HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 10-02 CCP Special Work Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
October 2, 1995
7:00 p.m.
Special Work Session
INN ON THE FARM
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Discussion Items:
a. Liquor Store Study
b. Earle Brown Heritage Center
C. Report on Adoption of Preliminary Property Tax Levy
d. Utility Rate Study
e. Minute Format
- 8/14/95 minutes - tabled at 9/11/95 meeting
- 8/21/95 minutes - tabled at 9/11/95 meeting
4. Presentation - Commissioner Mike Opat
- Hennepin Community Works
5. Adjournment
I
t
3c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Myrna Mayor M Kra ness , Council Members Barb
Y Y g
Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Kathleen Carmody,
Debra Hilstrom
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C il
DATE: September 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Report on the Adoption of the Preliminary
Property Tax Levy
On September 13, 1995, the City Council met and adopted a Preliminary Property
Tax Levy and Preliminary Budget for the Year 1996. The City Council made a
number of changes to the City Manager's Proposed Budget to arrive at the budget
which was adopted. Attached are updated copies of some of the summary pages
from the budget book and copies of the final resolutions.
When a budget is reworked at the meeting table and adopted at the same time,
there is a greater chance that errors will be made. In fact, a couple of errors were
made in this case. I would like to explain what those errors were and how I
resolved them so that the preliminary levy and budget could be delivered on time.
The City Council's first action was to decide to levy the exact same dollars in
1996 as in the 1995 property tax levy. In doing this we referred to page 6 in the
budget book which showed a $246,471 increase over 1995. This page was in
error because the revenue shown for the debt redemption funds was gross property
tax rather than net property tax. The gross tax is the amount certified to Hennepin
County for collection. It is reduced by an estimated uncollectible to arrive at a net
property tax which we show in our budget. A corrected page 6 had been
distributed with the September 11 Agenda, but we referred to the one in the budget
book at the meeting. The effect of this error was that we. cut $7,452 more than
necessary.
As we went through the budget making specific cuts to arrive at the $246,471, the
other error came into play. This was that by cutting expenditures, the
corresponding reduction is made in net property taxes, which is less than the cut
the City Council intended to make in gross taxes certified to the County. These
two errors netted out to a smaller total rather than adding together for a larger
total. The final result was that the cuts were $2,307 more than needed.
There wasn't time to go back to the City Council for further instructions. I
decided that the Council's first and primary decision was to certify the exact same
dollar amount for 1996 as was certified for 1995. I resolved the errors by adding
the surplus back to the contingency account. As a result, the contingency account
was cut by $75,539 instead of the $77,846 which we arrived at on September 13.
I would like to review the decisions made at the September 13th meeting to insure
that we all go ahead from this point with the same understanding. In some cases,
specific items were identified to be cut from a department budget. In other cases,
just a dollar amount was reduced from a department, with the specific items to be
cut to be identified by the City Council later this fall. If the changes listed below
don't represent the City Council's intentions, that should be resolved now while
the discussion is fresh in everyone's mind.
1. The entrance fees at the Community Center will be raised by $.25 per
person which will generate an additional $20,000 of revenue for the year.
Additional revenue allows the property tax levy to be cut without cutting a
department budget.
2. The appropriations of $50,636 for Project PEACE and $30,900 for
I. N. V .I. T . E. are moved from the Police Department to the Social Services
Department. This increases the Social Services budget to $128,547. This
budget is then cut by $50,000 with the programs being cut to be decided by
the City Council at a later date.
3. Cut $4,000 from the Human Rights Commission which is the entire budget
for that commission.
4. Cut $50,000 from the Data Processing Department capital outlay with the
items to be cut to be decided by the City Council at a later date.
5. Cut $7,700 from the Street Department. In discussing this budget, Council
Member Mann identified two capital outlay items, a tire balancer , and road
surface machine, to be cut. However, these items are contained in the
Central Garage budget, not the Street Department budget. The tire balancer
was to be purchased with moneys raised in the Central Garage Fund each
year to update the mechanic's tools, and cutting it will have no effect on the
Street Department. The City Council will need to identify something else
in the Street Department budget to absorb this $3,900 cut.
The road surface machine is a different case. For existing pieces of
equipment, the Central Garage collects user fees from departments to build
up a cash balance which will be used to buy a replacement piece when the
current equipment wears out. When equipment is requested that didn't exist
before, there is no cash balance, so the requesting department is required to
budget for the initial purchase. That is the case with the road surface
machine. So cutting it from the Central Garage did result in a
corresponding cut in the Street Department.
6. Cut $2,125 from the Police Department for a display pager with voice
transmission.
7. Cut $13,500 from Government Buildings for chairs for the council
chambers.
8. Cut $21,300 from Community Development for the initial purchase of staff
cars in place of transferring old police squad cars for staff use. This was
an error in the proposed budget because we initially thought this was a case
like the road surface machine described in #5 above. We haven't previously
bought staff cars this way, so we 'were going to require Community
Development to fund the first ones. However, purchasing two new cars
frees up tow more old cars for disposal and there is a cash balance in the
Central Garage fund for the old staff cars to make this purchase.
9. Cut $75,539 from the Contingency Account. At the meeting we thought this
would need to be $77,846.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
1996 PRELIMINARY
PROJECTION OF TAX LEVY BY FUND
1996 1996%
1995 1996 Increase Increase
Budgeted Preliminary - Decrease - Decrease
ev Budge From 1995 From 1995
I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
General Fund Gross Levy 6,166,149 6,051,606 - 114,543 -1.86%
Est Uncollectable 184,984 181,548 -3,436 -1.86%
Net Levy 5,981,165 5,870,058 - 111,107 -1.86%
E.D.A Gross Levy 140,592 177,220 36,628 26.05%
Est Uncollectable 4,218 5,317 1,099 26.05%
Net Levy 136,374 171,903 35,529 26.05%
H.R.A. Gross Levy 122,340 123,336 996 0.81%
Est Uncollectable 3,670 3,700 30 0.81%
Net Levy 118,670 119,636 966 0.81%
S.A. Bonds of 1994 Gross Levy 72,116 69,035 -3,081 -4.27%
Est Uncollectable 3,606 3,452 -154 -4.27%
Net Levy 68,510 65,583 -2,927 -4.27%
S.A. Bonds of 1995 Gross Levy 0 80,000 80,000
Est Uncollectable 0 4,000 4,000
Net Levy 0 76,000 76,000
Total Gross Levy 6,501,197 6,501,197 0 0.00%
Total Net Levy 6,304,719 6,303,180 -1,539 - 0.02%
II INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
Homestead Credit General Fund 1,300,110 1,272,254 - 27,856 -2.14%
E.D.A. Fund 36,483 0 - 36,483 - 100.00%
H.R.A. Fund 18,304 17,424 -880 -4.81%
Total 1,354,897 1,289,678 - 65,219 -4.81%
------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
TOTAL TAX BASED REVENUES 7_659,616 7, 592,858 - 66,758 -0.87%
proptax \levyiner
9!14/95
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
COMBINED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
INCLUDING THE
GENERAL FUND - DEBT RETIREMENT FUNDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) FUND AND
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT (HRA) FUND
1996 PROPOSED
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE AND FUND
1995 1996 1996 Percent
Budgeted Revenue Increase Increase
REVENUE BY SOURCE: Revenue Estimate - Decrease - Decrease
I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 6,304,719 6,303,180 -1,539 -0.02%
II. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 117,627 117,627
III. LODGING SALES TAX 395,000 480,000 85,000 21.52%
IV. BUSINESS LICENSES & PERMITS 155,600 173,850 18,250 11.73%
V. NON -BUS. LICENSES & PERMITS 140,800 175,000 34,200 24.29%
VI. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3,787,747 3,827,525 39,778 1.05%
VII. GENERAL GOVT. SERVICE CHARGES 32,500 30,650 -1,850 -5.69%
Vlll. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE CHARGES 18,100 19,980 1,880 10.39%
IX. RECREATION FEES 843,132 835,438 -7,694 -0.91%
X. FINES AND FORFEITURES 112,000 144,000 32,000 28.57%
XI. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 286,000 369,000 83,000 29.02%
XII. TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 100,000 100,000 0 0.00%
TOTAL REVENUE BY SOURCE 12,175,598 12,576,250 400,652 3.29%
1995 1996 1996 Percent
Budgeted Revenue Increase Increase
REVENUE BY FUND; Revenue Estimate - Decrease - Decrease
I. GENERAL FUND 11,457,923 11,628,994 171,071 1.49%
II. DEPT REDEMPTION FUNDS 68,510 263,210 194,700 284.19%
III. EDA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 512,191 546,986 34,795 6.79%
IV. HRA SPECIAL OPERATING FUND 136,974 137,060 86 0.06%
TOTAL REVENUE BY FUND 12, 175,598 12, 576,250 400,652 3.29%
forward \COMBREV 1.XLS 9/29/95
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
GENERALFUND
1995 PROPOSED
RESUME OF REVENUE AND ESTIMATED REVENUE
1996 1996%
1993 1994 1995 1996 Increase Increase
Actual Actual Adopted Proposed - Decrease - Decrease
Re venue Revenue Revenue Revenue From 95 From 95
1. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
Ad Valorem Levy 4,636,996 5,286,414 6,166,149 6,051,606 - 114,543 - 1.86%
Estimated Uncollectable - 184,984 - 181,548 3,436 -1.86%
Penalties and Interest -7,459 -5,793 0 0 0
Special Assessments 1,027 2,082 0 2,000 2,000
Total 4,630,564 5,282,703 5,981,165 5,872,058 - 109,107 - 1.82%
11. LODGING TAXES 376,146 421,069 395,000 480,000 85,000 21.52%
111. BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS
Liquor Licenses 98,617 117,014 107,300 128,700 21,400 19.94%
Beer Licenses 5,460 3,925 5,400 5,800 400 7.41%
Garbage Licenses 2,005 2,145 2,000 2,000 0 0.00%
Taxicab Licenses 540 0 500 400 -100 - 20.00%
Mechanical Licenses 3,435 3,834 4,000 4,000 0 0.00%
Service Station Lies. 2,326 1,805 1,700 1,700 0 0.00%
Motor Vehicle Dealers 950 600 1,000 950 -50 - 5.00%
Bowling Alley Licenses 708 1,153 700 700 0 0.00%
Miscl. Business Lies. 1,795 1,421 1,600 1,100 -500 - 31.25%
Cigarette Licenses 1,055 1,123 1,300 1,100 -200 - 15.38%
Sign Permits 3,132 2,372 2,000 2,400 400 20.00%
Rental Dwell. Licenses 11,089 16,350 20,000 17,000 -3,000 - 15.00%
Amusement Licenses 5,098 7,952 8,100 8,000 -100 -1.23%
Total 136,210 159,694 155,600 173,850 18,250 11.73%
IV. NONBUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS
Dog Lies. & Pound Fees 4,746 4,765 4,800 4,800 0 0.00%
Building Permits 111,262 109,057 100,000 128,000 28,000 28.00%
Mechanical Permits 31,905 28,990 25,000 28,000 3,000 12.00%
Sewage & Water Permits 620 1,046 1,000 1,000 0 0.00%
Plumbing Permits 15,701 14,202 10,000 13,200 3,200 32.00%
Electrical Permits 35 -134 0 0 0
Total 164,269 157,926 140,800 175,000 34,200 24.29%
forward\GENFDREV.XLS 9/29/95
1996 1996%
1995 1996 Increase Increase
1993 1994 Adopted Proposed - Decrease - Decrease
Actual Actual Revenue Revenue From 95 From
V. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
Fed. Civil Def. Reimb. 14,495 8,549 6,000 7,500 1,500 25.00%
State Energy Cons.Gmt. 0 1,000 0 0 0
State Police Drug Asst 11,348 0 0 0 0
State Grant E911 Service 0 0 0 9,600 9,600
State Police Training 11,415 11,822 10,000 11,500 1,500 15.00%
State Local Govt. Aid 1,697,803 1,757,227 1,799,076 1,865,664 66,588 3.70%
State Aid Street Maint 75,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 0 0.00%
State Pol. Pension Aid 205,637 215,838 210,440 216,000 5,560 2.64%
State Fire Pension Aid 64,039 66,803 64,000 66,800 2,800 4.38%
State Homestead Credit 1,162,475 1,286,780 1,300,110 1,272,254 - 27,856 - 2.14%
Grants from Other Govts 0 4,486 0
School Crime Levy 0 742 700 700
Total 3,242,212 3,443,247 3,479,626 3,540,018 60,392 1.74%
VI. GENERAL GOVERNMENT CHARGES
Plan. Comm. Appls. 7,300 7,600 5,000 7,000 2,000 40.00%
Zoning & Sp. Use Prmts. 2,885 2,250 2,100 2,200 100 4.76%
Metro Sec. 8 Inspcts. 13,344 12,936 13,500 13,000 -500 - 3.70%
Sale of Maps &Documents 738 1,110 1,000 1,000 0 0.00%
Sale of Plans & Specs 1,250 4,195 3,000 3,000 0 100.00%
Filing Fees 0 70 0 50 50
IDR Bond Admin Fee 4,000 5,000 0 0 0
Weed Cutting Charges 1,432 747 1,500 1,500 0 0.00%
Abatement Fees 1,215 1,260 1,200 1,200 0 0.00%
Assessment Searches 451 378 0 200 200
Research Charges 808 480 500 500 0 0.00%
Final Plat Fee 750 1,102 500 500 0 0.00%
Tree Disposal Fee 0 0 750 0 -750 - 100.00%
Shade Tree Admin. 2,000 2,000 2,000 500 -1,500 - 75.00%
Tree Registrations 500 450 500 0 -500 - 100.00%
Blvd Tree Plant Fee 1,295 0 950 0 -950
Total 37,968 39,578 32,500 30,650 -1,850 - 5.69 %
VII. PUBLIC SAFETY CHARGES
Fire Alarm Fees 150 2,250 600 1,200 600 100.00%
Burglar Alarm Fees 6,300 18,250 7,200 9,000 1,800 25.00%
Towing Charges 803 667 1,000 800 -200 - 20.00%
Police Service Revenue 0 0 0 500 500
Accident Reports 4,422 5,061 4,500 4,800 300 6.67%
License Investigations 1,910 504 1,800 500 -1,300 - 72.22%
Private Security 3,276 3,744 3,000 3,180 180 6.00%
Total 16,861 30,476 18,100 19,980 1,880 10.39%
forward \GENFDREV.XLS 9129/95
1996 1996%
1995 1996 Increase Increase
1993 1994 Adopted Proposed - Decrease - Decrease
Actual Actual Revenue Revenue From 95 From 95
VIII. RECREATION FEES
Adult Programs 318,459 294,965 326,244 330,050 3,806 1.17%
Teen Programs 15,125 14,300 13,900 14,150 250 1.80%
Children' Programs 68,963 73,670 72,612 75,938 3,326 4.58%
General Programs 17,696 16,628 26,176 8,500 - 17,676 - 67.53%
Comm. Center Programs 363,813 356,342 404,200 406,800 2,600 0.64
Total 784,056 755,905 843,132 835,438 -7,694 -0.91%
IX. FINES & FORFEITS 140,104 113,572 112,000 144,000 32,000 28.57%
X. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
Interest 249,688 218,671 186,000 250,000 64,000 34.41%
Other Revenue 6,191 9,106 8,000 8,000 0 0.00%
Refunds & Reimburs. 397 0 6,000 0 -6,000 - 100.00%
Sale of Property 13 74 0 0 0
Contributions 860 1,120 0 0 0
Cash Over or (Short) 777 24 0 0 0
Check Process Fees 80 95 0 0 0
Unclaimed Evidence 216 1,383 0 0 0
Forfeited Drug Money 20,990 11,099 0 0 0
Sale of Cert. Of Indeb. 120,000 0 0 0 0
Total 399,212 241,572 200,000 258,000 58,000 29.00%
XI. TRANSFERS FROM OTHER CITY FUNDS
Liquor Stores - Earnings 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.00%
Total 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.00%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10,027,602 10,745,742 11,457,923 11,628,994 171,071 1.49%
