 1) Operations $203,469 $166,729 $204,885 $220,000 $208,918 $161,000 $163,000 Storm Sewer Maintenance 62,388 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Sweeping 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Watershed District Dues 34,868 33,581 45,000 49,500 Local Plan 60,120 50,000 50,000 66,213 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 Other Operating Costs 6,685 7,000 11,728 22,298 11,000 13,000 Depreciation 6685 888 29,000 32,000 121,000 136,000 2) Capital Outlay $3,402 $394,662 $685,000 $1,755,170 $1,090,000 $487,149 $260,000 Repair or Replace Defective Sections 0 10,000 0 0 100,000 50,000 100,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 3,402 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities & Equipment 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 Improvement Projects 0 300,000 685,000 1,755,170 990,000 437,149 160,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $206,871 $561,391 $889,885 $2,004,170 $1,330,916 $769,149 $559,000 REVENUES 3) Billing Revenues $494,456 $639,837 $685,011 $780,000 $832,000 $858,000 $884,000 REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 ,500 6,500 A ......... .....::::::................... p : :::::....................:....: ::........,......:::::::::.:: :.:............................ .. Slc .P Ft. AGi .......... ..............:::..::.......... .. :::::.......... ::.....::............. .........::.................... +yp�/�. ::. :....::::................:::... ................... ................•:::..::::::::. •::::::::::::::::::: •:..�: ::::::::: •::::. �: .: �.::::::..::::;:;.; 4 i';:;;: r:• r�:.:: s;:.'•:: ifiiZ�ti. 4�4F .::::::::.: >:•:;;>:•>x::::•::. Residential rate per lot :. :..:.................. .....:. $4.50 $6.00 $6.75 $7.50 $8.00 $8.25 $8.50 Schools & govt buildings per acre $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 $37.50 $40.00 $41.25 $42.50 Multiple family & churches per acre $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 $90.00 $96.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $99.00 $102.00 $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 $150.00 $160.00 $165.00 $170.00 4) Interest Earnings 14,030 28,138 2,294 22,675 117,117 43,856 12,036 TOTAL REVENUES $508,486 $667,975 $687,305 $802,675 $949,117 $901,856 $896,036 .....:, 3;;t '��7..lIV�.'l��t�:.f�!R:.l.!C�. SAS :.........: ::::::::::::.:::::.:........... :.:..:.::.::::::..:::: :.... :. ..:::::: ::.:::: ....... .....::::.:. ............::::. �::...........:...::::. �:. �::::::. ............................... ��� .: ::::.:::::::::::�.�;��E?���::.: �. �:. �::.:::rr.�.�a74W tt��yy//�� // //'�yy,,,��,��77�� xx�� :.. .. .. ::•::::;c:::. �:. .. .. ..:::. .: : <.>::::::::::.:�:: EFFECT ON CASH &I NVESTMENTS s 5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $24,093 $325,708 $390,943 $2,019,251 $756,131 $207,514 $219,626 6) Net Income or Loss 301,615 106,584 (202,580) (1,201,495) (381,801) 132,707 337,036 7) Debt Service 1,830,000 (90,625) (198,815) (241,595) (243,520) 8) Special Assessment /Other 9) Depreciation Add Back 6685 888 29,000 32 :�;..... .: :.. ... .. .:. .:::•:.: � ::...... ...:. ::..,: :::•::::•::::::.:... .. .. ......:::..:.,..:.:::.. �.::•:. �.:.....:.,..: �::::.:::. �.: �:.•:: ............................... .... 000 #.......... sr ................. : :: : ::::: :: :::. :. ::.•::::: ::::..... 000 1, 00 136 :.. Offi .....,,......:..,:....,. N.:: n: �.:.. v.; �: �: kvr:<: rh. x� �::. ch... � x• x, ak��::::: v.: �:::: �: :•:::Y >:,ti: >• :::::::: > > >.. •:... :, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR STORES TEN YEAR SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 BUDGET BUDGE ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL SALES $2,795,850 $2,715,300 $2,698,373 $2,615,955 $2,664,667 $2,678,840 $2,455,551 $2,414,126 $2,583,594 $2,527,159 $2,465,749 $2,388,513 COST OF SALES 2,121,950 2,047,561 2,023,603 1,976,173 2,011,103 2,025,288 1,863,843 1,844,619 1,977,728 1,930,254 1,890,311 1,841,870 NET OPERATING REVENUE 673,900 667,739 674,770 639,782 653,564 653,552 591,708 569,507 605,866 596,905 575,438 546,643 OPERATING EXPENSES 520,979 526,011 526,645 537,247 519,237 516,901 490,545 458,353 457,079 434,311 435,763 415,409 OPERATING INCOME 152,921 141,728 148,125 102,535 134,327 136,651 101,163 111,154 148,787 162,594 139,675 131,234 NON - OPERATING EXPENSE 10,622 12,640 9,089 12,468 15,442 15,575 7,471 8,916 13,050 16,948 9,521 5,909 INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER 142,299 129,088 139,036 90,067 118,885 121,076 93,692 102,238 135,737 145,646 130,154 125,325 TRANSFERS 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 65,000 130,000 110,000 135,000 90,000 110,000 100,000 103,500 NET INCOME $42,299 $29,088 $39,036 ($9,933) $53,885 ($8,924) ($16,308 ($32,762) $45,737 $35,646 $30,154 $21,825 TENYEAR.XLS 11/20/95 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR STORES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTHS AND PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 & 1994 Finance Department • City of Syn Center r Municipal Liquor Stores Combined Liquor Stores For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 and 1994 September September Percent YTD YTD Percent 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Operating Revenues Liquor $72,850 $67,699 $5,151 7.6% $630,024 $614,496 $15,528 2.5% Wine 21,207 19,728 1,479 7.5% 181,000 177,261 3,739 2.1% Beer 117,007 120,865 (3,858) -3.2% 1,038,183 1,037,040 1,143 0.1% Mix 4,723 4,728 (5) -0.1% 41,791 41,591 200 0.5% Bottle Deposits 564 620 (56) - 9.0°x6 4,418 4,818 (400) -8.3% Miscellaneous 10,085 8,876 1,209 13.6% 82,580 79,332 3,248 4.1% Total Operating Revenues $226,436 $222,516 $3,920 1.8% $1,977,996 $1,954,538 $23,458 1.2% Cost of Sales Liquor $53,810 $50,731 $3,079 6.1% $469,554 $456,744 $12,810 2.8% Wine 14,980 13,006 1,974 15.2% 128,013 118,298 9,715 8.2% Beer 90,596 93,233 (2,637) -2.8% 807,030 805,511 1,519 0.2% Mix 3,338 3,415 (77) -2.3% 29,481 28,424 1,057 3.7% Miscellaneous 7,104 6,363 741 11.6% 58,560 56,348 2,212 3.9% Other 512 377 135 35.8% 9,406 6,920 2,486 35.9% Total Cost of Sales $170,340 $167,125 $3,215 1.9% $1,502,044 $1,472,245 $29,799 2.0% Gross Margin $56,096 $55,391 $705 1.3% $475,952 $482,293 ($6,341) -1.3% Operating Expenses Personal Services $26,903 $27,554 ($651) -2.4%, $239,027 $236,304 $2,723 1.2% Supplies 23 1,560 (1,537) -98.5% 8,850 5,816 3,034 52.2% Services and Other Charges 7,186 8,610 (1,424) -16.5% 60,884 76,763 (15,879) - 20.7% Insurance 1,218 1,086 132 12.2% 10,973 9,791 1,182 12.1% Utilities 2,166 2,293 (127) -5.5% 20,639 19,298 1,341 6.9% Rent 2,948 2,927 21 0.7% 26,246 26,641 (395) -1.5% Depreciation 1,670 1,957 (287) -14.7% 15,033 9,846 5,187 52.7% Capital Outlay 0 549 (549) - 100.0% 116 1,631 (1,515) -92.9% Total Operating Expenses $42,114 $46,536 ($4,422) -9.5% $381,768 $386,090 ($4,322) -1.1% Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other Revenue /(Expense) 522 20 502 2510.0% 1,382 402 980 243.8% Interest Expense 1,020 1,177 (157) - 13.3% 9,661 11,036 (1,375) -12.5% Nonoperating Totals ($498) ($1,157) $659 57.0% ($8,279) ($10,634) $2,355 22.1% Net Income (Loss) $13,484 $7,698 $5,786 75.2% $85,905 $85,569 $336 0.4% COMBINED 1-I1110STORES 0 0 OPERATING REVENUES AND September September Percent YTD YTD Percent COST OF SALES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change