HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 06-19 CCP Work Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JUNE 19, 1995
7:00 p.m.
Council Work Session
I � ��
1. Call to Order -7
2. Roll Call )CM > A )<, 'g�� �� , /� C , F(
I Review Administrative Procedure for Utility Billing
4. Joint Discussion with Financial Commission
a. Budget Calendar.; �Ce w
b. Preliminary 1996 Budget D.,
5. Discuss Second Draft of Bond Survey Questions IC (aA- '56i't--Q--'
6. Other Business ?// —/� r G r ,,, t ,
7. Adjournment 1 G Z
s
•
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Myrna Kragness, Council Members Barb
Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom,
Kathleen Carmody
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director c 4
DATE: June 15, 1995
SUBJECT: Administrative Procedure. for Utility Billing
Administrative Procedure for Water Shut Offs
The City of Brooklyn Center has used the shutting off of water service as a
primary means of collecting unpaid utility bills for as far back as the staff can
remember. The policy was formalized in January 1993 and expanded to include
provisions to give customers an appeal process. A copy of the January 1993
policy is attached.
We have observed a developing trend under which it is increasingly unacceptable
for the city to offend a customer. It is not possible for us to either threaten to shut
off a customer's water service, or actually shut it off, without greatly offending the
customer. This and the recent calls to treat the citizen as a customer have
prompted us to look for another collection process.
The obvious alternative would be to certify delinquent utility bills for collection
on the property tax. This is in fact the collection process currently in use by most
other cities. We are one of very few cities who shut off water service. There no
doubt are some difficulties and draw backs we would find with the certification
process, but we expect they would be less than what we are experiencing with the
shut off process. Last year we certified 21 accounts to special assessments. If we
make this change, we will be certifying hundreds of accounts each year. Even if
we switched to certification, we might want to retain shut offs as an alternative
means of collection. The one circumstance which comes to mind is an unpaid bill
on a property which doesn't pay taxes. In this case the bill couldn't be certified
and we might still want the option of doing a shut off. But the purpose of a policy
change would be to remove water service shut off as a primary means of
collection.
Rental Property Billing
The City of Brooklyn Center has given owners of rental properties the option of
having the utility ill in the name of their renters instead of the owners name.
ame.
Under Minnesota State Law, the owner is ultimately responsible for the bill,
regardless of who it is initially billed to.
Man rental property Many p p rty owners have opted for billing to the renters. This has caused
problems for the our utility billing operation due to the high turnover of tenants,
owners trying to make new tenants responsible for past unpaid bills, and owners
requesting duplicate bills so they will know if a tenant isn't paying. Most other
cities require that the utilities be billed directly to the owner.
We have considered proposing a change to billing owners for some time and are
finally bringing it to your attention now because of the switch to the new LOGIS
utility billing system. While the new LOGIS system will do almost everything
better than the old one, the one exception is handling rental property not billed to
the owner.
Based on the factors listed above, we would like to change the City's utility billing
policy to require that utilities be billed directly to the owners of rental property.
If these proposals interests the City Council, the Council could direct staff to write
a draft of a new utility billing procedure and return it to the City Council at a later
date for consideration and possible adoption.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/25/93
' Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY & PROCEDURE FOR WATER SHUT OFFS
************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
Paul Holmlund, Director of Finance
************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
STJA(Il RY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
City Ordinance 4 -202 provides that water service to any Brooklyn Center water
utility customer may upon reasonable notice be discontinued for nonpayment of
individual accounts. During the 1992 Utility Rate Review the Council approved
amending the administrative policies and procedures regarding water shutoffs.
The purpose of this discussion item is to provide the Council with details of the
proposed amendments, and a discussion of what actions the Council might expect to
be asked to take in the future.
The procedural change which would have the most impact on the Council is the
addition of a provision for an administrative hearing for persons with delinquent
utility accounts.
Briefly, persons receiving a third and final notice (the "blue notice ") that
their utility account is delinquent (this notice is sent after eight weeks) are
advised that they have a right to demand an administrative hearing before the
Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting to show cause as to why their
water should not be shut off. This administrative hearing process is proposed so
as to assure customers that their due process rights are protected.
If any person should demand a hearing before the Council, then the following
would take place:
1) The customer has eleven days from the date of the blue notice to demand a
hearing. If no such demand is received by the Monday before a regularly
scheduled meeting, then it is assumed that the customer waives rights to
this hearing. The customer will be "red tagged" for shut off.
2) If a written, signed demand for a hearing is received by the due date, then
an administrative hearing will be added to the agenda.
3) Staff will prepare a "Request for Council Consideration" which will detail
the facts of the case. This report will be made available to the customer
prior to the hearing.
4) At this hearing, the burden is on the customer to show cause as to why
water should not be shut off. If after the hearing the Council determines
that the customer did not show cause, then the water would be scheduled for
shutoff the following Wednesday. If, however, the Council determines
otherwise, or desires additional information to be discussed at a continued
hearing, then that customer's property will be removed from the list
scheduled for shut off.