trward\GENFOREVALS 9/29/95
forward \gensumry CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
GENERALFUND
1996 PROPOSED BUDGET
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1996%
Actual Actual Adopted Recommend Increase Increase
Expend- Expend- Approp- Approp- - Decrease - Decrease
i ure i r iatr ions riati ns From 1995 From 1995
A. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Council 76,773 70,888 124,290 107,400 - 16,890 - 13.59%
Commissions 915 2,768 9,500 1,500 -8,000 - 84.21%
City Mgr's Office 271,213 335,062 356,408 364,177 7,769 2.18%
Elections 22,966 47,316 37,336 47,508 10,172 27.24%
Assessing 190,195 198,391 209,352 214,847 5,495 2.62%
Finance 146,324 154,882 173,453 182,678 9,225 5.32%
Independent Audit 17,500 17,850 18,400 18,900 500 2.72%
Legal Counsel 185,216 174,709 204,700 199,700 -5,000 -2.44%
Government Buildings 329,576 356,392 342,939 334,188 -8,751 -2.55%
Data Processing 319,995 334,017 405,862 354,348 - 51,514 - 12.69%
Total General Govt 1,560,673 1,692,275 1,882,240 1,825,246 - 56,994 -3.03%
B. PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection 3,206,396 3,606,960 4,001,714 4,041,233 39,519 0.99%
Fire Protection 365,876 492,289 514,195 651,896 137,701 26.78%
Community Development 264,526 269,739 329,015 317,258 - 11,757 -3.57%
Emerg. Preparedness 33,771 40,505 37,161 38,792 1,631 4.39%
Total Public Safety 3,870,569 4,409,493 4,882,085 5,049,179 167,094 3.42%
C. PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering 329,382 149,801. 372,192 362,740 -9,452 -2.54%
Street Maintenance 999,032 1,080,780 1,188,194 1,178,381 -9,813 -0.83%
Vehicle Maintenance 427,773 0 0 0 0
Total Public Works 1,756,187 1,230,581 1,560,386 1,541,121 - 19,265 -1.23%
9/29/95
1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1996%
Actual Actual Adopted Recommend Increase Increase
Expend- Expend- Approp- Approp- - Decrease - Decrease
itures AUM ria ions ria ions From 1995 From 1995
D. HEALTH AND SOCIAL, ERVICES
Social Services 41,325 41,495 40,860 78,547 37,687 92.23%
--------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - --
Total Health & Soc. Sv 41,325 41,495 40,860 78,547 37,687 92.23%
--------- - - - - -- --------- - ----- --------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - --
E. RECREATION
Administration 307,034 228,154 91,711 0 - 91,711 - 100.00%
Adult Programs 306,942 322,823 401,495 459,426 57,931 14.43%
Teen Programs 14,210 15,538 21,588 24,203 2,615 12.11%
Children's Programs 85,247 98,900 142,523 165,190 22,667 15.90%
General Programs 79,871 85,847 120,622 120,710 88 0.07%
Community Center 644,763 649,614 716,614 769,915 53,301 7.44%
Parks Maintenance 561,199 654,620 839,148 911,471 72,323 8.62%
--------- - - - - -- -------- -- - - -- --------- - - - - -- --------- -- - - -- ------ - - - - --
Total Recreation 1 999,266 2,055,496 2,333,701 2,450,915 117,214 5.02%
- -
F. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Convention & Tourism 178,702 199,982 187,625 228,000 40,375 21.52%
Total Economic Dev 178,702 199,982 187,625 228,000 40,375 21.52%
G. UNALLOCATED EXPENSES
Un. Dept. Expenses 300,803 312,736 351,236 331,525 - 19,711 -5.61%
Contingency 0 0 219,790 124,461 - 95,329 - 43.37%
Total Unall Ex enses 300,803 312,736 571,026 455,986 - 115,040 - 20.15%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 9,707,525 9,942,058 11,457,923 11,628,994 171,071 1.49%
9/29/95
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -208
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
WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and
state law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes require certification of a proposed tax levy to
Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center as follows:
1. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn
Center, a proposed tax levy of the following sums for the purpose indicated:
GENERAL FUND 6,051,606
STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE -94 69,035
STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE -95 80,000
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 177,220
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 123,336
$6,501,197
2. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to Hennepin
County so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1996.
Date ! Mayor
ATTEST: 71/(ztG1 Oeputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Debra Hilstrom and upon vote being taken thereon. the following voted in
favor thereof: Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mnn a and Debra Hilstrom;
and the following voted against the same: Myrna Kragness and Kathleen Carmody,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -209
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1996 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state
law to adopt an annual budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1996 shall be:
1. APPROPRIATIONS:
GENERAL FUND: Preliminary
Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount
ill City Council $107,400
112 Commissions 1,500
113 City Manager's Office 364,177
114 Elections 47,508
115 Assessing 214,847
116 Finance 182,678
117 Audit 18,900
118 Legal Counsel 199,700
119 Government Buildings 334,188
120 Data Processing 354,348
131 Police Protection 4,041,233
132 Fire Protection 651,896
133 Community Development 317,258
134 Emergency Preparedness 38,792
141 Engineering 362,740
142 Streets Maintenance 1,178,381
152 Social Services 78,547
161 Adult Programs 459,426
162 Teen Programs 24,203
163 Children's Programs 165,190
164 General Programs 120,710
167 Community Center 769,915
169 Parks Maintenance 911,471
170 Convention & Tourism 228,000
180 Unallocated Department 455,986
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $11,628,994
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -209
STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 94 DEBT SERVICE FUND $105,458
STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 95 DEBT SERVICE FUND $50,400
E.D.A. SPECIAL OPERATING FUND $684,046
---------------
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $12,468,898
2. ESTIMATED REVENUES:
General Property Taxes $6,303,180
Special Assessments 117,627
Sales Taxes on Lodging 480,000
Business Licenses & Permits 173,850
Non- Business Licenses & Permits 175,000
Intergovernmental Revenue 3,827,525
General Government Services Charges 30,650
Public Safety Service Charges V 19,980
Recreation Fees 835,438
Fines & Forfeitures 144,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 369,000
Transfers from Other Funds 100,000
TOTAL REVENUE BY SOURCE $12,576,250
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
eputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Debra Hilstrom and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann and Debra Hilstrom;
and the following voted against the same: Kathleen Carmody
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i�
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -210
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING
INFORMATIONAL 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
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing
body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the
Preliminary Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a preliminary tax
levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 15, 1995 and a final tax levy on
or before December 28, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033,
Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the preliminary tax levy of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City
of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real
and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and
not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of
Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy be used for the
operation of the Brooklyn Center housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the
provision of MSA 469.001 through 469.047.
Date May 8r
ATTEST
Peputy Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Debra Hilstrom and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, and Debra Hilstrom;
and the following voted against the same: Kathleen carry,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1996 Utility Rate
Study
Prepared for
Brooklyn Center City Council
by
Public Services Department
September 27, 1995
City of Brooklyn Center
1996 Utility Rate Study Summary
The City Council annually reviews established public utility rates to ensure their adequacy in meeting
financial goals. The Public Services Department strives to meet these goals while keeping rates as affordable
as possible. The total utility bill paid by a resident of Brooklyn Center continues to be lower than in most
area communities.
Water Utility:
The schedule at the end of this report labeled Option 1 shows the projected effect of maintaining the existing
rate schedule. This option meets all utility financial requirements. Option 2 shows a continuation of minimal
rate increases.
With the exception of painting water towers and the possible need for a water treatment facility in the future,
most capital outlays in the water utility will be main replacements associated with neighborhood street
improvements and other infrastructure repair.
To preserve flexibility and to provide for a revenue
cushion, it is recommended that the Council adopt the
Average Restdentral 1995 1996 rates shown on Option 1. This would result in No
1ltrfrty Customer Charge Charge increase in rates in 1996, with rates remaining at
$0.86 per 1000 gallons.
Major improvement projects scheduled for 1996 include:
Recycling S2b.8D X25:80 water main replacement as a part of the 69th Avenue
_.
reconstruction, water main replacements associated with
Water 5110 80 511E180 the 1996 neighborhood street reconstruction and other
Samtaty Sewer < 4 7000 51 water quality projects.
S or <Orarnage ,; X30 DD 532 DO
Sanitary Sewer Utility:
No increase in the sewer utility rates for 1996.
Total 533fi 60 .5338 60 The schedules at the end of this report labeled
Percent Increase 19 Option 1 and 2 shows the projected effect of
maintaining the existing rate schedule.
Option
1 includes
sellin
p g bonds to even out capital expenditures over the next few years. Option 2 would
pay for capital expenditures using cash reserves. Both options provide for no rate increases for 1996.
If adopted, this will be the third year that there will be. no increase in rates. This has been made possible in
large part due to lower than expected charges from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
(previously known as MWCQ due to rate restructuring.
Staff makes no recommendation and asks Council's direction in determining how they would prefer capital
expenditures be funded. Again, Option 1 would include a financing plan utilizing GO revenue bonds to
finance major capital improvements and Option 2 would pay for capital projects from cash reserves. The
Council's level of comfort with the cash reserve would be the deciding factor between the two options.
Capital improvements for 1996 will include; replacement of lift station #1 and associated force main work and
trunk line relining from 69th Avenue to lift #1.
Storm Drainage Utility:
The schedule labeled Option 1 and 2 shows the financial impact of the existing rate schedule. Option 1
provides for no increase in rates for 1996. Option 2 would include a minimal rate increase in 1996.
The Phase I study of the City's storm drainage system, the Storm Water Management Plan, has been
substantially completed. A Phase II study needs to be initiated and with council approval, will be completed
on an as needed, per project basis. An essential part of this process will be the development of a financial
plan, which will be implemented in 1996 and subsequent years.
Given the uncertainty regarding what types of future requirements and projects will need to be funded from
the utility, along with the volume of work already identified, staff recommends Council adopt the rates shown
in Option 2. This would provide a revenue cushion and insure the integrity of the fund.
Adopting Option 2 would result in a rate increase from $30.00 per base acre in 1995 to $32.00 per acre
in 1996. The average residential quarterly rate per lot would increase from $7.50 in 1995, to $8.00 in 1996.
Capital improvements scheduled for 1996
include: Construction of the Shingle Creek
Regional Pond, storm sewer work associated AverageSenior tJtihty 1995.. 1996
with the neighborhood street reconstruction and Customer Charge . Charge
other water quality improvements.
It should be noted that the attached spread
sheets do not include any costs associated with Recycling 525.80 $25.80
the Shingle Creek Regional Pond. Staff is
pursuing several funding options regarding this Water 12&D0::1. S2B.00
$3.1 million dollar project. It is probable that Sanitary ;Sewer 593.6 X93.60 .
most or all of the cost would be paid for by
sources other than the utility. Stour; Drainage 530.00 $32 00
Recycling Utility: ,Total 11.7740. X17940
The Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) has
adopted their budget for 1996 and it maintains Percent Increase 196
current service levels with no increase in fees
for 1996. Rates will remain at $2.15 per
month in 1996.
Utility Hook Up Charges
Hook up charges are increased annually based on inflation. Charges were increased 2.6 percent, based on
the increase in the Consumer Price Index from August 1994 to July 1995.
Summary:
Staff recommends no increase in water, recycling or sanitary sewer rates for 1996. Although, staff does seek
Council's direction in determining how they would prefer capital expenditures be funded in the sanitary sewer
utility. Staff does recommend a small increase in the storm drainage utility to insure an adequate fund
balance given the amount of capital projects for 1996. If the recommended rates are adopted, the annual
utility bill of the average residential customer would increase less than one percent, or roughly $2.00. The
annual bill of the average senior would also increase by $2.00, approximately 1.0 %.
WATER UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 1:
Publutil\watrat96
.... ... ...
08-Sep-95
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
...... ..
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 1 23,776 0 1 0 0
TOTAL REVENUES $1,041,507 $963,313 $1,137,937 $1,125,776 $1,102,000 $1,150,000 $1,198,000
x.45 $O .... . ...... .
.4
6) 1/2 Interest Earnings (100% By 1996)
. ..... ..... 171,901 196,602 199,921 275,798 294,748 266,534 241,589
--- ---------- � . .. ..
2.
AJETANCOW!i
EFFEC 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) (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)
11) Depeciation Add back 233,447 267,279 236,850 260,000 248,000 275,000 295,000
....... I ..... :. ... . .... . .... .. ....
K ..
.1 . & 9� ......
. .......
. ....
. .... : 641'
Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000
Unrestricted Inv 965,394 1,052,886 1,055,146 1,381,865 895,422 465,326 (342,528► 1
III
WATER UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 2:
Publutil\watrat96
. . ...... . . .......