LIQUOR Sales 72,850 67,699 5,151 7.6% 630,024 614,496 15,528 2.5% Cost of Sales 53,810 50,731 3,079 6.1% 469,554 456,744 12,810 2.8% Gross Margin 19,040 16,968 2,072 12.2% 160,470 157,752 2,718 1.7% Percent to Sales 26.1% 25.1% 1.1% 25.5% 25.7% -0.2% WINE Sales 21,207 19,728 1,479 7.5% 181,000 177,261 3,739 2.1% Cost of Sales 14,980 13,006 1,974 15.2% 128,013 118,298 9,715 8.2% Gross Margin 6,227 6,722 (495) -7.4% 52,987 58,963 (5,976) -10.1% Percent to Sales 29.4% 34.1% -4.7% 29.3% 33.3% -4.0% BEER Sales 117,007 120,865 (3,858) -3.2% 1,038,183 1,037,040 1,143 0.1% Cost of Sales 90,596 93,233 (2,637) -2.8% 807,030 805,511 1,519 0.2% Gross Margin 26,411 27,632 (1,221) -4.4% 231,153 231,529 (376) -0.2°x6 Percent to Sales 22.6% 22.9% -0.3% 22.3% 22.3% -0.1% MIX - NOT TAXED Sales 1,405 1,473 (68) - 4.6°x6 13,499 12,475 1,024 8.2% Cost of Sales 948 1,031 (83) -8.1% 9,606 8,438 1,168 13.8% Gross Margin 457 442 15 3.4% 3,893 4,037 (144) -3.6% Percent to Sales 32.5% 30.0% 2.5% 28.8% 32.4°x6 -3.5% MIX - TAXED Sales 3,318 3,255 63 1.9% 28,292 29,116 (824) -2.8% Cost of Sales 2,390 2,384 6 0.3% 19,875 19,986 (111) -0.6% Gross Margin 928 871 57 6.5% 8,417 9,130 (713) 7.8°x6 Percent to Sales 28.0% 26.8% 1.2% 29.8% 31.4% -1.6% MISCELLANEOUS Sales 10,085 8,876 1,209 13.6% 82,580 79,332 3,248 4.1% Cost of Sales 7,104 6,363 741 11.6% 58,560 56,348 2,212 3.9% Gross Margin 2,981 2,513 468 18.6% 24,020 22,984 1,036 4.5°x6 Percent to Sales 29.6% 28.3% 1.2% 29.1% 29.0% 0.1% TOTALS Sales 225,872 221,896 3,976 1.8% 1,973,578 1,949,720 23,858 1.2 0 A Bottle Deposits 564 620 (56) -9.0% 4,418 4,818 (400) -8.3% Cost of Sales 169,828 166,748 3,080 1.8% 1,492,638 1,465,325 27,313 1.9% Delivery Charges 335 377 (42) - 11.1°x6 5,903 6,169 (266) -4.3% Credit Card Fees 125 0 125 100.0% 1,091 0 1,091 100.0% Inventory Variances 52 0 52 100.0% 2,132 751 1,381 183.9% Merchandise Breakage 0 0 0 0.0% 280 0 280 100.0% Gross Margin 56,096 55,391 705 1.3% 475,952 482,293 (6,341) -1.3% Percent to Sales 24.8% 25.0% -0.1 % 24.1% 24.7% -0.6% COMBINED LIQIWTORES September September Percent YTD YTD Percent OPERATING EXPENSES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Personal Services Salaries 22,218 22,939 (721) -3.1% 205,976 202,983 2,993 1.5% Payroll Taxes 3,923 3,871 52 1.3% 26,215 25,971 244 0.9°x6 Employee Benefits 762 744 18 2.4% 6,836 7,350 (514) -7.0% Total Personal Services 26,903 27,554 (651) -2.4% 239,027 236,304 2,723 1.2% Supplies General Supplies 0 1,537 (1,537) - 100.0% 7,066 4,880 2,186 44.8% Cleaning Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Repair & Maint. Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 1,552 730 822 112.6% Laundry 23 23 0 0.0% 232 206 26 12.6% Total Supplies 23 1,560 (1,537) - 98.5°x6 8,850 5,816 3,034 52.2% Services & Other Charges Administrative Service 3,750 4,251 (501) -11.8% 33,750 38,259 (4,509) -11.8% LOGIS Charges 448 1,917 (1,469) - 76.6% 6,128 14,854 (8,726) -58.7% Audit & Financial Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 3,108 3,060 48 1.6% Protection Services 97 97 0 0.0% 874 873 1 0.1% Other Contractual Services 41 1,061 (1,020) - 96.1°x6 1,051 5,261 (4,210) -80.0% Advertising 50 0 50 100.0% 1,957 4,242 (2,285) -53.9% Uncollectible Returned Cks 147 202 (55) - 27.2°x6 1,019 789 230 29.2% Check Verification Fees 492 466 26 5.6% 4,188 4,528 (340) -7.5% License, Taxes and Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 309 249 60 24.1% Central Garage Charges 681 259 422 162.9% 2,846 2,370 476 20.1% Repairs 1,058 0 1,058 100.0% 1,366 141 1,225 868.8°x6 Miscellaneous 309 248 61 24.6% 2,352 1,681 671 39.9% Cash (Over)Short 113 109 4 3.7°x6 1,936 456 1,480 324.6% Total Services & Other Chgs. 7,186 8,610 (1,424) -16.5% 60,884 76,763 (15,879) - 20.7°x6 Insurance Dram Shop 940 900 40 4.4% 8,467 8,105 362 4.5% General Liability & Property 278 186 92 49.5% 2,506 1,686 820 48.6°x6 Total Insurance 1,218 1,086 132 12.2% 10,973 9,791 1,182 12.1°x6 Utilities ' Electric 1,621 1,794 (173) -9.6% 14,392 12,730 1,662 13.1°x6 Gas 75 32 43 134.4% 1,817 2,156 (339) - 15.7°x6 Telephone 383 382 1 0.3% 3,462 3,413 49 1.4°x6 Waste Disposal 67 65 2 3.1% 603 660 (57) - 8.6°x6 Water 20 20 0 0.0% 365 339 26 7.7% Total Utilities 2,166 2,293 (127) -5.5% 20,639 19,298 1,341 6.9% Building Rent 2,948 2,927 21 0.7°x6 26,246 26,641 (395) -1.5% Depreciation 1,670 1,957 (287) - 14.7% 15,033 9,846 5,187 52.7°x6 Capital Outlay 0 549 (549) - 100.0°x6 116 1,631 (1,515) -92.9% Total Operating Expenses 42,114 46,536 (4,422) -9.5% 381,768 386,090 (4,322) - 1.1°x6 Percent to Sales: 18.6% 21.0°x6 - 2.3°x6 19.3% 19.8% -0.5% COMBINED L1Q�STORES 0 NONOPERATING REVENUES/ September September Percent YTD YTD Percent (EXPENSES) 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0°x6 Other Rev /(Exp) Check Process Fees 0 20 (20) - 100.0% 260 402 (142) -35.3% Other 522 0 522 100.0% 1,122 0 1,122 100.0% Total Other Rev /(Exp) 522 20 502 2510.0% 1,382 402 980 243.8% Interest Expense 1,020 1,177 (157) -13.3% 9,661 11,036 (1,375) - 12.5% Nonoperating Totals (498) (1,157) 659 57.0% (8,279) (10,634) 2,355 22.1% Percent to Sales -0.2% -0.5% 0.3% -0.4% -0.5% 0.1% NET INCOME (LOSS) 13,484 7,698 5,786 75.2% 85,905 85,569 336 0.4% Percent to Sales 6.0% 3.5% 2.5% 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 0 City of Br* Center 0 Municipal Liquor Stores Humboldt Liquor Store For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 and 1994 September September Percent YTD YTD Percent 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Operating Revenues Liquor $21,367 $19,825 $1,542 7.8% $192,071 $181,551 $10,520 5.8% Wine 6,103 5,558 545 9.8% 50,675 52,433 (1,758) -3.4% Beer 36,103 37,044 (941) -2.5% 324,210 314,556 9,654 3.1% Mix 1,393 1,462 (69) -4.7% 12,348 12,951 (603) -4.7% Bottle Deposits 61 100 (39) -39.0% 698 807 (109) -13.5% Miscellaneous 2,152 2,272 (120) -5.3% 20,304 20,861 (557) -2.7% Total Operating Revenues $67,179 $66,261 $918 1.4% $600,306 $583,159 $17,147 2.9% Cost of Sales Liquor $15,693 $15,545 $148 1.0% $141,596 $134,682 $6,914 5.1% Wine 4,278 3,808 470 12.3% 34,486 34,975 (489) -1.4% Beer 27,733 28,358 (625) -2.2% 248,842 241,307 7,535 3.1% Mix 976 966 10 1.0% 8,630 8,615 15 0.2% Miscellaneous 1,512 1,597 (85) -5.3% 14,170 14,724 (554) -3.8% Other 610 121 489 404.1% 4,392 2,212 2,180 98.6% Total Cost of Sales $50,802 $50,395 $407 0.8% $452,116 $436,515 $15,601 3.6% Gross Margin $16,377 $15,866 $511 3.2% $148,190 $146,644 $1,546 1.1% Operating Expenses Personal Services $8,737 $8,134 $603 7.4% $75,969 $75,451 $518 0.7% Supplies 8 411 (403) -98.1% 2,811 2,037 774 38.0% Services and Other Charges 2,175 3,021 (846) -28.0% 20,143 23,222 (3,079) - 13.3% Insurance 363 343 20 5.8% 3,268 3,096 172 5.6% Utilities 734 774 (40) -5.2% 7,560 6,613 947 14.3% Rent 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Depreciation 866 854 12 1.4% 7,798 5,152 2,646 51.4% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0.0% 110 649 (539) -83.1% Total Operating Expenses $12,883 $13,537 ($654) -4.8% $117,659 $116,220 $1,439 1.2% Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other Revenue /(Expense) 170 20 150 750.0% 410 102 308 302.0% Interest Expense 1,020 1,177 (157) -13.3% 9,661 11,036 (1,375) -12.5% Nonoperating Totals ($850) ($1,157) $307 26.5 % ($9,251) ($10,934) $1,683 15.4% Net Income (Loss) $2,644 $1,172 $1,472 125.6% $21,280 $19,490 $1,790 9.2% HUMBOLDT LIQUOTORE