Schedule
There are six billing districts, which are billed one district every two to three
weeks over the quarter. Given the existing billing schedules, if the Council
approves the proposed policy and procedural changes, the first date at which an
administrative hearing might be scheduled would be March 8th. The following is a
representative billing schedule:
January 20 Bill Due Date
January 27 2nd Notice Sent
February 18 3rd "Blue" Notice Sent
March 1 Due Date For Demand For Hearing
March 4 "Red Tag" - Shutoff Notice Delivered
March 8 Council Meeting
March 10
Water Shut Off
Other Policy and Procedural Changes,
The draft policy includes administrative changes which reduce the collections
burden on utility billing staff, and which make rental property owners more
accountable for the delinquent or unpaid final bills of their tenants. The
changes are intended to improve collections of the over $30,500 in delinquent
utility charges, and almost $19,000 ($16,425 from two commercial accounts) of
unpaid final bills.
The policy also amends the current procedures of accepting verbal promises for
payment. Partial payment plans may now only be accepted in writing. Certain
standards apply: a minimum of one - quarter of the outstanding bill must be paid
within 14 days, and the entire delinquent bill must be paid within 30 days.
RECOMMENDED
CITY COUNCIL A ION
Discuss, suggest any amendments, and approve by motion the attached
"Administrative Policy and Procedure, Water Shut Offs."
• ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY & PROCEDURE January, 1993
WATER SHUT OFFS
Brooklyn Center Ordinance 4 -202 provides that water service may upon reasonable notice be
discontinued for nonpayment of individual accounts. The following is the procedure to be followed
when public utility accounts are in arrears, or when a final billing is more than 30 days overdue.
PAYMENT POLICY
1) A public utility bill is due 28 days from the date of billing.
2) A delinquent billing is generated for each account unpaid after 35 days. Customers have 21
days to pay this delinquent bill.
3) A "blue notice" is sent to each delinquent account unpaid after 56 days. This notice informs
customers that they have 14 days to make payment. It also informs customers that they have a
right to demand a hearing at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting to show cause as to
why their water should not be shut off. The demand must be made in writing to the City
Clerk within 10 days. If no written demand is received by the Monday prior to the Council
meeting (11 days from the date of the blue notice), then it is assumed the customer waives the
right to a hearing.
• 4) On the 70th day, a "red tag" is delivered to properties where the account remains unpaid and
where no demand for a hearing has been made. This notice informs customers that payment
is due within five days or water will be immediately shutoff.
5) The City Council may at an administrative hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting consider
the shutoff of water to a property, and order staff to take such actions as it deems are
necessary.
6) A delinquent account may be considered for removal from -the shut off list if the customer
provides a written, signed payment schedule which is acceptable to the City. If that payment
schedule is not met, the property will be red tagged. A minimum acceptable schedule includes
a partial payment of at least 1/4 the total amount due paid within 14 days, and full payment
within 30 days of the date of the blue notice.
PROCEDURE
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
All delinquent accounts in excess of $100 shall be pended as a special assessment
Vacant Properties
Upon notice as described above, the water shall be shut off
• Rental Property'
If delinquency not incurred by current tenant
a) Obtain a meter reading and date of change of occupancy, and calculate final
bill for previous tenant
b) If a forwarding address is available for the previous tenant, send a final bill.
Send an informational copy to the property owner.
c) If no address is available, notify property owner of delinquent final bill
d) If not paid in 28 days, follow procedure for rental property in "FINAL
BILLS" section
If delinquency incurred by current tenant
a) Follow procedure in "NOTICE" section
b) Send informational copy of bill to property owner
Other property
Upon notice as described above, the water shall be shut off
FINAL BILLS
All final bills unpaid after 28 days shall be pended as a special assessment
Rental Property
a) All final bills unpaid after 28 days shall be billed to the property owner, due in 28
days after the date of the billing
b) If not paid in 28 days, the unpaid amount shall be certified as a special assessment
Other Property
a) After 28 days unpaid, the bill shall be pended as a special assessment, and a letter of
explanation sent to the new property owner.
b) . Two more attempts 28 days apart shall be made to collect from the previous property
owner. If unpaid, the bill shall be certified as a special assessment.
Paul Holmlund, Finance Director G. G. Splinter, City Manager
e:\eng \pubuti1 \shutpo1
'Verify that the property is licensed. If not licensed, notify the Licensing Clerk immediately.
•
'BLUE NOTICE" (FINAL REMINDER)
Customer Name Date
Property Address
City, State ZIP
Dear Customer: Arrears $
Water $
This is the FINAL REMINDER that payment has not been received on Sewer $
your utility bill, which became past due on xx /xx /xx. We regret the Storm \\$
necessity of sending you this notice. However, according to City Recycl $
ordinance, if payment is not received IN FULL by xx /xx /xx, we will Sery Chrg $
consider this non - payment your request that service be discontinued
immediately. PLEASE CONTACT US AT ONCE at 569 -3390. TOTAL $
PAY THIS AMOUNT
You have three options.
• 1) Make payment in full.