08-Sep-95 .......
EXPENDITURES
11 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 95,166 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 1,056,000 1,080,000 1,104,000
Water in MGAL E 1,320,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
......... . ..... ...... ........... . ... ...
.................... . ..... . ........ . ......... .. .....
.. . ......
:R
0
......
........ . .. .... . . ..
............ P .. ... . .
...... ..... ..... ...
. ........................ ......
C .. .................. ..... .....
E FF
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 $1,1126,6651 $1,150,000 $1
D
6) 1/2 Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 171,901 196,602 199,921 275,798 294,748 267,926 243,062
.
- 67
N ET
EFFECT ON CASH &
INVESTMENTS:
7) Start 6f Year Cash & Inv $4,450,204 $4,665,394 $4,752,886 $4,755,146 $5,081,865 $4,619,422 $4,190,718
8) Capital Outlay (188,958) (413,324) (829,420) (220,780) (1,036,250) (975,875) (1,345,000)
9) Net Income or Loss 215,701 233,537 374,972 287,499 325,807 272,171 219,618
10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000)
11) Depeciation Add -back 233,447 267,279 236,850 260,000 248,000 275,000 295,000
.. . . ......
Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,066 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,7 .. 00 0 - 0 : 0
Unrestricted Inv 965,394 1,052,886 1,055,146 1,381,865 919,422 490,718 (339,664)
SANITARY SEWER RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 1:
PURates \sewrat96
. ::;:.:::::.::,,::::.
:..... :. : : : ::.. : : : : : : : :...... ...: • : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. : •::::...:..... ...............................
09 ..: ::::..f.. 2 .:::::::::.::::...:.:.........
f.
..... .... ............ ............9.. #............., : :: ::. :. ...... � . . : :::.::. : :: : ::. : : : ::::::::::1: »:.>: :.;;:::.;::.:. >:::;. >:.;:;.;1:3 .;•::::: :::::::.. >::.;:.::.::•;:.::.;1: 9 .:.::;.;;:.;:.:;;:
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 0 &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
REVENUES TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,908,233.00 $1,795,354.00 $1,710,21 $1,855,891.50 $1,980,438.85 $2,117,669.90 $2,183,455.59
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
uartet( C1t e
MM
:......::.. ........7...................... .. AO.ID :.
Senior Accts 1,625 2,170 2,100 2,150 2,150 2,175 2,200
EagQttAr �.:�y `•::;?; i:;`'•' .. .
E: ?: % ?:i : i:::::::. %;.;:ip ' i :. . ;.;::<;«.::. >;;.:::;;:.:::::.:. .:.;:.:;.: >;;:.:;;::.::.:•;:�;; :.
) Y... �1 R .......................... ............................:.: $ �:1k, .;........................ :.:.:. >::•;;:.;:... .....
...... ...... ........... ............................... .. ............................ 1f ..:.::..:..........:.: :::.�:.. .: -::•::::..�:::::........
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
p .
O f_a :
3) Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 560 921 11,961 1,000 1,000 1,000 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 $2,189,527 1 $2,255,511 $2,238,415 $2,327,185 $2,464,160
... E. ................ ..........38.32.............:.. X4...3....................
:...::::.:..: ....:::::::......:::::, �..:....... .F ;...................::::.. ::................
... ........: ......................
6) Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 132,928 140,764 152,233 198,313 183,509 203,127 1 200,272
INE
,G .._..�.�R..�... UPS ....................... ............................... . _.....:.:.:.�::::... .................. :.:. :::.�;;:.:;;;:;.:;:: ;:;....::.:.�:::.:�.::. .:. .............:.. ..:.:. ................. ... ::
.................................................:::.: 9. �, 6,.:::::::::::::..:,: :.::.::.1,.�9�:::::: :.:<.:<.;:.:.:.;:; .::•:;1;98�.::;•;::�;:.;:•;:::; ;:;;;::: >:: >: :;::;;:7;998: >: >::: >:: >:: >;:�:
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 $3,502,191 $3,452,957
8) Capital Outlay (935,398) (400,285) (965,070) (1,005,170) (1,378,250) (445,876) (334,000)
9) Net Income or Loss 234,670 521,087 631,550 597,933 441,486 412,642 480,976
10) Debt Service 1,100,000 (260,000) (251,000)
11) Depreciation Add -back 194,879 126,055 110,855 152,000 175 000
:• :::.::........ :.... ............................... 244 235,000
.end pf Y�ac �a��.& :]nu ........................... ;:.:.. .;. ry
R estricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300 300,000
Unrestricted Investments 2,760,463 3,007,320 3,119,193 2,863,956 3,202,191 3,152,957 3,283,933
SANITARY SEWER RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 2:
PURates%sewrat96
09-Sep-95 . . .... ......
........... .....
00 . ... . . ..... . ........ . ...
........ . ........... �4. .
. ........... ......
I . . ............ -N
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 $2,237,416 $2,370,950 $2,455,418 $2,515,016
Residential Accts 6,845 1 6,827 6,650 6,610 6,610 6,305 6,280
.........
M
... .......... .
. .... . .......
... ...... .
........ .
Senior Accts .. 1,625 2,170 2,100 2,150 2,150 2,175 2,200
. ........
...........
y.m.
.. ......... ...
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 $31.50 $33.25 $33.95
Non-residential Water <:: { ;....;:;:;:r:;:; r 234,600 285,000 285,000 290,700 290,700 296,500 302,400'
..........
. .... . .. ...
" A "
. .......... ..
. ...... ....... . - - - :: .. . .... ..... . ..
........ .. .. ... ...
... ..... ... ......
.... .. . . .......
..... ..... .. .;:::::;:::.:....:::::. ::..f..6................
..... ..... ....... . ....
......
3) Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) Miscellaneous Non-operating 560 921 11,961 1,000 1,000 1,000 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 $2,189,527 $2,255,511 $2,371,950 $2,456,418 $2,516,016
2 .0 ,
.410 .4
6) Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 132,928 140,764 152,233 198,313 1 183,509 212,2061 217,373
.. ............
Moog 0 kWM=
........ . . .......
.... --- ---- --
EFFEC ON CASH &
INVESTMENTS
7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,566,312 $3,060,463 $3,307,320 $3,419,193 $3,163,956 $3,658,726 $3,747,804
8) Capital Outlay (935,398) (400,285) (965,070) (1,005,170) (1,378,250) (445,876) (334,000)
9) Net Income or Loss 234,670 621,087 631,550 597,933 575,021 550,954 549,933
10) Debt Service 1 (260,000) (251,000)
11) Depreciation Add-back 194,879 126,055 110,855 152,000 198,000 244,000 259,000
..........
.10 ... .....
.........
Restricted Investments 300,000 300,006 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000'
Unrestricted Investments 2,760,463 3,007,320 3,119,193 2,863,956 3,358,726 3,447,804 3,671,737
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 1:
PURATES:sdurat96
EXPENDITURES
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 60,120 50,000 50,000
Local Plan 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 O 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 $1,330,918 $769,149 $559,000
REVENUES
3) Billing Revenues $494,456 $639,837 $685,011 $780,000 $780,000 $832,000 $858,000
REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500
Residential ate per lot $4.50 $6.00 $6.76 $7.50 $7.50 $8.00 $8.25
Schools & govt buildings per acre $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 $37.50 $37.50 $40.00 $41.25
Multiple family & churches per acre $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 $90.00 $90.00 $96.00 $99.00
Commercial and industrial per acre $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 $150.00 $150.00 $160.00 $165.00
4) Interest Earnings 14,030 28,138 2,294 22,675 117,117 43,856 9,020
TOTAL REVENUES $508,486 $667,975 5687,305 $802,675 $897,117 $875,856 $867,020
!£ �: �; ���1�E�> �iVCQM�. t3' R> �E7 !,�5; >�� » »:<s. » »:� >: » » >::: >.$'• t�:1: >•.:.: • >:•::•;:;•;; >:• >:•:•;;•:::: � ...: zz� » >:::. , ::� . > ;.; >;?:::<: >: > #: � � �'
......................................:....................:.::.::.....:::::::.:...: �:::::................... �........................... ..........F.................... � .... .. .... ............:��� . 0.1 ..............�.1: 707:: »:: >:::::: >:<: <:::: >#9QS X120::
. ,x.�A 7 :ii � :is: �� •:�:'' : 2:i:: :::533 E: ::: :r %�� �' 3 ?S #`� 5:::;.•.. .: :� `:`: i '' ` ?2:E •.:;::'� � .�::: EE:i:i :': i�':: ` %t ` .,..,...::: %:: �:::i :;:
1 ... 1. 9? F ................ 199��.................. ...........1�;f.C�....... ............;�#....... ........ ...........1:9.x#......::.
EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS
5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $24,093 $325,708 $390,943 $2,019,251 $756,131 $155,514 $141,626
6) Net Income or Loss 301,615 106,584 (202,580) (1,201,495) (433,801) 106,707 308,020
7) Debt Service 1,830,000 (90,625) (198,815) (241,595) (243,520)
8) Special Assessment /Other
9) Depreciation Add Back 6685 888 29,000 32,000 121,000 136,000
''�i�iir,/� �:: r �':'•.`:..:�'��•.'��•::.;:.::? �::<�<� > > ?? » ?i" ?EEE���ii ? "? %'' �:,.,;.., :.:,.,.;.: _,.,.•,•. �.E# iii' ?� ? ::.:. ::::.::.., �::;;:::::'.[ `E2 ?' S�� %� �.:,.,•,:;�: ;,:..::,.�.�::::.:�,.,,. ,..;, ...,......,.,.,,,,�.;:::,' „�,:: ,
.... rt ...:� ar..� h.&.. Cnx .............. ... ........................$��5 7�...... ... � 911• 3. :< <:;:::::::::;:::: >;: >::> : >:. <:. <:: >:. >::: »::;<:::.; .
......... � ...... ............................... ....... .$� # 1. �: 29�;:..::.:..::..:. �7�38-: 1: 31::> :::: >:: >:::: >: >: >:::: >:�:1:9'.� �;1�: ....... �.1�1. 9� ....� ;•:: ;• :.:
... .............................::...........:............:................. .;..:...:......:..:::.:.:....:. �......: ��...................... �...... ....:...........:.............. ..... ... ..... ... 9...................3A�2 '1.28:.
P
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1996 OPTION 2:
PLI RATES: sdurst96
... ......
09-Se -95 »:;:::::: >: >E: ><:: >: >'::::::: >::::: >E:7:. ': ": » ><'s ><: >::: > ; > ;::: >::: iz>:<?> E::::::::>::»> E:>:: :: >::;: >:::: » >:::<:::::: :>:<::::::<:» E::>::>:....... E?::::::<:' t>?:>:::::: i:::::;:E:> E:>:: .... .;:>:::>::':< z:: E:<:»: EE: i<: ><:i:<:......:': >:: > > ?:: >:::::>
p ............ 9�! � ......:...............;.....: J� !�....:...........:..:::...... X984.1.;► �1�#. �?�> �a �. �::::::. f�; ��'.;:.::::::.:::::.:::::;::.::;::.::. ::.;'[.��!5.;:•;:.;:;. >;:.;:.;:
EXPENDITURES
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 60,120 50,000 50,000
Local Plan 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 O
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 $1,330,918 $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 6,500 6,500 6,500
:;: ::;. >;;::.;z;i : EiE'�' .. '���''E�i`. • ' >r ? ::: > :.,>: .: :. . , '.' , : . :: itEis�<'> E' ;:..>:.;:::' : ,?". ` Ei' iE`? ::•<.<:•"::.. ; ���EE `E' .::•:: y ;: ;: . >:::::, #�� "`''''•``
fAFi PAR OGRE . .
.... .........3................... fx,t1Q.3..{lQ........: :.... $E
:.....................:.....:..........................................................................................................:................ ...........:................... .£ 10::..................... x+ 4y�..................... ..#t.....:............:...3?�,.
................
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 $99.00 $102.00
Commercial and industrial per acre $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 r $508,486 $667,975 $687,305 1 $802,675 $949,117 $901,856 $896,036
EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS
5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $24,093 $325,708 $390,943 $2,019,251 $756,131 $207,514 $219,626
6) Net Income or Loss 301,615 106,584 (202,580) (1,201,495) (381,801) 132,707 337,036
7) Debt Service 1,830,000 (90,625) (198,815) (241,595) (243,520)
8) Special Assessment /Other
9) Depreciation Add Back 6685 888 29,000 32,000 121,000 136,000
: r:. : :.:::::'::::::.,. , ,.: :.:':• ?f% ci f ? ' : '::.,:.;•:...:;'..:"!`. y :::: ".:
1~ll a €e r dash & h1v a$ .................4
........................................:............................................................. ............................... ..... .... ........... ...........:............................ ........x...................... ..... ......... X113 !��8..................$.44�J x.42..
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
. OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
AUGUST 14, 1995
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor
Myrna Kragness at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Kristen
Mann. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, Director of Public Services Diane
Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman,
City Engineer Scott Brink, Communications Coordinator Terri Swanson, and Council Secretary
Connie Beckman.
Councilmember Barb Kalligher was absent.
OPENING CEREMONIES
Dean Nyquist offered the invocation.
• COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Mann reported that the 1995 Metro Paint- A -Thon held on August 5 was great.
She noted there were many participants including volunteers from the Earle Brown
Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee, Housing Commission, City Council, and
employees.
PRESENTATION - HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD
Milton Goldstein, past president of the Hennepin County Library Board, introduced Charles
Brown, the new director of the Hennepin County Library system, who talked about the library
system and its reputation.
Mr. Brown introduced Patricia Chisenhall, principal librarian of the Brookdale Library, who
distributed information to Councilmembers about library activities.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the
August 14, 1995, agendas with the removal of Items 6(f), (g), and (h) from the consent agenda.
The motion passed unanimously.
8/14/95 - 1 -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
JULY 10, 1995 - REGULAR SESSION
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the
minutes of the July 10, 1995, regular session as printed passed unanimously.
JULY 17. 1995 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION, 6 p.m.
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the
i
minutes of the July 17, 1995, special work session as printed passed unanimously.
JULY 17 1995 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION 712.m.
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the
minutes of the July 17, 1995, special work session as printed passed unanimously.
JULY 24, 1995 - REGULAR SESSION
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the
minutes of the July 24, 1995, regular session as printed passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -174
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann Ma and passed unanimously.