OPERATING REVENUES AND September September Percent YTD YTD Percent COST OF SALES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change LIQUOR Sales 21,367 19,825 1,542 7.8% 192,071 181,551 10,520 5.8% Cost of Sales 15,693 15,545 148 1.0% 141,596 134,682 6,914 5.1% Gross Margin 5,674 4,280 1,394 32.6% 50,475 46,869 3,606 7.7% Percent to Sales 26.6% 21.6% 5.0% 26.3% 25.8% 0.5% WINE Sales 6,103 5,558 545 9.8% 50,675 52,433 (1,758) -3.4% Cost of Sales 4,278 3,808 470 12.3% 34,486 34,975 (489) -1.4% Gross Margin 1,825 1,750 75 4.3% 16,189 17,458 (1,269) -7.3% Percent to Sales 29.9% 31.5% -1.6% 31.9% 33.3% -1.3% BEER Sales 36,103 37,044 (941) -2.5% 324,210 314,556 9,654 3.1% Cost of Sales 27,733 28,358 (625) -2.2% 248,842 241,307 7,535 3.1% Gross Margin 8,370 8,686 (316) -3.6% 75,368 73,249 2,119 2.9% Percent to Sales 23.2% 23.4% -0.3% 23.2% 23.3% 0.0% MIX - NOT TAXED Sales 465 525 (60) -11.4% 4,559 4,150 409 9.9% Cost of Sales 321 358 (37) - 10.3% 3,581 2,815 766 27.2% Gross Margin 144 167 (23) -13.8% 978 1,335 (357) -26.7% Percent to Sales 31.0% 31.8% -0.8% 21.5% 32.2% -10.7% MIX - TAXED Sales 928 937 (9) -1.0% 7,789 8,801 ° (1,012) -11.5k Cost of Sales 655 608 47 7.7% 5,049 5,800 (751) -12.9% Gross Margin 273 329 (56) - 17.0% 2,740 3,001 (261) -8.7% Percent to Sales 29.4% 35.1% -5.7% 35.2% 34.1% 1.1% MISCELLANEOUS Sales 2,152 2,272 (120) -5.3% 20,304 20,861 (557) -2.7% Cost of Sales 1,512 1,597 (85) -5.3% 14,170 14,724 (554) -3.8% Gross Margin 640 675 (35) -5.2% 6,134 6,137 (3) 0.0% Percent to Sales 29.7% 29.7% 0.0% 30.2% 29.4% 0.8% TOTALS Sales 67,118 66,161 957 1.4% 599,608 582,352 17,256 3.0% Bottle Deposits 61 100 (39) - 39.0% 698 807 (109) - 13.5% Cost of Sales 50,192 50,274 (82) -0.2% 447,724 434,303 13,421 3.1% Delivery Charges 162 121 41 33.9% 1,803 1,886 (83) -4.4% Credit Card Fees 34 0 34 100.0% 326 0 326 100.0% Inventory Variances 414 0 414 100.0% 2,150 326 1,824 559.5% Merchandise Breakage 0 0 0 0.0% 113 0 113 100.0% Gross Margin 16,377 15,866 511 3.2% 148,190 146,644 1,546 1.1% Percent to Sales 24.4% 2 4.0% 0.4% 24.7% 25.2% -0.5% HUMBOLDT LIQI OSTORE ' September September 10 Percent YTD YTD 0 Percent OPERATING EXPENSES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Personal Services Salaries 7,356 6,771 585 8.6% 66,634 64,574 2,060 3.2% Payroll Taxes 1,274 1,152 122 10.6% 8,384 8,316 68 0.8°x6 Employee Benefits 107 211 (104) - 49.3°x6 951 2,561 (1,610) - 62.9% Total Personal Services 8,737 8,134 603 7.4% 75,969 75,451 518 0.7% Supplies General Supplies 0 403 (403) - 100.0% 2,088 1,452 636 43.8% Cleaning Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Repair & Maint. Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 641 514 127 24.7°x6 Laundry 8 8 0 0.0% 82 71 11 15.5°x6 Total Supplies 8 411 (403) -98.1% 2,811 2,037 774 38.0% Services & Other Charges Administrative Service 1,250 1,301 (51) - 3.9°x6 11,250 11,709 (459) -3.9% LOGIS Charges 133 595 (462) -77.6% 1,820 4,543 (2,723) -59.9% Audit & Financial Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 1,036 1,020 16 1.6% Protection Services 34 34 0 0.0% 308 308 0 0.0% Other Contractual Services 17 586 (569) - 97.1% 413 1,908 (1,495) -78,4% Advertising 0 0 0 0.0% 448 720 (272) -37.8% Uncollectible Returned Cks 49 85 (36) -42.4% 336 124 212 171.0% Check Verification Fees 155 166 (11) -6.6% 1,388 1,537 (149) -9.7% License, Taxes and Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 103 83 20 24.1% Central Garage Charges 227 86 141 164.0% 949 790 159 20.1% Repairs 0 0 0 0.0°x6 136 (20) 156 780.0°x6 Miscellaneous 211 74 137 185.1% 1,325 221 1,104 499.5% Cash (Over)Short 99 94 5 . 5.3% 631 279 352 126.2% Total Services & Other Chgs. 2,175 3,021 (846) -28.0% 20,143 23,222 (3,079) -13.3% Insurance Dram Shop 265 277 (12) -4.3% 2,388 2,494 (106) -4.3% General Liability & Property 98 66 32 48.5% 880 602 278 46.2% Total Insurance 363 343 20 5.8% 3,268 3,096 172 5.6% Utilities Electric 560 605 (45) -7.4% 5,543 4,657 886 19.0% Gas 17 14 3 21.4% 378 428 (50) -11.7% Telephone 134 133 1 0.8% 1,223 1,115 108 9.7% Waste Disposal 23 22 1 4.5% 205 223 (18) -8.1% Water 0 0 0 0.0% 211 190 21 11.1% Total Utilities 734 774 (40) -5.2% 7,560 6,613 947 14.3°x6 Building Rent 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Depreciation 866 854 12 1.4% 7,798 5,152 2,646 51.4% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0.0 110 649 (539) -83.1% Total Operating Expenses 12,883 13,537 (654) -4.8% 117,659 116,220 1,439 1.2% Percent to Sales: 19.2% 20.5% -1.3% 19.6% 20.0% -0.3% HUMBOLDT LIQ*TORE 10 0 NONOPERATING REVENUES/ September September Percent YTD YTD Percent (EXPENSES) 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Other Rev /(Exp) Check Process Fees 0 20 (20) - 100.0% 40 102 (62) -60.8% Other 170 0 170 100.0% 370 0 370 100.0% Total Other Rev /(Exp) 170 20 150 750.0% 410 102 308 302.0% Interest Expense 1,020 1,177 (157) - 13.3% 9,661 11,036 (1,375) - 12.5% Nonoperating Totals (850) (1,157) 307 26.5% (9,251) (10,934) 1,683 15.4% Percent to Sales -1.3% -1.7% 0.5% -1.5% -1.9% 0.3% NET INCOME (LOSS) 2,644 1,172 1,472 125.6% 21,280 19,490 1,790 9.2% Percent to Sales 3.9% 1.8% 2.2% 3.5% 3.3% 0.2% I City of Lyn Center Municipal Liquor Stores Boulevard Liquor Store For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 and 1994 September September Percent YTD YTD Percent Operating Revenues 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Liquor $24,376 $23,265 $1,111 4.8% $211,289 $212,269 ($980) -0.5% Wine 7,586 6,819 767 11.2% 65,619 63,142 2,477 3.9% Beer 35,417 38,959 (3,542) -9.1% 322,438 339,718 (17,280) -5.1% Mix 1,597 1,433 164 11.4% 13,842 13,130 712 5.4% Bottle Deposits 249 178 71 39.9% 1,504 1,549 (45) -2.9% Miscellaneous 3,663 2,809 854 30.4% 28,068 25,277 2,791 11.0% Total Operating Revenues $72,888 $73,463 - F$5 75) -0.8% $642,760 $655,085 ($12,325) -1.9% Cost of Sales Liquor $18,230 $14,942 $3,288 22.0% $159,620 $156,123 $3,497 2.2% Wine 5,397 4,171 1,226 29.4% 47,990 41,792 6,198 14.8% Beer 27,561 30,324 (2,763) -9.1% 253,809 265,519 (11,710) -4.4% Mix 1,145 1,149 (4) -0.3% 10,178 8,949 1,229 13.7% Miscellaneous 2,584 2,070 514 24.8% 19,947 18,076 1,871 10.4% Other (212) 77 (289) - 375.3% 1,979 2,206 (227) -10.3% Total Cost of Sales $54,705 $52,733 $1,972 3.7% $493,523 $492,665 $858 0.2 °/6 Gross Margin $18,183 $20,730 ($2,547) - 12.3% $149,237 $162,420 ($13,183) -8.1% Operating Expenses Personal Services $9,236 $9,775 ($539) -5.5% $82,412 $79,763 $2,649 3.3 °,6 Supplies 1 638 (637) -99.8% 3,272 1,944 1,328 68.3% Services and Other Charges 2,287 2,797 (510) -18.2% 21,440 27,839 (6,399) -23.0% Insurance 424 374 50 13.4 °,6 3,820 3,371 449 13.3% Utilities 844 716 128 17.9% 6,552 6,588 (36) -0.5% Rent 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Depreciation 403 447 (44) -9.8% 3,629 1,407 2,222 157.9% Capital Outlay 0 549 549 ( ) - 100.0% 3 461 (546) - Total Operating Expenses $13,195 3% $15,296 ($2,101) - 13.7 °.6 $121,128 $121,461 ($333) -0.3% Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 0.0°x6 $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other Revenuel(Expense) 174 0 174 100.0°x6 414 140 274 195.7% Interest Expense 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Nonoperating Totals $174 $0 $174 100.0% $414 $140 $274 195.7% Net Income (Loss) $5,162 $5,434 ($272) -5.0% $28,523 $41,099 ($12,576) - 30,6% 0 • • BOULEVARD LI# STORE OPERATING REVENUES AND September