Y
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -175
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS,
BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR WORK ON THE 1995 METRO PAINT- A -THON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -176
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
I
8/14/95 -2- i
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING QUOTE, AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -16, CONTRACT 1995 -H, BRYANT
AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann, and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -177
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL
OF DISEASED TREES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -178
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -31, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENT AT WILLOW LANE PARK, CONTRACT 1994 -I
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann and passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Mann to
approve the following list of licenses:
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
A -ABC Appliance and Heating 2638 Lyndale Ave S
Anderson Heating and A/C 4347 Central Ave NE
Hokanson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 9174 Isanti St NE
Nimis Newman Mech, Inc. 1400 E Hwy 36
Peterson Bros. Sheetmetal 4110 Central Ave NE #106
RENTAL DWELLINGS - INITIAL
Sondra Jones 7236 Noble Ave N
RENTAL DWELLINGS - RENEWAL
Ralph C. Johnson 5444 Bryant Ave N
Michael and Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave N
Fred and Judie Swenson 5340 -44 Russell Ave N
•
8/14/95 - 3 -
John and Marlys Pepera 6142 Scott Ave N
David Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane
The motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Kragness noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this
evening.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IT EMS
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -179
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MYRNA KRAGNESS
The motion for the g
adoption of the foreoin resolution was duly seconded b
P b g Y Y member Debra
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -180
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF JACK KELLY
FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE HOUSING COMMISSION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen
Carmody and passed unanimously.
APPOINTMENT OF A COUNCILMEMBER TO SERVE ON A CUSTOMER SERVICE
TRAINING SUBCOMMITTEE
Councilmember Hilstrom inquired when the subcommittee would meet. The Communications
Coordinator said the subcommittee would meet at a time convenient to the consensus of the
subcommittee.
Councilmember Carmody indicated she did not see the need for hiring a trainer but instead
utilize current City employees to facilitate any needed training. She feels that forming quality
circles among staff would be a good way to assess what's good and bad about service at the City
and would be more cost efficient.
The Communications Coordinator said that the main purpose of the subcommittee is to solicit
input from council and staff regarding needs in the customer service area. The subcommittee
consists of four or five staff members and a council member for the purpose of planning a
customer service program for the City. Customer service training was placed in the 1995 budget
8/14/95 -4- ,
as a result of a recommendation by the communications task force. Still in planning stages, the
committee is looking at an ongoing program not a one -time shot. The subcommittee will make
• recommendations on customer service training and will update the council at a later date.
Councilmember Hilstrom reconfirmed her desire to participate on the subcommittee, and council
affirmed her desire accordingly. Mayor Kragness also indicated a desire to attend the meetings,
if held in the evenings.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND
The Interim City Manager indicated a staff desire to have the ordinance tabled.
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to table An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of
Certain Land.
The City Attorney explained notification regarding a public hearing pertaining to the ordinance
had been done and suggested Council proceed with reconsideration and conduct a hearing for
the ordinance to eliminate the need for rescheduling a public hearing.
Councilmembers Mann and Hilstrom withdrew their motion to table the ordinance and respective
public hearing.
Mayor Kragness opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. and inquired if there was any public
input regarding the ordinance at hand.
On the advice of the City Attorney, Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember
Hilstrom seconded that the public hearing be closed. The motion passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to table An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of
Certain Land passed unanimously.
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11
Staff recommended that the bids previously submitted be rejected and the project rebid with
revised specifications.
Councilmember Mann asked if the new specifications will be written so only one company can
bid. The City Manager stated this will absolutely not occur, and the revised specifications will
change the kind of materials to be used in the project.
Councilmember Hilstrom asked if Lametti and Sons, Inc. has had the opportunity to review
staff's report and respond. The City Engineer indicated staff sent them a copy.
•
8/14/95 - 5 -
Vic Lametti, representing Lametti and Sons, Inc., said he received the report this morning and
has not had the opportunity to properly review and prepare a response.
•
Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the Council will have the opportunity to review the revised
plans and specifications before they are sent out. The City Engineer advised he has a set of
revised specifications available for the Council's review.
Councilmember Hilstrom asked if Lametti and Sons, Inc. has done work in Brooklyn Center in
the past. Mr. Lametti informed this is a third generation construction company with a long
history of extensive work in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. He advised his father installed
this sewer line in the early 1950's.
Councilmember Hilstrom questioned implications involved with rejecting the bids and ordering
new plans and specifications. The City Attorney conceded that in the public arena, you can get
sued for anything you do, but in this case staff became aware some of the specifications were
not adequate and determined how they could be rewritten to better serve the City.
The City Attorney noted the City is already involved in litigation with this project and perhaps
this action will result in litigation as well, but he felt comfortable with the City's position should
that happen.
Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the Council will receive copies of the new plans and
specifications before it goes out for new bids. The City Engineer reiterated specifications are
ready and available for Council's review.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -181
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1995 -11,
CONTRACT 1995 -E, CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK
RELINING
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen
Carmody and passed unanimously.
STAFF REPORT RE: PROPOSED 1996 STREET PROJECTS
The Director of Public Services explained at the July 31, 1995 work session, Council reviewed
1996 street and utility projects and the purpose of tonight's proposed Y P J P rP ht's discussion is to establish g
potential 1996 projects and begin the process of preparing feasibility studies and receiving public
input..
Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02, and 03 /Orchard Lane East Area
8/14/95 -6- .
i
The Director of Public Services began her report by reviewing the boundaries and details of
Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02, and 03, for street, utility and drainage improvements in the Orchard
• Lane east area. It is proposed to reconstruct all streets in this area. Drainage issues are very
important in this area. The proposed pond at Orchard Lane Park would provide a substantial
improvement in both storm water quantity and quality. Staff suggests the ball diamond be
moved to the approximate location of the ice rink and the pond area be used for the skating rink
in the winter. The Director of Public Services detailed the three recommendations for action
should the Council desire to further consider this area for 1996.
Councilmember Carmody commented on the importance of locating the bathroom facilities so
they are more accessible to those using the ballfield and playground. The Director of Public
Services indicated she will look at that in more detail during the feasibility study phase.
Improvement Project No. 1996 -04 /James /67th Avenues Mill and Overly
The Director of Public, Services next reviewed the boundaries and details of Project No. 1996 -04
for overlay of James Avenue from Freeway Boulevard to 67th and 67th from James Avenue to
Shingle Creek Parkway.. She advised these streets are in poor condition according to the
Pavement Management Program, can no longer benefit from sealcoating and recommended they
be overlaid at an estimated cost of $145,000. The cost would be assessed to abutting owners
in commercial districts at 70% of the non - utility portion with the balance funded by either
regular or local state aid funds.
Improvement Project No. 1996 -05 /John Martin /Earle Brown Drives Mill and Overlay
The Director of Public Services then reviewed the boundaries and details of Project No. 1996 -05
S for the mill and overlay of John Martin Drive and Earle Brown Drive from John Martin to
Summit. She advised these streets are in poor condition according to the Pavement Management
Program, can no longer benefit from sealcoating and should be overlaid at an estimated cost of
$160,000. According to the City's Assessment Policy, abutting property owners in commercial
districts would be assessed 70% of the non - utility portion of the project cost. The balance will
be funded by either regular or local state aid funds. In reviewing the MSA system, staff
believes it is appropriate to undesignate 62nd Avenue as an MSA route and to instead designate
Summit, John Martin and Earle Brown Drives as MSA routes. If the Council desires to further
consider this area for 1996, they should adopt a resolution establishing the project and direct
staff to prepare a feasibility report and direct the City Engineer to contact the Metro State Aid
Engineer requesting the redesignation of MSA routes.
Councilmember Hilstrom questioned how quickly the MSA redesignation can be accomplished.
The Director of Public Services explained it depends on how quickly the MSA Engineer
responds to the request.
Councilmember Mann reviewed the Council's discussion at the last work session regarding the
need to avoid a crisis situation with regard to keeping streets well - maintained. The Director of
Public Services agreed if the Council wants to minimize the long -term impact, a greater
percentage of streets will need to be upgraded each year. The staff is trying to concentrate on
•
8/14/95 - 7 -
areas with streets in the poorest condition and still address storm sewer needs, but the Council
can accelerate the street project program. .
The Director of Public Services explained City engineering staff is able to process a limited
mileage of street work. An accelerated programs would require hiring consulting firms.
Councilmember Mann noted that the City has been on a 20 year program during which all of
the streets would be reconstructed. However, in the beginning of the program, the City did not
do enough mileage to follow that program so it will now take 30 to 35 years to complete all
streets.
The Director of Public Services said that by reconstructing five to six miles per year, we would
be back on track for the 20 year program. It is also important to note that there is a tax levy
increase associated with these projects. The more miles are done each year, the bigger the tax
increase.
Improvement Project No. 1996 -06, 07, and 08 /57th Avenue and Logan /James /Knox
The Director of Public Services reviewed Project Nos. 1996 -06, 07, and 08 for street, utility
and drainage improvements to James and Knox Avenues, 55th to 57th, and Logan Avenue, 53rd
to 57th Avenue which . is tentatively scheduled for 1996. Because the area of
Irving /Humboldt /Girard from 53rd to 57th is currently being studied as a part of the Hennepin
Community Works Humboldt Parkway proposal, staff proposes no improvements on those streets
for 1996.
The Director of Public Services stressed the importance of improving the residential streets in
the southeast area. SEH has already completed much of the storm drainage analysis for this area
so it may be more cost effective to request a proposal from them to extend their contract to
cover professional design services for this area as well. The estimated cost of this project is
$550,000. Both 57th and Logan Avenues are State Aid routes so funding is available from
regular state aid and the remainder could be financed through a combination of special
assessment, public utility funds, and bond funds. She suggested a resolution expanding the 57th
Avenue project and obtaining a proposal from SEH for professional services for design and
construction management of area.
Councilmember Hilstrom expressed concern that the 20 year program not fall further behind and
inquired whether there is another project that could be constructed should it happen that this one
does not proceed in 1996. The Director of Public Services advised that if 57th Avenue is tabled
again, the neighborhood streets could stand alone and be constructed in 1996.
Councilmember Hilstrom commented on the contention that if the City proceeds with the path
previously taken, the Maintenance Department will be spending all of their time patching streets,
and asked if staff is recommending the City concentrate more on reconstruction of streets. The
Director of Public Services explained would reduce maintenance requirements. The Maintenance
8/14/95 - 8 - •
Department can turn its attention to other types of maintenance. She explained this issue will
be further evaluated and more information provided to the Council to help make that decision.
• Councilmember Hilstrom asked if more projects could be added. The Director of Public
Services said that the City of Minneapolis has asked whether Brooklyn Center is interested in
"piggy- backing" with their 1996 project in the neighborhood south of the golf course.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -182
Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1996 -01, 02, 03,
STREET, UTILITY, AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, ORCHARD LANE EAST AREA,
ACCEPTING QUOTES FOR SEWER TELEVISING AND SOIL BORINGS, AND
DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT OF A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen
Carmody and passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody directing staff
to specifically review the proposed changes to Orchard Lane Park with the Park and Recreation
Commission and the neighborhood residents passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -183
• Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved for it's adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1996 -04, JAMES /67TH
AVENUES MILL AND OVERLAY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen
Carmody and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -184
Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved for it's adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1996 -05, JOHN
MARTIN /EARLE BROWN DRIVES MILL AND OVERLAY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra
Hilstrom and passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom directing the
City Engineer to contact the Metro State Aid Engineer and request undesignating 62nd Avenue
as an MSA route, and designating Summit, John Martin, and Earle Brown Drives as MSA routes
passed unanimously.
8/14/95 -9 -
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -185
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved for it's adoption: •
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1996 -06, 07, AND 08,
STREET, UTILITY, AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, JAMES AND KNOX AVENUES,
55TH TO 57TH, AND LOGAN AVENUE, 53RD TO 57TH, ACCEPTING QUOTES FOR
SEWER TELEVISING AND SOIL BORINGS, AND DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT OF A
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen
Carmody and passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom directing
staff to obtain a proposal from SEH for professional services for design and construction
management of the additional residential area, and to hold informational meetings with the
neighborhood passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody directing staff
to review options with the City of Minneapolis and bring those options and a recommendation
to the Council for its consideration passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE WINNERS OF THE 1995 CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING
CONTEST
Councilmember Carmody extended her appreciation to Administrative Aide Joyce Gulseth who •
came up with the idea of a landscape contest and coordinated it.
The Director of Public Services provided a brief slide show and details of each property winning
the 1995 Citywide Landscaping Contest.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -186
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE WINNERS OF THE 1995 CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING
CONTEST
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann and passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF STAFF REPORTS AND POLICY (REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MAN (Verbatim transcript begins.)
Councilmember Mann -
Yes, Your Honor, the reason I had placed this on the agenda tonight was I'm concerned a
number of incidences have been happening and I guess the bottom line is I truly believe it gets
8/14/95 - 10-
down to communication. Just as the Council is accountable to the tax payers, we also rely very
heavily on our staff and the information that they provide to us when we set policy and
direction. And this isn't the time or the place to be placing the blame; that is not my intent
tonight. What I am concerned about though is that there's been a pattern. Decisions have been
made based on information provided to the Council and then the information provided to us
changes. I can't believe I'm the only one concerned about this. Um, a most recent incident
would involve the ah new management union and negotiation representation from the Council.
Ah, it illustrates the importance of communication and where we're going with this. On June
12th, we had an initial discussion at the Council table regarding labor representative firms to
address our new bargain unit. Unanimous vote said to go out for an RFP and five firms were
listed. On July 24th, an update on the labor negotiations and the new management union, the
Council was informed that, for no additional cost, the firm that is currently doing our labor
relations would also represent the new unit. Ali, consensus of the Council at the July 24th
meeting was, yeah let's look into this a little further, at least that's the way I understood it to
be from the Council members that since there was not going to be an additional charge to have
this group represent us, let's - -at the very least - -meet this individual and see how they would
represent us with this new unit. Well, then on July 31st, the representative from Labor
Relations, Karen Olson, came out, gave us a nice presentation and where she saw the City
going, how she would handle this, but it was going to cost an additional seventy, approximately
seventy dollars an hour in addition to what we are already paying them to do our current labor
relations negotiations. And I just, I question where is this RFP at this point? Is this gonna
move forward? What's happened to it? Cam?