September Percent YTD YTD Percent COST OF SALES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change LIQUOR Sales 24,376 23,265 1,111 4.8% 211,289 212,269 (980) -0.5% Cost of Sales 18,230 14,942 3,288 22.0% 159,620 156,123 3,497 2.2% Gross Margin 6,146 8,323 (2,177) -26.2% 51,669 56,146 (4,477) -8.0% Percent to Sales 25.2% 35.8% -10.6% 24.5% 26.5% -2.0% WINE Sales 7,586 6,819 767 11.2% 65,619 63,142 2,477 3.9% Cost of Sales 5,397 4,171 1,226 29.4% 47,990 41,792 6,198 14.8% Gross Margin 2,189 2,648 (459) -17.3% 17,629 21,350 (3,721) -17.4% Percent to Sales 28.9% 38.8% -10.0% 26.9% 33.8% -6.9% BEER Sales 35,417 38,959 (3,542) -9.1% 322,438 339,718 (17,280) -5.1% Cost of Sales 27,561 30,324 (2,763) -9.1% 253,809 265,519 (11,710) -4.4% Gross Margin 7,856 8,635 (779) -9.0% 68,629 74,199 (5,570) -7.5% Percent to Sales 22.2% 22.2% 0.0% 21.3% 21.8% -0.6% MIX - NOT TAXED Sales 470 448 22 4.9% 4,286 3,828 458 12.0% Cost of Sales 311 332 (21) -6.3% 2,953 2,507 446 17.8% Gross Margin 159 116 43 37.1% 1,333 1,321 12 0.9% Percent to Sales 33.8% 25.9% 7.9% 31.1% 34.5% -3.4% MIX - TAXED Sales 1,127 985 142 14.4% 9,556 9,302 254 2.7% Cost of Sales 834 817 17 2.1% 7,225 6,442 783 12.2% Gross Margin 293 168 125 74.4% 2,331 2,860 (529) -18.5% Percent to Sales 26.0% 17.1% 8.9% 24.4% 30.7% -6.4% MISCELLANEOUS Sales 3,663 2,809 854 30.4% 28,068 25,277 2,791 11.0% Cost of Safes 2,584 2,070 51 24.8% 19,947 18,076 1,871 10.4% Gross Margin 1,079 739 340 46.0% 8,121 7,201 920 12.8% Percent to Sales 29.5% 26.3% 3.1% 28.9% 28.5% 0.4% TOTALS Sales 72,639 73,285 (646) -0.9% 641,256 653,536 (12,280) -1.9% Bottle Deposits 249 178 71 39.9% 1,504 1,549 (45) -2.9% Cost of Sales 54,917 52,656 2,261 4.3% 491,544 490,459 1,085 0.2% Delivery Charges 173 77 96 124.7% 2,074 2,042 32 1.6% Credit Card Fees 43 0 43 100.0% 364 0 364 100.0% Inventory Variances (428) 0 (428) - 100.0% (574) 164 (738) - 450.0% Merchandise Breakage 0 0 0 0.0% 115 0 115 100.0% Gross Margin 18,183 20,730 (2,547) -12.3% 149,237 162,420 (13,183) -8.1% Percent to Sales 25.0% 28.3% -3.3% 23.3% 24.9% -1.6% 0 • • BOULEVARD LI ^R STORE September September Percent YTD YTD 1 * Percent OPERATING EXFENSES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Personal Services Salaries 7,606 8,183 (577) -7.1% 70,875 68,925 1,950 2.8% Payroll Taxes 1,365 1,381 (16) -1.2% 9,158 8,944 214 2.4% Employee Benefits 265 211 54 25.6% 2,379 1,894 485 25.6% Total Personal Services 9,236 9,775 (539) -5.5% 82,412 79,763 2,649 3.3% Supplies General Supplies 0 637 (637) - 100.0% 2,848 1,927 921 47.8% Cleaning Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Repair & Maint. Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 411 0 411 100.0% Laundry 1 1 0 0.0% 13 17 (4) - 23.5% Total Supplies 1 638 (637) - 99.8% 3,272 1,944 1,328 68.3% Services & Other Charges Administrative Service 1,250 1,420 (170) -12.0% 11,250 12,780 (1,530) - 12.0°x6 LOGIS Charges 150 640 (490) -76.6% 2,053 4,950 (2,897) -58.5% Audit & Financial Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 1,036 1,020 16 1.6% Protection Services 17 17 0 0.0% 156 156 0 0.0% Other Contractual Services 12 313 (301) - 96.2% 423 1,594 (1,171) - 73.5% Advertising 50 0 50 100.0% 1,061 3,102 (2,041) -65.8% Uncollectible Returned Cks 49 32 17 53.1% 339 256 83 32.4% Check Verification Fees 173 174 (1) -0.6% 1,596 1,841 (245) - 13.3% License, Taxes and Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 103 83 20 24.1% Central Garage Charges 227 87 140 160.9% 949 790 159 20.1°x6 Repairs 295 0 295 100.0% 443 0 443 100.0°x6 Miscellaneous 49 96 (47) -49.0% 686 1,126 (440) - 39.1% Cash (Over)Short 15 18 (3) - 16.7% 1,345 141 1,204 853.9% Total Services & Other Chgs. 2,287 2,797 (510) - 18.2% 21,440 27,839 (6,399) -23.0% Insurance Dram Shop 327 306 21 6.9% 2,945 2,756 189 6.9% General Liability & Property 97 68 29 42.6% 875 615 260 42.3% Total Insurance 424 374 50 13.4% 3,820 3,371 449 13.3% Utilities Electric 638 554 84 15.2% 4,165 3,925 240 6.1°x6 Gas 44 0 44 100.0% 1,046 1,183 (137) - 11.6% Telephone 121 121 0 0.0% 1,089 1,207 (118) -9.8% Waste Disposal 21 21 0 0.0% 193 214 (21) -9.8% Water 20 20 0 0.0% 59 59 0 0.0% Total Utilities 844 716 128 17.9% 6,552 6,588 (36) -0.5% Building Rent 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Depreciation 403 447 (44) -9.8% 3,629 1,407 2,222 157.9% Capital Outlay 0 549 (549) - 100.0% 3 549 (546) -99.5% Total Operating Expenses 13,195 15,296 (2,101) -13.7% 121,128 121,461 (333 -0.3% Percent to Sales:• 18.2% 20.9°% -2.7 %40 18.9% 18.6% 0.300 BOULEVARD LIS STORE 0 0 NONOPERATING REVENUES/ September September Percent YTD YTD Percent (EXPENSES) 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Other Rev /(Exp) Check Process Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 40 140 (100) -71.4% Other 174 0 174 100.0% 374 0 374 100.0% Total Other Rev /(Exp) 174 0 174 100.0% 414 140 274 195.7% Interest Expense 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Nonoperating Totals 174 0 174 100.0% 414 140 274 195.7% Percent to Sales 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% NET INCOME (LOSS) 5,162 5,434 (272) -5.0% 28,523 41,099 (12,576) -30.6% Percent to Sales 7.1% 7.4% -0.3% 4.4% 6.3% -1.8% I I I City of Bri Center Municipal Liquor Stores Northbrook Liquor Store For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 and 1994 September September Percent YTD YTD Percent 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Operating Revenues Liquor $27,107 $24,609 $2,498 10.2% $226,664 $220,676 $5,988 2.7% " Wine 7,518 7,351 167 2.3% 64,706 61,686 3,020 4.9% Beer 45,487 44,862 625 1.4% 391,535 382,766 8,769 2.3% Mix 1,733 1,833 (100) -5.5% 15,601 15,510 91 0.6% Bottle Deposits 254 342 (88) -25.7% 2,216 2,462 (246) -10.0% Miscellaneous 4,270 3,795 475 12.5% 34,208 33,194 1,014 ' `3.1% Total Operating Revenues $86,369 $82,792 $3,577 4.3% $734,930 $716,294 $18,636 2.6% Cost of Sales Liquor $19,887 $20,244 ($357) -1.8% $168,338 $165,939 $2,399 1.4% Wine 5,305 5,027 278 5.5% 45,537 41,531 4,006 9.6% Beer 35,302 34,551 751 2.2% 304,379 298,685 5,694 1.9% Mix 1,217 1,300 (83) -6.4% 10,673 10,860 (187) -1.7% Miscellaneous 3,008 2,696 312 11.6% 24,443 23,548 895 3.8 %` Other 114 179 (65) - 36.3% 3,035 2,502 533 21.3% 1. Total Cost of Sales $64,833 $63,997 $836 1.3% $556,405 $543,065 $13,340 2.5°x6 Gross Margin $21,536 $18,795 $2,741 14.6% $178,525 $173,229 $5,296 3.1% Operating Expenses Personal Services $8,930 $9,645 ($715) -7.4% $80,646 $81,090 ($444 ) -0.6% Supplies 14 511 (497) -97.3% 2,767 1,835 932 50.8% Services and Other Charges 2,724 2,792 (68) -2.4% 19,301 25,702 (6,401) -24.9% Insurance 431 369 62 16.8% 3,885 3,324 561 16.9% Utilities 588 803 (215) - 26.8% 6,527 6,097 430 7.1% Rent 2,948 2,927 21 0.7% 26,246 26,641 (395) -1.5% Depreciation 401 656 (255) -38.9% 3,606 3,287 319 9.7% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0.0% 3 433 (430) -99.3% Total Operating Expenses $16,036 $17,703 ($1,667) -9.4% $142,981 $148,409 ($5,428) -3.7% Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Interest Earnings $0. $0 $0 0.0 % $0 $0 $0 0.0% Other Revenue /(Expense) 178 0 178 100.0% 558 160 398 248.8% Interest Expense re ense 0 0 P 0 0.0.6 0` ``0 0 0.0% Nonoperating Totals $178 $0 $178 100.0% $558 $160 $398 248.8% Net Income (Loss) $5,678 $1,092 $4,586 420.0% $36,102 $24,980 $11,122 44.5% NORTHBROOK LJOR STORE ow 0 OPERATING REVENUES AND September