• Interim City Manager Cam Andre -
The idea behind that was to attempt to save the City money and not spend as much on hiring an
outside negotiator. However, whatever the preference of the Council is, we will proceed on that
basis. I wasn't trying to pre -empt the Council in that respect. I just brought to your attention
the possibility of using Labor Relations at a lesser cost or no cost. And if you want to go ahead
with an RFP for attorneys I think you ought to and I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression.
Councilmember Mann -
Well, I'm not here to point the blame, Cam, and I understand we all want to save money where
we possibly can, but this is a new contract. My understanding is everything is open: salary,
uh benefits, everything. And I think an RFP doesn't cost anything. We already voted on it.
I would like to see it move forward.
Councilmember Hilstrom -
Madam Mayor?
Mayor Kragness -
Yes Debra?
Councilmember Hilstrom -
•
8/14/95
Well I have a concern I would like to bring up that is off the topic of labor negotiations, but it
does also deal with communication.. After I saw it on the agenda, I thought this was the perfect
g � g P •
time to discuss (interrupted by Mayor Kragness)
Mayor Kragness -
Maybe we could finish with the one item first before we go onto the second one? Uh Cam, at
this point then would you follow through on that RFP and we'll get more quotes. My
understanding is that we are looking at a minimum of 120 dollars an hour if we go with a legal
firm.
Interim City Manager Cam Andre -
Well, I'm not sure about that, but it'll probably vary according to the firm.
Mayor Kragness -
Yeah, I'm sure and also the amount of time involved, but as Kristen said, it isn't going to cost
us anything to go for the RFP. So we will do that and we'll have something to compare. Thank
you. Debra.
Councilmember Hilstrom -
Okay, um, there are three areas that, that I briefly have some concerns about. One was on April
10th, the Interim City Modeling, Interim City Hall Remodeling. I felt there was some
information presented and if you want me to be specific I will, otherwise I'll just briefly state
the three items, kinda make a brief summary and then we can talk at a work session,
(interrupted by Councilmember Carmody) •
Councilmember Carmody -
Can I ask why none of this was included in our packet? I mean when I have brought stuff
forward usually put in the packet.
Councilmember Hilstrom -
Well, I did this in response to the item on the agenda.
Councilmember Carmody -
Well, maybe you would like to get your stuff together so that I can read it first? I don't really
like -
Mayor Kragness -
I think maybe if she could bring the idea forward we could ask for this to be tabled then until
Y g
a further time with some backup information. Would that be (interrupted by Councilmember
Carmody)
Councilmember Carmody -
8/14/95 - 12 - •
Well, I mean you know this was brought up under the guise of communication. Communication
means both ways and it doesn't sound like we are communicating with each other, if we're
• trying to just bring it up here at Council without any preparation.
Councilmember Hilstrom -
Well ultimately, I'm willing to bring it up anywhere, I just believe that I have some concerns
about communication and information where we've been told one thing. And then ultimately
we take a vote and then things unravel two weeks later where you receive other information and
then ultimately you have to turn around and look at the vote that you made and whether or not
that was the correct vote to make given the new information. I have three incidences that I am
more than willing to state, with Cam, with the Council, whatever, but I really believe that this
issue needs to be addressed.
Councilmember Mann -
Point of order Your Honor, Kathleen, I requested this put on the agenda this evening stating
discussion of staff reports and policy. After mulling it over and giving deep consideration to
this, I am not here tonight to point fingers. I am trying to tie this back to that there is a
communication problem and I called you this afternoon to let you know that's where I see the
problems in communications, and you didn't return my call.
Councilmember Carmody -
You know I hate to tell you, my life does not revolve around your schedule Kristen and I was
busy from that time. I didn't get the message until 4:30.
• Councilmember Mann -
But to say that you were not given a clue is inaccurate Councilmember Carmody.
Councilmember Carmody -
I think there's no problem with putting a memorandum in the agenda packet that explains it.
Mayor Kragness -
I think at this time I'd like to see this tabled. This is not the place for this kind of discussion.
And if we could table this until the next work session. And Debra if you would get the
information that you have and let us tackle it at that time, and we'll be glad to get whatever
answers that we can from staff and I'm sure Cam or whoever would be happy to do that. Are
there any other questions that you want to bring forward? Let's do that and we'll fit this into
our next work session where we can discuss it. Any other comments at this time on this one?
(Verbatim transcript ends.)
SPECIAL REQUEST FROM GREG LUTGEN TO APPROACH COUNCIL REGARDING HIS
RESIDENCE AT 7216 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
•
8/14/95' - 13 -
e 4
Mayor Kragness indicated what Mr. Lutgen would present should have been done during the
Council's designated open forum. However, she would make an exception since the item had •
been brought before Council previously for consideration.
Mr. Lutgen referred to a street change proposal submitted to the City after June 26, 1995, and
response received accordingly from the Director of Public Services. He commented the
respective response was very professional, however, he stated he saw something that just did not
add up, and felt compelled to share his views with Council. He stated the proposal he had
submitted was similar to a half- bubble cul -de -sac located on June and 69th.
Councilmember Carmody clarified Council's decision to not approve Mr. Lutgen's street change
proposal was strictly cost related and not based on numbers of residences .which would be
affected by approval of his proposed change. She inquired whether Mr. Lutgen would present
cost related information to Council in such a manner that it would incline Council to reconsider
its decision. Mr. Lutgen stated he was prepared to present information to Council that was
related to cost factors and very much his concern.
Mr. Lutgen submitted a newspaper article from the Post which contained information pertaining
to current traffic flows 47 � 000 cars P er day) and projected traffic flow increases (54,000 cars
( Y) P J
per day) contingent upon completion of a current road project located by his property. Given
projected traffic flow increases, Mr. Lutgen indicated this would surely affect the traffic flow
on his street as well.
Mr. Lutgen stated his four boys are suffering from lung problems (chronic wheezing and •
coughing) and provided a letter of confirmation from the boys' physician. Mr. Lutgen offered
the location of his house is a unique situation in that after full completion of the 96 -97
development, his house would be the only one on Brooklyn Boulevard that is north of 694 and
on the downward side where the wind would primarily blow. He acknowledged understanding
Council's decision as being cost related, however, his situation was one that required a solution
as well. Mr. Lutgen requested Council study the effects of turning his residence area into a
commercial zone. He also sighted the potential increase in tax dollar revenue associated with
commercial property versus residential property.
Mayor Kragness stated the Director of Community Development had talked with Mr. Lutgen.
She explained future plans appeared to include the area Mr. Lutgen was speaking on, but
Council had to work within financial constraints as well as this type of project being ongoing
and Council could offer no time line guarantees.
Mr. Lutgen stressed he was unable to sell his home for residential value as it has decreased and
the busier the road gets, the more commercial development, the less and less chances he has of
selling his home. He added that given publishing of traffic flow numbers in the Post article, the
chances of selling his property have been greatly hindered. Again, he stated health concerns
relating to his family and requested a study be done of the area to better project future zoning
of his property. Mayor Kragness referred him to Mr. Hoffman.
8/14/95 - 14- •
t t
Councilmember Hilstrom added Mr. Lutgen might confer with City staff to assess his place on
a priority list to hopefully provide him with time lines or future plans.
• Mr. Lutgen introduced Jeff Lipma, a neighbor residing at 4727 Wingard Lane. Mr. Lipma
offered verbal support on behalf of Mr. Lutgen's proposal and indicated some same concerns
for his family too. Mayor Kragness thanked both residents for their input.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -04
REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 1 AND ASSOCIATED FORCE MAIN
Councilmember Hilstrom requested removal of the resolution because inadequate information
was provided on the bids and the selection process.
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to table the
resolution contingent upon more information being provided to Council passed unanimously.
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1995 -06 1995 -15 1994 -23 AND 1994 -M
Councilmember Hilstrom inquired about procedure if the cost of work performed is higher than
the original contract. The Director of Public Services explained in this case, the number of
quantities was established by staff and if an overage occurs, it is usually because the contractor
encounters unanticipated conditions in the field that requires a change in plans and specifications.
• Councilmember Hilstrom questioned the threshold before Council approval is required. The
Director of Public Services advised the threshold is if the overage is in excess of 5% of the
contract cost.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -187
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, 1995 SEALCOAT PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -06,
CONTRACT 1995 -A
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann and passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -188
Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1994 -15, ADA TRAILS, CURB CUTS, AND
•
8/14/95 - 15 -
PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND 1994 -23, MISCELLANEOUS SIDEWALK REPAIRS,
CONTRACT 1994 -M •
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen
Mann and passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Kragness declared the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. stating the Brooklyn Center City
Council would reconvene in Executive Session following the EDA meeting to address litigation
issues.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
Connie Beckman
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
•
8/14/95 - 16- •
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
AUGUST 21, 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 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Kristen
Mann. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, Director of Finance Charlie
Hansen, Financial Commission members Donn Escher, Ron Christensen, Ned Storla, and Jay
Hruska. Also present was Council Secretary Connie Beckman.
Councilmember Barb Kalligher was absent.
JOINT DISCUSSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION 1996 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
The Interim City Manager in presenting the preliminary budget noted no major changes were
being proposed in program areas and anticipated only moderate increases in revenues. no
increased revenues. There is still uncertainty with regard to federal subsidies.
The Director of Finance presented the proposed City 1996 Budget Calendar. Information
received from the state indicates the City's share of HACA, higher than estimated in the budget.
The Director of Finance suggested September 6, 1995, for additional consideration of the
proposed budget. The deadline for certification of a chosen property tax levy amount is
September 15, 1995. Additional work sessions in November may be necessary to further discuss
the budget and allow for public hearings. A final budget could not be adopted until public
hearings are conducted.
The Director of Finance discussed the five funds with property tax levies. General Fund,
E.D.A., H.R.A., Special Assessment Bonds of the previous year, and Special Assessment Bonds
of the current year. A figure of three percent is used to estimate taxes. The levy will be going
up about 3.8 percent, State Local Government Aid going up about 3.7 percent. Tax based
revenues are estimated at an increase of 2.61 percent. A typical rule -of -thumb in determining
an actual dollar amount increase to residents would be $4 for every $100,000 levied.
Councilmember Hilstrom questioned the organizational structure chart on page five of the
proposed budget as compared to the organizational structure chart on the 1995 budget. The
Director of Finance answered there are no changes.
8/21/95 - 1 -
AW
The Director of Finance explained the equipment revolving fund in the Central Garage amortizes
equipment of all departments. Increased proposed expenditures are necessary because of (1) new
additional equipment and (2) increased costs of replaced equipment because of inflated costs.
The Interim City Manager said the Council should have a report on the subject of liquor store
operation and prospects in six to seven weeks.
The memo indicating the City Manager department budget requests was distributed.
Councilmember Hilstrom requested a report on the use of staff vehicles.
Councilmember Mann left the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
Councilmember Hilstrom requested information on comparisons about legal fees other
governments /communities are paying for services similar to the City. The Interim City Manager
indicated the City was slightly lower because most attorneys require a retainer and hourly rate;
the City's hourly rate is lower.
Councilmember Mann returned to the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
In response to Councilmember Carmody, the Director of Finance indicated that the cost of
improving the existing council sound system and acoustics would be approximately $200,000,
and noted previous Councils did not express interest in this project.
In response to a question b Council Hilstrom the Director of Finance assured that all costs •
P q Y
were included in the liquor store fund. Ned Storla added he suspected the new accounting
approach would provide better detail.
Councilmember Carmody inquired about the allocation of Data Processing Costs. The Director
of Finance clarified ordinary costs are charged to the activity but a larger cost (i.e. mobile police
units) is charged to the using department in the budget.
In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Carmody, the Director of Finance said the school
which utilizes the School Liaison Officer reimburses the City about seventy -five percent.
Councilmembers Hilstrom and Carmody requested more information on the Code Enforcement
Officer job description and activities.
Councilmember Carmody asked for more information regarding the animal control program.
The Interim City Manager promised to report on this program.
The Council asked for more information on Capital Outlay.
8/21/95 - 2 -
ti
It was decided the next Budget Work Session was scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 1995.
OTHER BUSINESS
EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER
Councilmember Hilstrom expressed concern regarding financial status of the Center.
Mayor Kragness indicated she had talked with Judith Bergeland and the Director of Community
Development. Both people suggested the Council hold a work session at the Center which
would provide Council with an opportunity to view the Center.
Councilmember Hilstrom stated Council needs to have proper information and /or futures
planning in hand to make an informed vote regarding budget items for the Center. She added
refusal to approve any budget until concrete ideas are provided about the Center's financial
stability.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to adjourn the
meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:44
P. M.
i Deputy City Clerk Mayor
Recorded and transcribed by:
Connie Beckman
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
8/21/95 - 3 -
r
G `mo
v
o y •
�M
Hennep in Co '
xn.�rnu�u. Works
An Employment, Public Works and Tax Base Development Program
• Starltune
14A • Wednesday /Febwary 15/1995
I
Metro green
Park - building project merits support
Minneapolis and Hennepin County are decaying neighborhoods will get new
asking the Legislature for so little to parks and waterways, and workers will
deliver so much. Free us to eliminate get decent -wage short-term jobs. But if j
costly state paperwork in welfare ad- they are right, much more will be
ministration, they say, and let us take a achieved. Attractive green space will
fair share of existing welfare, student produce higher adjacent property Val- +
aid and pollution cleanup funds. In ues and attract private housing and
return , we'll renew lives and city neigh- commercial development, which in ,
borhoods at the same time. turn will generate more tax revenues,
some of which will fund more Commu-
Their proposal goes by a couple of nity Works projects. Workers will get
names -- Hennepin Community skills and experience to help them land
Works at the county Government Ccn- lasting private - sector employment.