September Percent YTD YTD Percent COST OF SALES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change'' LIQUOR Sales 27,107 24,609 2,498 10.2% 226,664 220,676 5,988 2.7% Cost of Sales 19,887 20,244 (357) -1.8% 168,338 165,939 2,399 1.4% Gross Margin 7,220 4,365 2,855 65.4% 58,326 54,737 3,589 6.6% Percent to Sales 26.6% 17.7% 8.9% 25.7% 24.8% 0.9% WINE Sales 7,518 7,351 167 2.3% 64,706 61,686 3,020 4.9 %' Cost of Sales 5,305 5,027 278 5.5% 45,537 41,531 4,006 9.6% Gross Margin 2,213 2,324 (111) -4.8% 19,169 20,155 (986) -4.9% Percent to Sales 29.4% 31.6% -2.2% 29.6% 32.7% -3.0% BEER Sales 45,487 44,862 625 1.4% 391,535 382,766 8,769 2.3% Cost of Sales 35,302 34,551 751 2.2% 304,379 298,685 5,694 1.9% Gross Margin 10,185 10,311 (126) -1.2% 87,156 84,081 3,075 3.7% Percent to Sales 22.4% 23.0% -0.6% 22.3% 22.0% 0.3% MIX - NOT TAXED Sales 470 500 (30) -6.0% 4,654 4,497 157 3.5% Cost of Sales 316 341 (25) -7.3% 3,072 3,116 (44) -1.4% Gross Margin 154 159 (5) -3.1% 1,582 1,381 201 14.6% Percent to Sales 32.8% 31.8% 1.0% 34.0% 30.7% 3.3% MIX - TAXED Sales 1,263 1,333 (70) -5.3% 10,947 11,013 (66) -0.6% Cost of Sales 901 959 (58) -6.0% 7,601 7,744 (143) -1.8% Gross Margin 362 374 (12) -3.2% 3,346 3,269 77 2.4% Percent to Sales 28.7% 28.1% 0.6% 30.6% 29.7% 0.9% MISCELLANEOUS Sales 4,270 3,795 475 12.5% 34,208 33,194 1,014 3.1% s Cost of Sales 3,008 2,696 312 11.6% 24,443 23,548 895 3.8% Gross Margin 1,262 1,099 163 14.8% 9,765 9,646 119 1.2% Percent to Sales 29.6% 29.0% 0.6% 28.5% 29.1% -0.5% j TOTALS Sales 86,115 82,450 3,665 4.4% 732,714 713,832 18,882 2.6% Bottle Deposits 254 342 (88) -25.7% 2,216 2,462 (246) - 10.0% Cost of Sales 64,719 63,818 901 1.4% 553,370 540,563 12,807 2.4% Delivery Charges 0 179 (179) - 100.0% 2,026 2,241 (215) -9.6% Credit Card Fees 48 0 48 100.0% 401 0 401 100.0% Inventory Variances 66 0 66 100.0% 556 261 295 113.0% Merchandise Breakage 0 0 0 0.0% 52 - 0 52 100.0% Gross Margin 21,536 18,795 2,741 14.6% 178,525 173,229 5,296 3.1% Percent to Sales 25.0% 22.8% 2.2% 24.4% 24.3% 0.1% NORTHBROOK 19R STORE I - September September Percent YTD YTD Percent OPERATING EXPENSES 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 r Change Change , Personal Services Salaries 7,256 7,985 (729) -9.1% 68,467 69,484, (1,017) -1.5% Payroll Taxes 1,284 1,338 (54) -4.0% 8,673 8,711 (38) -0.4°x6 Employee Benefits 390 322 68 21.1% 3,506 2,895 611 21.1% Total Personal Services 8,930 9,645 (715) -7.4% 80,646 81,090 (444) -0.5°x6 Supplies General Supplies 0 497 (497) - 100.0°x6 2,130 , 1,501 629 41.9% Cleaning Supplies 0 0 0 0.0°x6 0 1 0 0 0.0% Repair 8 Maint. Supplies 0 0 0 0.0% 500 216 284 131.5% Laundry 14 14 0 0.0% 137 118 19 16.1% Total Supplies 14 511 (497) - 97.3°x6 2,767 1,835 932 50.8 Services & Other Charges Administrative Service 1,250 1,530 (280) -18.3% 11,250 13,770 (2,520) - 18.3% LOGIS Charges 165 682 (517) -75.8% 2,255 5,361. (3,106) 57.9% Audit & Financial Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 1,036 1,020 16 1.6°x6 Protection Services 46 46 0 0.0% 410 409 1 0.2 Other Contractual Services 12 162 (150) -92.6% 215 1,759 (1,544) -87.8% Advertising 0 0 0 0.0% 448 420 28 6.7% Uncollectible Returned Cks 49 85 (36) -42.4% 344 409 (65) - 15.9% Check Verification Fees 164 126 38 30.2% 1,204 1,150 54 4.7% License, Taxes and Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 103 83 20 24.1% Central Garage Charges 227 86 141 164.0% 948 790 158 20.0°x6 Repairs 763 0 763 100.0% 787 161. 626 `388.8% Miscellaneous 49 78 (29) - 37.2% 341 334 7 2.1% Cash (Over)Short (1) (3) 2 66.7% (40) 36 (76) - 211.1°x6 Total Services & Other Chgs. 2,724 2,792 (68) - 2.4°x6 19,301 25,702 (6,401) - 24.9 Insurance Dram Shop 348 317 31 9.8% 3,134 " 2,855 279 9.8% General Liability & Property 83 52 31 59.6% 751 469 282 60.1 Total Insurance 431 369 62 16.8% 3,885 3,324 561 16.9°x6 Utilities Electric 423 635 (212) -33.4% 4,684 4,148 536 12.9°x6 Gas 14 18 (4) - 22.2°x6 393 545 (152) - 27.9x6 Telephone 128 128 0 0.0°x6 1,150 1,091 59 5.4°x6 Waste Disposal 23 22 1 4.5% 205 223 (18) 8.1% Water 0 0 0 0.0°x6 95 90 5 5.6% Total Utilities 588 803 (215) - 26.8% 6,527 6,097 430 7.1% Building Rent 2,948 2,927 21 0.7% 26,246 26,641 (395) -1.5% Depreciation 401 656 (255) -38.9% 3,606 3,287 319 9.7°x6 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0.0% 3 433 (430) - 99.3% Total Operating Expenses 16,036 17,703 (1,667) -9.4% 142,981 148,409 (5,428) -3.7% Percent to Sales: 18.6% 21.5% -2.8% 19.5% 20.8°x6 -1.3% NORTHBROOK LIIff STORE � 0 ; l NONOPERATING REVENUES/ September September Percent YTD YTD Percent (EXPENSES) 1995 1994 Change Change 1995 1994 Change Change Interest Earnings 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0 % Other Rev /(Exp) Check Process Fees 0 0 0 0.0% 180 160 20 12.5% Other 178 0 178 100.0% 378 0 378 100.0% Total Other Rev /(Exp) 178 0 178 100.0% 558 160 398 248.8% Interest Expense 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% Nonoperating Totals 178 0 178 100.0% 558 160 398 248.8% Percent to Sales 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% NET INCOME (LOSS) 5,678 1,092 4,586 420.0% 36,102 24,980 11,122 44.5% Percent to Sales 6.6% 1.3% 5.3% 4.9% 3.5% - 1.4% i Centerbrook Golf Course Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months & Years Ended October 31, 1995 & 1994 October October 1995 Year -to -Date Year -to -Date 1995 1994 Budget 1995 1994 Sales: Green Fees 9,572 10,150 243,200 225,823 228,653 Rentals 533 441 9,000 8,590 8,391 Leagues (521) (122) 7,000 7,951 10,540 Concessions 449 677 18,000 21,647 18,111 Golf lessons - - 11,000 11,135 10,390 Other merchandise 1,310 1,762 18,000 21,403 17,655 Pop machine 105 56 2,000 2,690 2,394 Miscellaneous 23 (10) 500 433 399 Total Sales 11,471 12,954 308,700 299,672 296,533 Less: Cost of Sales 767 422 28,500 37,806 34,459 Gross Profit 10,704 12,532 280,200 261,866 262,074 Operating Expenses: Personal services 8,228 9,124 111,567 112,378 110,700 Supplies 345 4,070 17,800 21,306 16,813 Other services 639 1,632 17,940 20,259 22,646 Insurance - - 8,150 7,988 7,987 Utilities 644 433 9,500 10,205 9,429 Administrative services 517 567 6,200 5,170 5,670 Central garage charges 2,151 1,812 19,800 20,339 21,123 Depreciation 1,341 1,090 15,725 13,410 10,900 Total Expenses 13,865 18,728 206,682 211,055 205,268 Operating Income (3,161) (6,196) 73,518 50,811 56,806 Non Operating Income (Expenses) Interest Income Interest charges - - (54,000) (57,500) (54,000) Total Non Operating - - (54,000) (57,500) (54,000) Net Income (Loss) (3,161) (6,196) 19,518 (6,689) 2,806 Retained Earnings January 1 (74,563) (74,563) 4,856 Retained Earnings December 31 (55,045) (81,252) 7,662 Capital Outlays - 3,885 38,647 Centerbrook Golf Course Focus on Finances Prepared for Brooklyn Center City Council by Public Services Department November 13, 1995 Table of Contents Introduction............................................ ............................... 1 IncreaseRevenues ....................................... ............................... 2 Increase Green Fees ................................... ............................... 2 Increase Golf Lesson Fees .............................. ............................... 2 Increase Rounds Played ................................ ............................... 2 Refocus Concession/Merchandise Sales .................... ............................... 