• ter, Empowerment Zones at the Capi- `
Col. But no matter what the idea is Significantly, the project also could
Ultimately called, it will be a bargain show the way for more cost - saving joint
For Minnesota if it achieves only the ventures by local governments in the
most modest aspirations of its design- metro area. It involves Minneapolis ,
ers. The Legislature should say an enthu- city, parks and school governments,
siastic yes, and put the project on an Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Park, plus the
aggressive implementation time line. county's parks board and board of com-
missioners. ;
Hennepin Community Works melds a i also being asked to play a role.eso-
1990s notions about welfare reform f
and urban renewal with the most suc- The stare's blessing is sought to free the ,
cessful human - and infrastructure- money needed to start the project, and
building efforts of the 1930s, the Works to allow it to perpetuate itself by retain -
Progress Administration and the Civil- ing a portion of the increased tax reve-
ian Conservation Corps. It proposes to nues it might generate. State sanction
Put' welfare recipients, students, idle should also give the project an en-
urban teens and other underemployed hanced chance at state funds ear-
Minnesotans to work on land reclama- marked for public - service jobs far wel-
tion projects in distressed metro neigh- fare applicants — something in the
borhoods. No new public spending is governor's AFDC budget proposal.
being sought for -the jobs. Waiving
:some state welfare administration re- A little green -- of both the folding and
quirements wiR free enough money to the grassy kind — can do a Iot for both
start the projects; existing welfare, Stu- people and a place down on their luck-
deat aid, youth employment and pollu- Hennepin Community Works proposes
d9ii cleanup funds are expected to coy- a creative, cost- erTicient way to supply
• er ongoing labor costs. some of both. It's a project that should
win applause and approval from the
At; a minimum, project designers say, Minnesota Legislature.
F
i
Hennepin Community Works
A new strategy to redesign the urban environment
Ambitious goals
New jobs. New connections between suburban communities and
urban neighborhoods. New green spaces that shape the urban environment
in troubled neighborhoods. Tax -base expansion.
These are the goals of Hennepin Community Works, a bold new
multi- agency program recommended by a special study commission
consisting of representatives of government, neighborhoods, business and
labor in Hennepin County.
•
Hennepin Community Works has been endorsed b the Hen
P tY Y eP
County Board of Commissioners, the Minneapolis City Council, the
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the Suburban Hennepin County
Park District and the Minneapolis School Board.
The employment, public works and tax -base development program
was launched by the governmental bodies' at their joint session in September
1994. Elected officials directed staff to transform the concept into specific
project proposals.
The range of project ideas includes the construction of green spaces,
parkways and parks; hiking and biking trails; the restoration of
environmental systems; and the restoration of habitat.
The time to act is now
Hennepin County is experiencing economic deterioration in its urban
neighborhoods and suburban communities. This deterioration is
demonstrated in a number of areas: depressed employment and earning
levels; increased reliance on public assistance and social services; an
expanding crime rate; and substandard residential, commercial and public -use
property.
A basic principle of Hennepin Community Works is that
neighborhoods connected to other communities by parks, waterways and
other public amenities maintain high property values, have less crime and
foster a better quality of life.
With projects that will create job opportunities, the plan is to link
neighborhoods and communities in partnerships to raise the quality of life. In
• doing so, tax -base expansion will be realized and long -term, self - sustaining
employment will be generated.
"Hennepin Community Works is as much a philosophy of how local
governments can link resources, information and personnel as it is a process
for selecting and constructing public works projects," said Hennepin County
Board Chair Mark Andrew, chief sponsor of the program.
A visionary approach
To the best of the study commission's knowledge, Hennepin
Community Works is a ground- breaking program nationally.
What makes Hennepin Community Works different from other parks
and public works projects is that this large - scale, multi- jurisdictional
community development program will enable connections between people,
systems and resources. Hennepin Community Works bridges organizational
and jurisdictional gaps and focuses on physical links as a means to encourage
community connections.
Another basic principle of Hennepin Community Works is that public
jdevelopment projects will offer training and employment opportunities to
chronically underemployed and unemployed residents of neighborhoods in
which projects are located. This employment will prove another connection
-- disadvantaged persons to their communities.
Although Hennepin Community Works can't solve the deterioration
in our urban neighborhoods and suburban communities by itself, it can make
a significant difference by providing the physical "ground works" to
encourage the revitalization of troubled neighborhoods and communities
and by developing the potential of the workforce.
A planning committee overseeing the next phase of the project is to
• recommend three specific projects by this spring one in south or southeast
Minneapolis; another in north or northeast Minneapolis; and a third in the
suburbs.
A collaborative effort
The program was approved in concept during a joint session of the
governmental units in August 1993. The jurisdictions created. the Parks and
Public Works Commission to study the feasibility of such a program in the
communities of Hennepin County.
The 16- member commission, co- chaired by Harrison Fraker and Judith
Martin, concluded that "well designed and carefully integrated parks and
public works projects maintain and enhance the long -term tax base of
• neighborhoods while improving the quality of life."
The commission also found that "the implementation of these projects
will provide immediate employment and job training while laying the
groundwork for long -term employment opportunities."
Parks and Public Works Commission members
Harrison Fraker, co -chair
Design Center for American Urban Landscape,
Dean of College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture,
University of Minnesota
Judith Martin, co -chair
Minneapolis Planning Commission
Barbara Johnson
appointed by Hennepin County Board
Brian Nelson
appointed by Hennepin County Board
Steve Claypatch
appointed by Hennepin County Private Industry Council
Caren Dewar Saxton
appointed by Minneapolis Private Industry Council
Robert Hannah
• appointed by City of Minneapolis
Bruce Tetzman
appointed-by City of Minneapolis
Rochelle Berry Graves
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
George Puzak
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
David Dombrowski
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
Marcia Taubr
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
P l�
George Garnett
Minneapolis Consortium of Non -Profit Developers
Morris Knopf
Greater Minneapolis Area .Chamber of Commerce
Todd Pufahl
Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council
John Herman
appointed jointly by Hennepin County Board, City of Minneapolis and
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
•
Hoisi Von Koegler Group Inc.
ME]
130
INTRODUCTION
In 1994, the Hennepin County Parks and Public Works Commission completed a
study of the concept of "Community Works ". One of the implementation steps
recommended by the Commission was the evaluation of implementation
opportunities for selected projects, looking at a research methodology and short and
long -term goals for job generation and tax base enhancement.
This study is part of the implementation process. It includes the following:
• Review of the concept and guiding principles of the Hennepin
Community works Program.
• Evaluation of the implications of two proposed projects as models to test
the hypothesis.
• Development of a framework for further evaluation of the economic
implications of community works projects.
The conclusions and observations in this study are based on:
• Review of "Hennepin Community Works: an Employment, Public Works
and Tax Base Development Program," the final report of the Parks and
Public Works Commission, dated June 1994.
• Review of plans for proposed community works projects.
• Inspection of project areas.
• Review and analysis of available demographic and economic data on the
project areas.
• Past experience and professional judgment of the study team.
It is important to note that, to a substantial degree, the conclusions reached in this
study are based on experience and should not be construed to represent an
exhaustive study of probable economic effects.. While much more study yet needs to
be done, we are strong in our conviction that the health and welfare of America's
cities will depend on multi-jurisdictional/functional efforts such as those advocated
by the Hennepin Community Works Program. It is our conclusion, based on
experience, that properly integrated projects such as Humboldt Avenue and 29th
Street will produce jobs, community value and lasting economic benefits.
Land Use/ Environmental • Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 6 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ` (612) 835 -9960 • Fax: (612) 835 -3160
ECONOMIC RvIPLICATIONS
• The underlying principles of the Community Works Program are that these projects
will have positive economic impacts through the stimulation of employment
development, the enhancement of tax base and the revitalization of community.
The study seeks to begin the process of evaluating the economic implications of
community works projects. This study is not intended to provide answers to the
direct questions raised by the Hennepin Community Works Program, but rather to
offer impressions and a framework for further study.
Our evaluation relies on two important assumptions:
a There is a difference between community works and traditional public
works projects.
■ Community Works projects are part of a broader, coordinated approach to
community and neighborhood revitalization.
Traditionall public w focus on single-function issues. Streets are
s projects
designed for o rk the safe and efficient nt movement of traffic. Aesthetic improvements
may enhance visual appeal. Parks often target the recreational needs of the
community. While good street and park systems are assets to a community, in and
of themselves, they rarely provide a strong incentive for development.
mm work projects as catalysts Community Works seeks to use arks and public s for o
rY s P P P) Y
• community revitalization. This concept views the entire scope of public parks and
open space as essential elements of urban infrastructure with the capacity to
leverage job creation and tax base enhancement.
To address the economic implications of Community Works, it is important to
understand the driving forces behind community development. Investment occurs
because people want to be in a particular location either to live, to recreate, or to do
business. Many "environmental" factors influence development and locational
decisions.
History shows that programs that take single - purpose approaches fail to
significantly alter location and investment decisions. Improving physical
conditions does not significantly reduce crime. Providing sites for commercial
development requires access to customers and workers. An integrated approach
addresses the spectrum of factors that influence location. This approach offers the
greatest chance to affect long -term community vitality. For the purpose of our
evaluation, we assume that Community Works Projects will provide a means for
integrating programs that target these factors. This approach makes Community
Works projects potential catalysts for community and neighborhood revitalization,
rather than simply large public works projects.
Hennepin Community Works Report Page 2
Community Works projects will have several immediate economic implications:
■ Tax base will be lost in the short —run. Both the proposed projects will
• initially take property off the tax rolls.
■ The construction and maintenance of projects will create job
opportunities.
■ The value of property adjacent to the projects will be enhanced, stabilizing
neighborhood values.
The long —term economic benefits of Community Works are tied to the ability to
connect community reinvestment, resources and programs with new development.
Joba bon Jobe from
Project Project
construction mrioeeoaacc lob creation
Enlsnoe 1zccn c to Dente Id for
Commoai nets Pre eel value of teiaveot in Clytt for ARrset new
�' j sdjstmt � cxist g w rcdevelopmest People dcrelo meat
Prop ty property ` I Ip
W W W
Ern ted Eaboeeed Enkuccd
Tax Base Tax Dom Tax Bose
Experiences worthy of note include:
• A recent economic impact study for the Seattle Commons concluded that:
• tax revenues generated from the project will be between $1.2 and $1.3
billion;
• expenses insured by the City for basic services, e.g. general government,
police and courts, fire, library, human services and park maintenance
and operations, will be between $74 and $77 million, while the net
present value of income from the planning area will exceed $155
million;
• private investments for building improvements will range from $2.3
to $2.4 billion; and
• the City can expect a net increase of 16,500 to 22,600 permanent jobs, not
including temporary construction, manufacturing or vendor jobs.
• Information provided from the Hennepin County Geographic
Information System (GIS) indicates that market values have generally
increased in the vicinity of the Minneapolis lakes and parkway systems.
Hennepin Community Works Report Page 3
PROJECTS DESCRIPTION
This study evaluates two projects to test the implications of the Hennepin
Community Works Program.
Humboldt Avenue Corridor
Humboldt Avenue has been
variously described as a one or Palmer Lake
two block wide parkway/ Perk
greenway to be developed at a
cost of between $20 and $30
million dollars. It would o
involve the taking of residential
properties and result in the P61k
immediate loss of property tax '
base. It was selected because it:
1) already exhibits rudimentary spin
neighborhood decline, 2) is Ave. "
multi - jurisdictional embracing
both Minneapolis and Brooklyn C=
Center, and 3) is suburban in .. - U"'
nature.
a O �
E
a �
o
n
v
Humboldt Corridor
29th Street Corridor The 29th Street project is the subject of a $1.27 million dollar
ISTEA grant which was approved for the construction of a bikeway within the Soo
Line Railroad right -of -way between France and Stevens Avenues. This corridor
correlates with a future LRT alignment, should it ever be constructed. It is also part
of the larger "Mid —Town Greenway" proposal that is intended to connect the
western suburbs to the Mississippi River through the Seward neighborhood. No
specific cost estimates have been generated for the Mid -Town Greenway, however,
this project may cost in the neighborhood of $15 million dollars. This would
include a multi- million dollar crossing of Hiawatha Avenue, land acquisition,
relocation costs plus design and construction. The reason this model project was
selected is because it has the long -term potential to integrate: 1) neighborhood
revitalization, 2) economic development, and 3) job creation and training.
Hennepin Community works Report Page 4
Cedar Lake Q-
Lake of the mQ
isles c c
A •( C �
Q � m
29th Street
,w ppODDOOn Bobo aUOM Oooaoaoaa
O
` 00 o Lake SL
m
` a U
0
Lake
Calhoun
c
38th St.
29th Street
Corridor
It is our assumption that these projects will be the initial steps in carrying out a
County -wide Community Works Program.
• PROJECT AREAS DES(::R=ON
Humboldt Avenue Corridor Humboldt Avenue is the primary north /south
neighborhood collector street, connecting 44th Avenue on the south to 57th
Avenue on the north. Fifty -third Avenue North represents the common
municipal boundary between Brooklyn Center and the City of Minneapolis. The
neighborhood is entirely residential with the exception of small commercial clusters
at 49th and 52nd Avenues at Humboldt.
Generally, the housing in the Humboldt Avenue corridor is in the range of 25 to 49
years of age. Market values of homesteaded properties north of 53rd Avenue are in
the range of $50,000 to $90,000. South of 53rd Avenue there are a significant number
of homesteaded properties with market values of less than $50,000.
Changes in market values within the Humboldt Avenue corridor between 1987 and
1994 evidence generally increasing values westerly of Humboldt Avenue and
northerly of 53rd Avenue North. Market values east from Humboldt Avenue and
- south of 53rd Avenue North show a large number of properties having an absolute
loss in value between 1987 and 1994. This latter area also has experienced a
considerable number of homestead to non - homestead conversions during the
1987 -95 period. These represent ominous trends given that this neighborhood is in
the direct path of change that is emanating from the core city.
•
Hennepin Community Works Report Page 5
Humboldt Avenue represents an important linkage between Memorial Parkway on
the south and Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center. Shingle Creek Parkway
ultimately extends to the Palmer Lake Park /Nature Center and, incidentally,
parallels the Shingle Creek Trailway. Brookdale Shopping Center also represents an
important anchor for the Humboldt Avenue neighborhood. The connection of
Memorial Parkway to Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center via Humboldt
Avenue could have significant linkage potential. It represents a multi—
jurisdictional collaborative effort between Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center,
29th Street Corridor Land use in the 29th Street corridor is variable. Near the
west end of the corridor, at France Avenue, it is adjacent to the Minikanda Club,
high - density housing and commercial development. In the vicinity of Lake
Calhoun, open space predominates and then gives way to commercial and higher
density housing westerly of Lyndale Avenue. East of Lyndale Avenue, the corridor
is flanked throughout by industrial development. South of the industrial corridor
is the Lake Street commercial area. The north side of the corridor is predominately
mixed residential.
The railroad operates in a trench approximately 20 to 30 feet below the average
ground elevation. There continues to be limited use of this track. Only one
industry along the rail is serviced by it because of the large grade differential. This
grade differential will continue to be a problem in the future.