3 Encourage Independent Leagues .......................... ............................... 3 Decrease Expenditures ................................... ............................... 4 Examine Staffing Patterns ............................. 4 Seasonal Club House ..................... ............................... 4 Profitability of Beer Sales ............................... ............................... 4 Cost of Phone Services ................................. ............................... 5 Examine Maintenance Expenditures ...................... ............................... 5 Summary ............................................... ............................... 6 /r�troductior� Centerbrook Golf Course is a nine (9) hole, par three (3) course, owned by the City of Brooklyn Center. It was built in 1986 -87 with a loan from the Capital Improvements Fund. It opened for business in the Spring of 1988 and was established as an enterprise fund entity. Enterprise funds were established to account for the financing of self supporting activities of the City which render services on a user charge basis to the general public. Since its opening, Centerbrook has continually enjoyed a reputation as a high quality, well maintained par 3 course. However, its financial performance has become a concern over the last few years. Centerbrook was built at a time when the Twin Cities metropolitan area was under served by the number of golf courses available for play. There were, in effect, more players than courses available. Not surprisingly then, the first few years at Centerbrook were profitable. As golf course construction has continued, we are now reaching a point where supply of courses is able to meet the demand of players. We must now compete with other courses for players, making it more difficult to end each year in a positive financial position. With this in mind, staff has conducted a review of the golf course budgets and operations with respect to increasing profitability. Not looking for a "cure all ", but instead a few sound ideas which when implemented together, position the facility so that it meets operating expenditures and begins paying its original debt. In making this examination, ideas were studied from two different vantage points. The first being ideas, programs or practices that might increase revenues. The second identifying potential ways to reduce expenditures. With the exception of increasing the green fees, all of the changes detailed in this report were not included in the proposed 1996 budget. Instituting these changes should result in a higher profit margin than originally anticipated. 1 Golf Course Recommendations 2 Increase Revenues Increase Green Fees One of the most obvious ways to increase revenues is to look at raising green fees. Green fees constitute 75% of the 1996 revenue estimates. While the current green fees seem competitive with other area par three courses, Centerbrook enjoys a reputation as a well maintained course and as such may be able to justify a small increase. A 8% increase has been included in the 1996 budget. 4V ,17creaae Golf Lesson Fees Another possible revenue source is the golf lesson program. Although revenues from the golf lesson program are up, so too are the expenditures. We will examine the merits of an increase in the golf lesson fees. Staff is proposing to raise the lesson fee $5.00 for the normal program. In 1995 just over two hundred and fifty (250) people took lessons at Centerbrook. Instituting the price increase would mean an increase in revenues of approximately $1,250. Staff will continue to make sure that minimum class sizes are being met. Centerbrook hopes to take full advantage of the potential of the lesson program by implementing a stronger marketing program along with the higher profit margin. The lesson programs at golf courses normally hold potential for significant profit, in addition to increasing the pool of golfers which will frequent that course. /ncrease Rounds Played The marketing of the golf course will be scrutinized to identify new ways of promoting the course. For example, one interested party recently observed he had travelled TH 100 quite often, and only recently noticed Centerbrook. An item as simple as improved signage might have a positive impact. 2 Golf Course Recommendations Refocus Concession /Merchandise Salem Currently the gross profit from these sales are running at about 10% for 1995. For 1994 the gross profit was a -2.1 %. Normal gross profits in retail establishments range upward from 30 %. Staff proposes to increase the profit margin to typical levels by increasing prices, conducting regular inventories, and providing increased training for staff. We will review the types of products and merchandise offered, and retain only those items that move quickly and provide for adequate profit. This may well mean a much smaller selection of items, but also translates into less inventory. Staff is also proposing to increase fees for hand and power cart rental. Overall, this refinement of the merchandise/concession sales is expected to increase revenues in excess of $1,200. The importance of this item should be emphasized. For Centerbrook to operate in the "black", the clubhouse operations need to make a profit. Encourage /ndepenalent Leagues One last idea to increase revenue is fairly complicated but could have a dramatic impact on the bottom line. Currently a large percentage of the number of rounds played per year are league play of one kind or another. The leagues are run by the golf course, and all expenses of the leagues including prizes and banquets are borne by the course. At most courses, members run the leagues. Dues are paid to an organization, normally covering green fees, management costs, banquets, and prizes. The league in turn sets up the league, guarantees a certain number of rounds each week to the course, handles the league's banquets, purchases awards, prizes and related expenses. Under this type of plan, the course is guaranteed a certain number of rounds each week and incurs no additional expenses related to the leagues. Our current system has no guarantee of rounds and loses approximately 10 -20% of the normal weekly rounds due to weather and "no shows ". As a result, league revenues are changing each week. Calculating how much money is then left for league expenses is difficult at best. In the case of Centerbrook there has historically been no interest by players in managing and running the leagues. Staff will encourage the move toward more independent leagues by assisting players in awards and banquets, but will move to shift more financial risk to the players. As the City strives to strengthen the leagues, stronger guidelines for league members need to be established and maintained. Tighter regulations on missed rounds, prize expenditures and banquet costs will be instituted. The recapture of lost revenues from missed rounds is vital if the course hopes to become profitable. In addition to tighter controls on the leagues, Centerbrook will also attempt to expand league play, marketing new offering for juniors and morning leagues. Staff believes both areas hold potential to increase the number of rounds played. 3 Golf Course Recommendations 3 Decrease Expenditures Examine Staffing Patterns The largest line item expenditure is for personnel, so it will be rigorously evaluated for savings potential. Staff intends to do abetter job of managing hours by instituting new guidelines for scheduling. These guidelines will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to the ever changing weather. Also relative to personnel, current staffing patterns of rangers and club house workers will be studied. Current staffing levels may need to be adjusted. While some staffing levels might be appropriate for the "prime time" hours of weekday evenings and week ends, they seem strong for the other times. Seasonal Club House In conjunction with this staffing evaluation, we should consider closing the club house for some period during the Winter months. This would save a substantial amount of the normal utility charges during those months. Normally the only activities scheduled during the winter are small meetings and card games, neither of which generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of keeping the building open. There is a potential for unemployment claims as a result of closing the clubhouse. To avoid any claims, staff will work to develop a plan for alternate job assignments for these individuals during the period when the club house is closed. Profitability of Beer Sales Another issue that was studied is the offering of beer at the course. While the practice of selling beer has created few if any problems, the inherent issue that must be addressed is cost. In 1995 the cost of dram shop insurance was $2,000. Add to that the cost of buying the beer and you have a combined cost of $5,500 to have beer available. For 1996, staff is recommending a 50 cent increase in the price of beer. Profit from beer sales is just over $3,300 for 1995. The proposed increase should increase revenues approximately $1,100.00. 4 Golf Course Recommendations Cost of Phone Services One additional area that will be investigated further is the cost of telephone services. The 1996 budget includes over $4,000 for phone services. It would seem that this is a bit high considering a modified two line phone is all that is really needed. Staff will investigate options and seek telephone rates that are more competitive. Examine Maintenance Ekpenalitures The area of golf course maintenance expenditures will also be investigated further. No one can argue that Centerbrook is not well maintained— its condition has been above average throughout its existence. We have seen continued increases in expenditures in the past three years. While dramatic increases in fertilizers and other chemicals have occurred in recent years, these increases in expenditures still merit further study. In addition to these types of increases, staff has identified a number of items in the current budget that are "one time" expenditures and will not affect future budget years. 5 Golf Course Recommendations 4 Summary When beginning any study with the intent to increase profitability, you must first focus on the product. In the case of Centerbrook, we are very lucky. It is an exceptional facility that enjoys a good reputation for quality, desirable attributes when trying to increase profits. As stated earlier, staff was not looking for the "big fix," but instead items and areas that when looked at together might provide for additional profit. As much of the success of the golf course is dependent on weather, staff has concentrated its efforts on making changes that are not affected by the weather. In the area of revenue enhancement a few items including; 6�1' Refocused concession/merchandise sales, Additional marketing to attract more players, Tightly controlled golf leagues, seem to hold the most promise for expanding the revenue base. +� With respect to budget reductions; ow Adjusted staffing patterns, aw Further analysis of specific expenditures, merit further examination. Of the above, two items appear to hold the most potential to increase profit — the operation of the leagues and the refocused concession/merchandise sales. We will need to maintain tighter control of both of the these areas if we hope to change the financial fortunes of Centerbrook. Without effective change in both, making a profit will be difficult at best. If the golf course is to become profitable, it will take the combined effort of everyone associated with managing and staffing it. As is normally the case, even the best ideas are only as good as their implementation. 6 Golf Course Recommendations CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTHS AND PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 & 1994 Finance Department Earle Brown Heritage Center Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Operating Revenues Convention Center 73,641 63,195 499,157 423,287 Inn on the Farm 25,583 20,598 199,051 193,206 Earles 4,049 3,948 36,116 20,339 Commercial Office Rentals 9,936 9,040 83,681 89,207 Catering Operations 227,326 210,323 940,575 905,317 Total Revenues 340,535 307,104 1,758,580 1,631,356 Operating Expenses Personal Services 65,800 64,034 570,144 478,177 Administrative Services 4,327 3,115 38,943 31,662 Supplies 4,444 4,070 56,034 52,100 Services & Other Charges 30,269 20,127 267,725 240,424 Utilities 12,112 9,142 96,859 94,114 Property Taxes 5,691 5,313 51,240 48,183 Interest Paid to the City 2,754 2,170 21,556 14,278 Capital Outlay (204) 0 81,405 13,471 Catering Expenses 160,859 165,317 781,994 735,922 Total Expenses 286,052 273,288 1,965,900 1,708,331 Net Income (Loss) 54,483 33,816 (207,320) (76,975) Earle Brown Heritage Center Convention Center Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Operating Revenues Room Rentals 54,930 49,550 330,768 321,674 CMP Room Rentals 2,630 0 25,438 0 Total Room Rentals 57,560 49,550 356,206 321,674 Equipment Rentals 10,476 8,994 81,027 64,200 CMP Equipment Rentals 999 0 9,340 0 Total Equipment Rentals 11,475 8,994 90,367 64,200 Event Labor & Services 4,390 4,516 51,181 35,568 Other 216 135 1,403 1,845 Total Revenues 73,641 63,195 499,157 423,287 Operating Expenses Personal Services Salaries & Wages 34,077 33,226 314,701 244,278 Payroll Taxes 7,115 6,819 48,947 38,407 Employee Benefits 1,884 1,404 22,106 14,385 Total Personal Services 43,076 41,449 385,754 297,070 Supplies General Operating Supplies 1,236 2,155 26,265 23,187 Repair & Maint Supplies 649 522 10,883 9,047 Total Supplies 1,885 2,677 37,148 32,234 Services & Other Charges Professional Services 0 (423) 3,012 916 Administrative Services 2,404 1,795 21,636 19,782 Telephone Services 2,032 2,687 18,333 14,971 Advertising/Printing 7,860 1,701 56,214 39,423 Repair & Maintenance 1,428 1,424 14,200 23,031 Equipment Rental 1,209 4,075 31,589 19,967 Contractual Services 1,458 1,847 11,362 10,967 Insurance 1,133 1,097 10,194 9,877 Other 1,350 776 14,890 10,752 Total Services /Charges 18,874 14,979 181,430 149,686 Utilities 10,135 7,523 77,828 74,421 Interest Expense 1,377 1,085 10,778 7,139 Capital Outlay (204) 0 69,972 12,724 Total Expenses 75,143 67,713 762,910 573,274 Net Income (Loss) (1,502) (4,518) (263,753) (149,987) Earle Brown Heritage Center Inn on the Farm Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Operating Revenues Room Rentals 21,146 16,676 164,319 155,814 Facility Rentals 1,300 640 12,372 9,505 Equipment Rentals 225 325 2,769 2,848 Meal Sales 2,463 2,407 16,098 19,974 Meal Service Charge 289 0 2,515 0 Other 160 550 978 5,065 Total Revenues 25,583 20,598 199,051 193,206 Operating Expenses Personal