The area easterly of Lyndale Avenue is in a state of transition. Housing conditions
• within the immediate vicinity of the corridor are in an advanced state of decline
and obsolescence and economic and demographic trends suggest the continuation of
neighborhood decline. While market values for homestead properties westerly of
Lyndale Avenue continue to increase, much residential on either side of the
corridor easterly of Lyndale Avenue show an absolute market value decrease. This
is in part attributable to relatively lower value homes, many being in the $50,000 or
less value range, many of which are 50 or more years old. The neighborhoods
adjoining the corridor show evidence of a considerable number of homestead to
non— homestead conversions between 1987 and 1995. The lake effect ceases to
influence property values easterly of Lyndale Avenue.
Efforts have begun to develop plans for the Lake Street corridor. The Lake Street
Project Team consisting of neighborhoods, businesses and related organizations, has
been formed to carry out this important revitalization task. While plans are, only in
the formative stage, the project team has developed a vision for Lake Street that
addresses land use, employment and corridor image. An evolving urban design
concept is that of the "urban village" which focuses retail activity at key intersection
nodes and transforms less viable commercial areas to places of employment. The
concept embraces compact development, mixed use and pedestrian accessibility.
The project team is currently in the process of being expanded to include business,
foundation and major corporation participation.
Hennepin Community Works Report Page 6
Though the neighborhoods that surround the corridor are evidencing considerable
stress, this corridor has great potential to link the chain of lakes across the city of
Minneapolis to the Mississippi River and perhaps ultimately into St. Paul. It also
represents a strong collaborative opportunity between the several neighborhoods,
the Lake Street Project Team and others.
SUMrdARY OF IlAPL ICATIONS
The implementation of the Hennepin Community Works Program will achieve the
objectives set forth in its mission statement. Community Works projects will create
jobs and access to employment opportunities. The projects will build the long -term
value of communities. The magnitude of the benefits derived from projects varies
in each setting. The long -term benefits of Community Works projects are directly
linked to the ability to foster new development. Community Works must be
coordinated with other resources and programs to maximize these benefits.
Based on the work performed in completing this study and our experience in
community and economic development, we offer the following conclusions and
observations:
• Both projects represent significant opportunities to foster collaboration
and share resources in the spirit of Community Works. Humboldt
embraces two municipalities and 29th Street corridor traverses several
neighborhoods all of whom are playing an active role in community
• revitalization.
• Both projects constitute meaningful greenway linkages to and between the
community's natural, cultural and historical resource base.
• Both projects will embody the Hennepin Community Works concept of
developing connections via multi jurisdictional parks, open spaces,
public gardens and other beautification efforts.
• The Humboldt greenway will have a significant immediate stabilizing
affect on the neighborhood's property values. In the long —term, it will
increase values by leveraging homeowner investment. Further study may,
however, demonstrate an economic return that is less than the initial
public input.
• The 29th Street bikeway, while being an important initial public
commitment to revitalize this important mid —town area of Minneapolis,
is only a first step. An expanded greenway combined with the
redevelopment of anachronistic land uses, the development and
rehabilitation of housing, transportation improvements, job creation and
training, etc., will have significant and lasting potential to enhance
property values that exceed its life cycle public costs. A significant
•
Hennepin Community Works Report Page 7
greenway infrastructure project, such as 29th Street, has the potential to be
the catalyst for the rebirth of Mid -Town.
• ■ If properly executed, both projects have the potential to create an
immediate stream of jobs plus opportunities for job training. While
Humboldt will likely create few opportunities for long —term employment
growth, 29th Street has the potential to be a catalyst for the creation of
immediate public works jobs and the development of a permanent
employment base directly related to Mid -Town.
• 29th Street, in conjunction with Lake Street revitalization efforts, has a
huge potential to leverage private capital from major businesses within
and near the corridor and from those wishing to invest in the rebirth of
Mid -Town.
• Both projects have the potential to connect isolated segments of the
community with greenway infrastructure that has been so instrumental in
maintaining and increasing the values of properties throughout the metro
area.
The immediate response to both projects is that property will be taken off the tax
rolls and used for public nontaxable purposes. If we are primarily concerned about
short -term benefits, we must ask ourselves how the decline in market values,
increase in crime, conversions to non - homestead housing, etc. might otherwise be
• reversed? Are resources currently available to affect the reversal? We will also
need to ask whether traditional redevelopment will provide long -term stability for
neighborhoods such that values will be enhanced throughout. We will need to
contrast traditional revitalization methods with the community works concept
which we believe leaves a legacy of value enhancement while re- enfranchising
areas of the community that have historically not been connected to the City's
natural resource base. These are questions that need to be answered as the property
tax valuation issue is studied in subsequent phases.
HOIS]NGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. EIMERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Frei& Hoisington, Ak# Russell F" ' A
Hennepin Co: wnrity Works Report Page 8
�r
y
o .
~ a'
v`� O
O
ti
s..
J � ^ r
COP h
.Q ye
G
ed Qe•�
0
v a
.Q
H enne In Co um Works
An Employment, Public Works and Tax Base Development Program
1995 Project Selection Report
BEENNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS
PLANNING COMMITTEE
1
MEMBER APPOINTED BY
I
Patrick O'Connor Hennepin County
Craig Rapp Hennepin County
Perry Thorvig City of Minneapolis
Henry "Bo" Spurrier City of Minneapolis
Doug Bryant Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Distri t
Margie Ostlund Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Distrit
David Fisher Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Harvey Feldman Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Don Hayden Minneapolis Public Schools
STAFF
John McLaughlin Hennepin County
Jim Ford Hennepin County
Larry Blackstad Hennepin County
HENNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING
COMMITTEE REPORT
1995 PROJECT ENDORSEMENTS
Hennepin Community Works seeks to enhance how the communities of
Hennepin County work together to create good jobs, provide access to
employment and build the long term value of communities by investing in
infrastructure, public works, parks and the natural environment, and by
improving the existing implementation systems.
1
Hennepin Community Works Mission Statement
I. INTRODUCTION
By enactment of three Joint Resolutions at their September 28, 1994 Joint Session, the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, the Minneapolis City Council, the Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the
Minneapolis School Board accepted Hennepin Community Works, the report of the Parks and
Public Works Study Commission which establishes the feasibility of an integrated public
works, job creation tax base enhancement program. The resolutions also identified Hennepin
County as the lead agency for continued development of the Hennepin Community Works
program, and established the Hennepin Community Works Planning Committee. The partner
jurisdictions directed that the Planning Committee be comprised of two appointees from each
of the five sponsoring agencies. The Committee was instructed to develop a project
identification and selection process based on the accepted Hennepin Community 'Works
Program Principles: Stimulate Employment Development; Build Bridges for Effective
Planning and Implementation; Maintain and Improve Natural Systems; Strengthen
Communities through Connections; and Enhance the Tax Base, as developed by the Parks
and Public Works Study Commission.
s Based on the work of the Study Commission the Planning Committee developed a project
P P 1
proposal and evaluation process for distribution to all of the communities, school districts and
special taxing jurisdictions in Hennepin County. In response to the invitation for proposals.
the Planning Committee received 15 project proposals from four jurisdictions: the City of
Brooklyn Center (2); the City of Minneapolis (10 ); the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District (1); and Hennepin County (2).
IL PLANNING COMMITTEE ENDORSEMENT
SUMMARIES
Through the proposal review process the Planning Committee identified program and
connections betty v
geographic een se eral ro'ect
zo owls rec c v
p � p p mmen s onsolidating se
to develo more comprehensive activities supported by the principles of the Hennepin
Community Works program. The following Committee endorsement summaries review the
submitted proposals and recommended consolidations.
The committee endorsed four proposals as priorities for continued project development and
implementation.
I. Humboldt Avenue Greenway /Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland
(Consolidated from the following proposals)
Humboldt Avenue Greenway /City of Minneapolis
Humboldt Avenue Greenway /City of Brooklyn Center
Shingle Creek Wetland /City of Minneapolis
Shingle Creek Regional Pond /City of Brooklyn Center
Committee Comments
These proposals submitted independently by the City of Minneapolis and the City of
Brooklyn Center will create a parkway north from Victory Memorial Parkway to 57th Street
along Humboldt Avenue. The parkway will be linked to the planned storm water
collection/filtration pond and wetland planned for the adjacent Shingle Creek neighborhood.
This facility will serve as a storm water collection area for the Brookdale Mall and facilitate
further commercial development in the area.
2. 29th Street Greenway /Nicollet Avenue Reopening at Lake Street/
~ (consolidated from the following proposals)
I 29th Street Greenway /City of Minneapolis
Nicollet Avenue Reopening /City of Minneapolis
Committee Comments
These two project submitted by the City of Minneapolis will create a greenway /recreational
trail along the 29th street rail corridor from France Avenue to Hiawatha Avenue. that when
merged with the proposed re- opening of the Lake Street/ Nicollet Avenue intersection will
stimulate the development of a plaza and commercial district in the area. Eventually the
greenway corridor may be expanded east to the river and west to the new regional southwest
and west regional trailhead in the City of Hopkins .
3. Hopkins LRT Corridor /Cedar Lake Trail Extension / Bassetts Creek
Rehabilitation /Dinkytown Plaza -SEMI -Stone Arch Bridge
(Consolidated from the following proposals)
Hopkins LRT Corridor /Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
Bassetts Creek Rehabilitation -Cedar Lake Trad/Hennepin County
Cedar Lake Trail Extension/City of Minneapolis
Dinkytown Plaza -SEMI -Stone Arch Bridge Greenway /City of Minneapolis
Committee Comments
This proposal represents a consolidation of proposals submitted by the Suburban Hennepin
Regional Park District, the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. The proposal will
link the Suburban Regional Trail system to the Minneapolis Trail system at Cedar Lake.
Additionally the proposal will clean up Bassetts Creek and open it for recreational and
development uses from Wirth Park to the River. The Bassetts Creek rehabilitation will link
with the trail system at Bryn Mawr Commons Park. The Cedar Lake Trail extension will
take the trail from its current 7th street terminus P ast downtown to the river, which will
allow it to be connected via the Stone Arch Bridge to the proposed Dinkytown plaza across
the rail corridor to the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial area.
4. Plymouth Avenue Greenway /Sumner Field Redevelopment
(Consolidated from the following proposals)
Plymouth Avenue Greenway /City of Minneapolis
Sumner Field Re- development. /City of Minneapolis
Committee Comments
Through consolidation, these projects will connect Wirth Park to the Mississippi River along
Plymouth Avenue, redesigning the avenue to accommodate development and pedestrian/bike
- traffic and create a north -south link which may eventually tie into the Hopkins LRT project
discussed above. The Sumner Field project area currently holds a massive public housing
j development scheduled for demolition. The redevelopment of this parcel has enormous
i potential to revitalize the area and create connections to other areas of the city.
The following three proposals were not selected to be in the inital designation of Hennepin
Community Works projects. The Northeast Riverfront/Marshall Parkway project was seen as
an excellent candidate for future designation and the Portland /Park Avenue proposal was
deemed consistent with program goals but of a lesser priority. The Glen Lake Golf Course
was viewed as consistent with program goals and will be carried forward in partnership
between Hennepin County and the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.
Northeast Riverfront/Marshall Avenue Parkway /City of Minneapolis
Committee Comments
This proposal will develop a greenway beginning at the Grain Belt Brewery north along the
river on Marshall Avenue to the city limit. The project would clear much of the current
riverf ront development. Residential and commercial redevelopment facing on the river is
anticipated. A tie to the Bottineau neighborhood NRP plan is also envisioned.
Portland and Park Avenue Reconfiguration/City of Minneapolis
Committee Comments
This proposal will reduce the density and speed of traffic along these arterial by narrowing
the right -of -way and creating a parkway type of corridor north from the city limit to
downtown.
Glen Lake Golf Course/Hennepin County
r
Committee Comments
`1 The ro sal is based on plans b p Po p y Hennepin County and the Suburban Hennepin Regional
Park District to cooperatively develop the Glen Lake Sanitarium site in Minnetonka as a nine
_) hole executive golf course.
J All of these projects, endorsed or not, are described in greater detail in Section III..
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
A.. ENDORSED PROJECTS
I. HUMBOLDT AVENUE GREENWAY /SHINGLE CREEK
REGIONAL POND AND WETLAND.
SPONSOR: Cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis; and
Hennepin County.
I The intent of this project is to create a Humboldt Avenue connection between the
Brookdale Mall, residential neighborhoods in Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis and
the Shingle Creek Valley. Included in the vision is a reestablished wetland and water
filtration pond along Shingle Creels and an expanded golf course /recreation area at
Centerbrook.
The central feature of the project is to transform Humboldt Avenue into a parkway
from Victory Memorial Drive north to Brookdale, North Mississippi Park and the
Mississippi River. The plan will require the acquisition and removal of some existing
housing along Humboldt Avenue. Much of this housing is declining in value and
represents a potential for urban blight if not restored.. The parkway will provide an
ameniry similar to Victory Memorial Drive and should result in revitalizing the
neighborhood. The connection to Brooklyn Center, Shingle Creek and the River
represent opportunities to link city and suburban neighborhoods together with natural
and recreational amenities. This linking should also result in increasing property
value and a better quality of life in the region. The wetland restoration/storm water
filtration pond feature is needed to reduce flooding in the Brookdale Area. Adding
this amenity also increases the value of the adjacent properties and will serve as a
i natural means of filtering storm water before it enters Shingle Creek and eventually
the Mississippi River.
1 fiends for planning are already available from the Minnesota Legislature. The
J
Shingle Creek Neighborhood has allocated $100,000 in Neighborhood Revitalization
Funds, and the cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis Public Works maintenance
and capital budgets are expected to direct funds toward this effort.
Hennepin Community Works 1995 Endorsed Projects:
Humboldt Avenue Greenway /Shingle Creek
Regional Pond and Wetland
North
Robbinsdale - --
II
rp 1
Shingle Creek 00 Brookdete
shoppin
Regional Pond \Center9
�,.•' and Wetland
,
rl r
u/
r -
i
-
----Humboldt Avenue Greenway 94
' - -- - Minneapoli Brookl n Center
Map prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development - June 14, 1995
2. 29TH STREET CORRIDOR /NICOLLET AVENUE REOPENING AT
LAS STREET.
SPONSOR: The City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County
The railroad corridor which extends across south Minneapolis will be redeveloped as
a multi-use transit corridor with potential for recreation areas and adjacent
commercial development. The development of this corridor will connect the western
suburbs to the Mississippi river. The potential tie to a "grand rounds trail /transit
system opens south Minneapolis neighborhoods to extensive recreational and
commercial development possibilities.
The proximity of the corridor to Lake street makes it an important factor in the
commercial redevelopment of a major arterial which has declined significantly as a
major commercial thoroughfare. By reorienting transit to the corridor and creating an
adjacent green space between 29th and Lake streets the entire width of south
Minneapolis becomes an attractive area for residential and commercial redevelopment.
The commercial redevelopment possibilities will create significant new job
opportunities for neighborhood residents.
The development of the corridor will also provide for connecting declining
neighborhoods to more stable ones in Minneapolis and the first ring suburbs. As the
rail corridor connects to other such corridors it rovides an important
p lurk for the
eventual development of a County wide trail and transit system.
As part of this project, it is suggested that the existing retail property blocking
Nic
i ollet Avenue at Lake Street be removed and the intersection reopened. This
presents an opportunity for the creation of a commercial north-south corridor along
Nicollet - -a high traffic arterial. The adjacent streets, Blaisdell Avenue and First
Avenue could be re- designated as one -way streets raising the residential property
values.
This project is positioned to take advantage of the new empowerment zone legislation
passed by the Minnesota Legislature. The creation of an empowerment zone will
enable the use of administrative savings realized by welfare system streamlining and
eventual tax value increases for development. Additionally, ISTEA funds are
available for initial trail development. Plans include a high - occupancy vehicle capacity
along the corridor which will serve to facilitate the movement of persons across the
city, reducing traffic on adjacent city streets.
w l eft
NAM
i �` *� i t Viiown Fam► ►lip �.1 °_ 'n
■1•• ��r ■ ■.., _
�.:1 mousse 1:n 11I11Uis Mountie 1.
�� IIIYIII�O11� /1,,Ir1Y�r��iJ:11 /���i������� iii►
Tit
♦ ♦ �I�� 1iiM1 NMI
11 SO► i�111 Hill �► ar
��1 /IY11rIrr10/viU /�Iilm /r!1 /dro
fill � � ►•`��� ■. ■■ �
1111 __ �lillll� i X111 1111111l►1 iln nIon
1�! -- �l�•� ���r1Ni(1ni�� � ir■��■■i�ni��� -- Wt��Yer�i� 1��11
it ( 11IiiiiNiliii • - _ NMI �r
" /n!
1/ arrillillulI mill , _ ► Nui�\�aI
� lui ulimmill i mill i • ' • Irw I1n \�y1
i1�1i1n� �) IYIII /1YRI.MMUB1� \ \�
11 IIIIIIn111111Y1ni11�iif11A� \`�
.• �IIIi111f11i1 /WI1�► !Y1 /IO�ri rrN11i1 111nr 1i11f r �11lr11HfIrI1 i
%i 111Yi 1n1�11®1�11��,, ' i�rlrl� ®It /IU11111/ /1111i111�
3. HOPKINS LRT CORRIDOR/CEDAR LAKE TRAIL,
EXTENSION/BASSETS CREEK REHABILITATION/DINKYTOWN
PLAZA -STONE ARCH BRIDGE GREENWAY.
SPONSOR: Suburban Hennepin Park Reserve District, Hennepin
County, City of Minneapolis.
Implementation of this project will create a transit, recreation and redevelopment
corridor stretching from Hopkins in the western suburbs through downtown
Minneapolis, across the Mississippi River to the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial
Area. In the process, this development will link the western part of Hennepin County
(and through other trail and greenway ties -- all of Hennepin County) to the River.
This ambitious undertaking will include several project segments which are already
either under development or completed including the Stone Arch Bridge crossing of
the Mississippi and the Cedar Lake Trail.
This proposed project also includes the development of vacant land along Bassetts
Creek, the clean -up of the creek (tied to the superfund activity at Warden Oil) and
recreational trails along the creek which would link Theodore Wirth Park to the Cedar
Lake Trail. The extension of the Cedar Take Trail through downtown to a river
crossing on the Stone Arch Bridge would complete the link of a transit and trail
system beginning along the LRT corridor in Hopkins. Where the Bridge reaches the
University of Minnesota in southeast Minneapolis, a short greenway connection to a
new bridge plaza in Dinkytown will open the area for more commercial and industrial
development adjacent to the campus in the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial Area.
The ro'ect can make use of local expenditures read planned P J p already p for the reconstruction
of two bridges across the rail corridor near the University Campus. This
I ,
reconstruction will include a plaza for commercial development. Also included are
links to a •busway /trailway from the University's Minneapolis Campus to its St. Paul
Campus.
•L•-J no.�1Y +�. r _� .:�InrG■ ._ 1■ rror�•u
/■�� 5�rlii�� \r•� \',��/ .
Or�111t1�ur•s•a ,,•u.p
?y � t • �u�i u.rlwerl■1.1■01. ■■ I wi ► l.:
t11.1. ■111. ■. •
7� ■.Ipti� 1■ 1.� , >all..tA. � r
E� �■��, ea . ; .. 1 ■. ■ - ,1tn....•• ■It ■trlul
C ■ . 1 ■au. ►( • • • • • - noau■1 == -• : !11 . nrwevo/ur�
`l td:7n���1i1t11ai /�• _ eMlu1�1�_� r •a losing
�� ■ t � u -� �t■n■unu��7 s ` �.:_...- . < mnut■uf
ts"": li ke- -= J i. = �_ • • • `,
'.•• l u� y _ � +.urn • ''
,� It • • • " i ` � 1 �si1erlgis UWU■ne� • -• -� :allritlj■ 1r
".11 !'S".�r.��ILn' ,��.� �� *� ■I• mot■ +, It■
am win
`� 1 • I�, rl•�'� 1 1t1Y1M 1 �IiY� \� •iNV\ �r�
1 Irr.�r� r U -v
�'"� . �� 1u� a�� 11_ /'r1.u�r1u1���11t1 1■t!lsu7,` \1 e
�.: "J�� r Inl ■1■IItINM�rt�r r/ �"�- �Vtn.1�1►a tt� ri .
ir01■■rl■■IF] • JAI■ �Fi� " �ti
rl��l . w^�` 1 \II��O■ fi r. .■■ltYiar�\ -�.r�.n.r.rr..
I aC ■1 • w • , • ■ • • c . - • c
a �•��;M ■■ y r11tW tut�tl ai�rlr ■S■ittlf• \��W111
r r ■mtt
►�► �� Iirratrlm■ Iris nnr■" ■1�.I.��e�er1■f■mnt
_- r1 ,.�w • . -� 11e�nr � ■ .N\\9.faUsM13
Z y % �� �`7 •� �•uiI■1•Ima•1f� ��'� Sri ttt1�11ntl�■t\\\m.fr♦1t 1■l
r j• �r� \ \ \\ r ` nw'llll ■u ■■tnea w�■nnull
�itf r■t>rwn \ \ \ \01■1■t
• • `■1 ��t ` �•• 1 �muopt♦ Itn1u1 hoerntu .r■ull■ul■t�rl\���HrlraJil
r i i � nillll p1•i low ��1.■.vl�/ p urr .■.n■ �■ r u■■rr■■m■u�uu�\\��w•I.J
1 � ^ , r'.ir.�1 r i 1/IlWmm trril ■�If \rl�ll
r � l /t11■�■ �■u rttU \o■ IIN
/' ■IltrMf■r■1 71_..._ iQ ■IIt■ 0� X1 1! ■ sell mr ■ •� \ \gltltl�
,unu.n • ��ieQr1111• aa+� �It.tu111uni■■ 1 •
inn
• l �IIW r 11.rrrr■ meram a �3, ,�. ■..:.r
ii r url u■■ ■■r1�1 ■c+1•�1 ■ 11 ■ saws ■mss
• • ;�� � .n■wloas■ _ �� °•c►�icrer %.rr� 7 pa.•— uteta�
�L � �� .. _ � ■i1�;^�. � �■■1yt �`a - fit. f.._g, .+� rtpnar■
wr.�rr\
•• • c•• —• • _ c• ♦ • - • • • • • •- - •• - - • ••
4. PLYMOUTH AVENUE GREENWAY /SUMNER FIELD
REDEVELOPMENT.
SPONSOR: City of Minneapolis.
The recent legal settlement between the City and the Federal Government which calls
for the demolition of the Sumner Field housing project, provides an opportunity to
convert the land underlying the housing project to a more natural use. The soils in
this area are of a type that do not support construction. Therefore, it is proposed that
the Sumner Field be converted to a wetland open space which can be surrounded by
residential and commercial /light industrial development.
Just north of the Sumner Field Area is Plymouth Avenue, a major arterial which
connects Wirth Park to the Mississippi River and Boom Island Park. It is proposed
that Plymouth Avenue be rebuilt as a parkway allowing for an increased green space
across North Minneapolis. The properties along Plymouth Avenue are declining in
value, with many lots vacant or occupied by deteriorating structures.
The Design Center for the American Urban Landscape at the University of Minnesota
has done considerable evaluation of this project. When completed, the two segments
of the proposal will provide open/green space connections north and south through
declining neighborhoods to major natural and recreational amenities.
Some federal funds exist for the Sumner Field portion of the project for the
demolition of existing structures and relocation of residents.
.J
• s .
Hennepin Community Works 1995 Endorsed
Projects: Plymouth Avenue Greenway/
Sumner Field Re- development
i lymouth Avenue Greenway
0
v
s
t Sumner Field Re- development
J
7
Mop prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development - June 14, 1995
i
B. PROJECTS CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED
The following projects were considered by the planning committee and were determined to
be consistent with the goals of Hennepin Community Works. Due to considerations such as
project scope, timeliness and feasibility, these projects were not selected for the initial
designation as HCW projects.
5. Northeast Riverfront/Marshall Avenue Parkway
SPONSOR: City of Minneapolis.
A river greenway along the east bank of the Mississippi, beginning at the Grain Belt
jBrewery and stretching north to the Minneapolis City limit is envisioned as a
companion to a parkway built along marshaIl Avenue. The parkway would link to
several "finger" parks and amenities planned by the Bottineau neighborhood to foam a
riverfront district in Northeast Minneapolis. Appropriate commercial development,
including the re- siting of some existing businesses would add to the economic vitality
of the area while improving the natural and recreational facilities within the project
area. Some funds already exist in capital budgets, including the re-use of the Grain
Belt Brewery and surrounding property. NRP funds are potentially available to
develop portions of the project in the Bottineau neighborhood.
6. Reconfiguration of Portland and Park Avenues
SPONSOR: City of Minneapolis.
This project will convert Portland and Park Avenues to multiple -use transit corridors.
The proposal is to reduce the speed limits on the two arterials, decrease the width,
create parking bays, bike lanes, add decorative lighting and green spaces. The
i reconfigured streets will link downtown and several south Minneapolis neighborhoods
-% to Minnehaha Parkway creating a north -south parkway /green space axis.
These parkways would intersect the proposed 29th Street Corridor development and
complement the Opportunity Zone being planned in the Central Neighborhood by
Urban Ventures. Adding amenities to these city streets will enhance the value of
adjacent residential properties and will attract commercial development.
7. Glen Lake Golf Course Development
SPONSOR: Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.
The planned Glen Lake Golf Course on property adjacent to the Hennepin County
Home School will create jobs for disadvantaged persons participating in County
programs in the operation and management of the course. In addition, the golf course
will provide a recreational facility for the adjacent neighborhoods. Vacant land will
be turned to a revenue producing purpose. The County and the Park District will
jointly develop and operate the golf course.
_
1
r
J
Hennepin Community Works 1995:
Projects Cons � s dered But Not Endorsed
OWN a
Gn�eafieW pool'
C OMM Mpk
Ved
1 C
tc�etto '� Northeast Ri- erfrant/
v..
eO Madtaa M•o• Marshall Avenue-
SL
Aaeb
_ .eLva
Vw
Yd
Orono
AOanaelaa aaJv SL Louis
Hoe- Park and Portland
r Avmues
sti
Glen Iake \ it
.� GOV Coo rse ° a`
Z" reida
a sw„
t
►*D peepuad by *a ttcm*a Cams Of as of tgxadas and aevdopmar — Hb S. 1"S
IV. NEXT STEPS
Humboldt Avenue Greenway /Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland.
The 1995 Legislature appropriated $200,000 to study urban design alternatives for the
Humboldt Avenue Corridor and the Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland and prepare a
comprehensive analysis for the selected design alternatives. Hennepin County will be
i contracting with the University of Minnesota 's Design Center for the American Urban
i Landscape to develop the study and assist in preparation of a Request for Proposal for
consultant services. It is anticipated that a multi - disciplinary Consultant Team will be in place
for the project in September. The legislation directs that Hennepin County, in cooperation
with the Metropolitan Council, present the findings and recommendation of the study to the
Senate Committee on Jobs, Energy, and Community Development and the House Committee
on Economic Development, Infrastructure and Regulated Industries by February 15, 1996.
Timeline - Project start summer 1995.
29th Street Corridor/Nicollet Avenue Reopening
The 29th Street Corridor from France Avenue to Hiawatha Avenue will be the subject area
for a neighborhood based Empowerment Zone Study, assigned by the Minnesota Legislature
to Hennepin County; the Hennepin Community Works sponsoring agencies; and the State
Commissioners of Human Services, and Labor and Industry. By August 1, 1995 the study
participants are to provide the chairs of the Senate Finance and Tax Committees, and the
House Ways and Means and Tax Committees an outline for a complete Empowerment Zone
Plan, which is due to the Legislature by December 1, 1995. County staff are currently
working with the University of Minnesota 's Design Center for American Urban Landscape
1 to draft a study design for review by the study participants.
Timeline - Project start summer 1995.
Ho kips LR Corridor/Cedar Trail Extension/Bassetts Creek
p. T Corndorl ar Lake
I Rehabilitation/Dinkytown Plaza -S M -Stone Arch Bridge
J
Hennepin Community Works staff will assemble an initial project development team
representing participant/affected agencies to explore opportunities for joint planning and
1 budgeting for the project. The project development team will also identify neighborhood and
community organizations which will participate in the project development process. Staff
will also be undertake research on possible grant funds opportunities for the project.
Timeline - Project start fall 1995.
t
t