Services Salaries & Wages 14,404 13,930 124,601 120,832 Payroll Taxes 3,027 2,631 18,398 17,407 Employee Benefits 404 306 3,278 3,804 Total Personal Services 17,835 16,867 146,277 142,043 Supplies General Operating Supplies 1,701 698 8,482 10,584 Repair & Maint. Supplies 302 243 3,531 3,358 Total Supplies 2,003 941 12,013 13,942 Services & Other Charges Administrative Services 1,202 880 10,818 7,920 Food & Beverages 2,187 990 12,885 12,289 Food & Beverages - Catering 2,662 258 14,122 17,884 Telephone Services 859 1,021 4,771 6,969 Advertising 1,238 163 16,190 12,473 Repair & Maintenance 1,098 348 4,530 6,317 Contractual Services 566 386 4,191 4,637 Property Taxes 2,504 2,343 22,552 21,456 Insurance 495 380 4,459 3,418 Other 1,407 856 11,543 10,385 Total Services /Charges 14,218 7.625 106,061 103,748 Utilities 1,479 1,183 13,580 14,327 Interest Expense 1,377 1,085 10,778 7,139 Capital Outlay 0 0 8,323 747 Total Expenses 36,912 27,701 297,032 281,946 Net Income (Loss) (11,329) (7,103) (97,981) (88,740) Earle Brown Heritage Center Earles Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Operating Revenues Food Sales 3,343 3,291 28,711 16,235 Liquor Sales 706 657 7,405 4,104 Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues 4,049 3,948 36,116 20,339 Operating Expenses Personal Services Salaries & Wages 621 637 8,317 3,135 Payroll Taxes 147 111 1,243 435 Employee Benefits 99 0 811 0 D'Amico's Wages/Benefits 1,863 1,577 11,384 10,045 Total Personal Services 2,730 2,325 21,755 13,615 . Supplies General Operating Supplies 391 0 622 468 Repair & Maint. Supplies 0 0 0 0 Total Supplies 391 0 622 468 Services & Other Charges Property Taxes 0 0 0 0 Administrative Services 240 0 2,160 0 Professional Services 296 544 5,742 16,443 Repair & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 Contractual Services 170 80 678 697 Food COS 1,495 951 8,504 8,025 Insurance 0 0 0 0 Total Services /Charges 2,201 1,575 17,084 25,165 Utilities 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses 5,322 3,900 39,461 39,248 Net Income (Loss) (1,273) 48 (3,345) (18,909) Earle Brown Heritage Center Commercial Office Rentals Statement of Revenues & Expenses • For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Operating Revenues Office Rent 9,246 8,655 78,965 85,533 Cleaning Services 690 385 3,979 3,464 Other 0 0 737 210 Total Revenues 9,936 9,040 83,681 89,207 Operating Expenses Personal Services Salaries & Wages 1,623 2,728 13,103 21,563 Payroll Taxes 444 624 2,432 3,469 Employee Benefits 92 41 823 417 Total Personal Services 2,159 3,393 16,358 25,449 Supplies • General Operating Supplies 0 279 3,373 3,658 Repair & Maint. Supplies 165 173 2,878 1,798 Total Supplies 165 452 6,251 5,456 Services & Other Charges Property Taxes 3,187 2,970 28,688 26,727 Professional Services 139 0 362 304 Administrative Services 481 440 4,329 3,960 Repair & Maintenance 280 112 11,667 3,240 Contractual Services 571 486 5,477 5,444 Insurance 154 203 1,386 1,830 Other 182 165 1,424 165 Total Services /Charges 4,994 4,376 53,333 41,670 Utilities 498 436 5,451 5,366 Capital Outlay 0 0 3,110 0 Total Expenses 7,816 8,657 84,503 77,941 Net Income (Loss) 2,120 383 (822) 11,266 Earle Brown Heritage Center Catering Operations Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 (August 14 - September 10) September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Revenues Food 73,318 74,194 690,340 664,557 Wine 6,016 5,450 31,616 33,164 Liquor 6,310 2,489 31,465 26,217 Beer 1,512 2,725 21,587 27,706 Miscellaneous 1,227 1,601 11,542 12,545 Service Charges 2,782 2,276 17,864 19,540 Total Revenues 91,165 88,735 804,414 783,729 Cost of Sales 20,633 21,492 190.028 189,704 Gross Profit 70,532 67,243 614,386 594,025 Expenses Payroll 27,188 25,652 245,417 221,932 Employee Benefits 6,440 6,617 61,862 49,939 Supplies, Laundry & Rentals 4,296 5,685 52,086 51,229 . Marketing 100 138 7,523 2,993 General & Administrative 1,043 1,360 13,075 13,265 Utilities 829 342 8,407 8,364 Amortization 596 596 5,365 5,365 Equipment Leases 7 0 1,051 1,078 Insurance 799 1,320 8,733 9,320 Accounting Fees 833 849 7,697 7,457 Interest Expense 99 201 1,013 2,295 EBHC Catering Expenses 0 0 14,388 13,018 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses 42,230 42,760 426,617 386,255 Income before Management Fee 28,302 24,483 187,769 207,770 Base Management Fee 5,000 5,000 45,000 45,000 Incentive Fee 0 1,571 27,353 20,469 Total Management Fees 5,000 6,571 72,353 65,469 Net Income (Loss) 23,302 17,912 115,416 142,301 Earle Brown Heritage Center Catering Operations Statement of Revenues & Expenses • For the Months and Periods Ended September 30, 1995 & 1994 (September 11 - October 8) September September YTD YTD 1995 1994 1995 1994 Revenues Food 113,871 98,694 804,211 763,251 Wine 7,405 6,822 39,021 39,986 Liquor 6,930 7,714 38,395 33,931 Beer 1,787 3,109 23,374 30,815 Miscellaneous 3,297 2,729 14,839 15,274 Service Charges 2,871 2,520 20,735 22,060 Total Revenues 136,161 121,588 940,575 905,317 Cost of Sales 32,199 29.244 222,227 218,948 Gross Profit 103,962 92,344 718,348 686,369 Expenses Payroll 30,885 30,923 276,302 252,855 Employee Benefits 7,792 7,399 69,654 57,338 Supplies, Laundry & Rentals 4,505 7,104 56,590 58,333 Marketing 976 0 8,499 2,993 General & Administrative 872 2,339 13,947 15,604 Utilities 1,069 1,380 9,476 9,744 Amortization 596 596 5,962 5,962 Equipment Leases 157 157 1,208 1,235 Insurance 984 1,401 9,716 10,721 Accounting Fees 1,300 1,069 8,997 8,525 Interest Expense 88 186 1,101 2,481 EBHC Catering Expenses 1,371 1,879 15,759 14,897 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses 50,595 54,433 477,211 440,688 Income before Management Fee 53,367 37,911 241,137 245,681 Base Management Fee 5,000 5,000 50,000 50,000 Incentive Fee 5.202 5,817 32,556 26,286 Total Management Fees 10,202 10,817 82,556 76,286 Net Income (Loss) 43,165 27,094 158,581 169,395 • Centerbrook Golf Course Statement of Revenues & Expenses For the Months & Years Ended October 31, 1995 & 1994 • October October 1995 Year -to -Date Year -to -Date 1995 1994 Budget 1995 1994 Sales: Green Fees 9,572 10,150 243,200 225,823 228,653 Rentals 533 441 9,000 8,590 8,391 Leagues (521) (122) 7,000 7,951 10,540 Concessions 449 677 18,000 21,647 18,111 Golf lessons - - 11,000 11,135 10,390 Other merchandise 1,310 1,762 18,000 21,403 17,655 Pop machine 105 56 2,000 2,690 2,394 Miscellaneous 23 (10) 500 433 399 Total Sales 11,471 12,954 308,700 299,672 296,533 Less: Cost of Sales 767 422 28,500 37,806 34,459 Gross Profit 10,704 12,532 280,200 261,866 262,074 Operating Expenses: Personal services 8,228 9,124 111,567 112,378 110,700 Supplies 345 4,070 17,800 21,306 16,813 Other services 639 1,632 17,940 20,259 22,646 Insurance - - 8,150 7,988 7,987 Utilities 644 433 9,500 10,205 9,429 Administrative services 517 567 6,200 5,170 5,670 Central garage charges 2,151 1,812 19,800 20,339 21,123 Depreciation 1,341 1,090 15,725 13,410 10,900 Total Expenses 13,865 18,728 206,682 211,055 205,268 Operating Income (3,161) (6,196) 73,518 50,811 56,806 Non Operating Income (Expenses) Interest Income Interest charges - - (54,000) (57,500) (54,000) Total Non Operating - - (54,000) (57,500) (54,000) Net Income (Loss) (3,161) (6,196) 19,518 (6,689) 2,806 Retained Earnings January 1 (74,563) (74,563) 4,856 is Retained Earnings December 31 (55,045) (81,252) 7,662 Capital Outlays - 3,885 38,647