2) Agree to a written payment schedule, using the form provided in this packet. This schedule
must receive the approval of the Director of Finance or his designee. Payments must be made
according to this schedule, or water will be shut off.
3) You have the right to demand, in writing, an administrative hearing by the City Council at its
next regularly scheduled meeting. At this meeting you must show cause as to why the
Council should not order your service discontinued. The next meeting of the City Council is
Monday, Month Day, Year, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers at City Hall, 6301
Shingle Creek Parkway. This written, signed demand must be received by the City Clerk at
City Hall by 4:30 p.m. Monday, Month Day, Year. If no written request is received, it will
be assumed that you have waived your right to a hearing.
If no payment is received, or if the City Council does not remove your name and account from the list
of accounts for o which service is to be discontinued water service will
be discontinued immediately.
Y
The City of Brooklyn Center operates its water and sewer services under ordinance provisions, and it is
the policy of the City Council to administer these provisions strictly and impartially so that all consumers
will be treated fairly.
The City strives to continually serve the best interests of all residents. Criticisms and suggestions will at
all times receive careful consideration.
Sincerely, CHARGES FOR RESTORING
DISCONTINUED WATER SERVICE
Mon -Fri (Except holidays) 730 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. $25.00
Paul W. Holmlund Any time other than above ............. $7S.00
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Payment must be received prior to restoration of service
•
NOTICE TO RENTAL PROPERTY OWNER OF DELINQUENT FINAL BILL
Date
Property Owner Name
Address
City, State ZIP
Dear Property Owner:
According to the records of the City of Brooklyn Center Finance Department, a tenant of a rental
• property you own at xxxxx Street Name in Brooklyn Center has not paid a final utility bill. This final
bill totals $xxx.xx. According to City Ordinance, payment of utility accounts is an obligation of the
property owner.
The enclosed bill for $xxx.xx is due in 28 days, or by Month Day, 199x. If this bill is not paid by
that date, it will be certified to the County Auditor as a special assessment against your property. A
special assessment service charge of $25 will be added to the total, as well as interest at one percent
per month from the date of delinquency to the date of certification. After certification, additional
interest charges will apply.
Please contact Stasia at the Utility Billing department at 569 -3346 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Holmlund
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
•
1
• PUBLIC UTILITY BILL PAYMENT AGREEMENT
I (We), the undersigned, hereby agree to make payment to the City of Brooklyn Center of my (our)
delinquent public utility bill according to the following schedule. I understand that if payment is
not made according to the schedule the account will be added to the next list of accounts scheduled
for water shutoff.
z.
I (We) understand that the delinquent bill must be paid off by
Total Amount Due: $
a�L
I (We) understand that a minimum payment of is due by
or m property will be red Y P P tagged for water shutoff
Y
gg
to f
PAYMENT SCHEDULE:
Signed:
(Name) (Date) (Name) (Date)
Name:
(Please Print)
Address of
Property: Phone: (home)
(day)
Brooklyn Center, MN
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Approved by: Date: Account Number:
Payments Received:
Date Paid Off: Date Red Tagged: Date Shut Off:
c
t
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER OF UNPAID FINAL BILL BY PREVIOUS OWNER
Date
Property Owner Name
Address
City, State ZIP
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to advise you that according to the records of the City of Brooklyn Center Finance
Department, the previous owner of property you own at xxxxx Street Name in Brooklyn Center has
not paid a final utility bill. This final bill totals $xxx.xx. According to City Ordinance, payment of
utility accounts runs with the land, not with the individual. In other words, as the new owner of this
property, you may be ultimately responsible for payment of the previous owner's unpaid final water
bill.
The Utility Billing office will continue to attempt to collect this unpaid bill from the previous property
owner. You may wish to take measures such as contacting the previous property owner yourself,
discussing the matter with your attorney, your realtor, or your property closing agent to determine
what provisions were made for payment of utility bills; or investigating other alternatives.
If the bill is not paid within 60 days, the unpaid amount will be certified as a special assessment for
collection with your property taxes. You may choose to pay the bill in full prior to then, or pay it
along with your taxes. If the bill is certified as a special assessment, there is a $25 service charge,
and interest is applied.
Please contact Stasia at the Utility Billing department at 569 -3346 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Holmlund
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
•
ti
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Myrna Kragness, Council Members Barb
Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom,
Kathleen Carmody
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C A
DATE: June 16, 1995
SUBJECT: Budget Calendar
Attached is a copy of the 1996 Budget Calendar. There are several phases planned
through June, July, and August which rely upon the participation of the City
Manager in order to produce a budget document ready for delivery to the City
Council on August 10, 1995. That delivery is required so that the City Council
will have adequate time to deliberate and enact a preliminary property tax levy by
•
September 11 1995.
My concern is that this schedule must not be allowed to slip during the period
before an Acting City Manager is named. Nancy Gohman is currently Interim
Acting City Manager. I worked with her on the budget last year and will do so
again on the 1996 budget. I encourage the City Council to proceed in a timely
fashion on the budget as set forth in the attached calendar.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
1996 BUDGET CALENDAR
May 2, 1995 Tuesday Preliminary 1996 Operating Budget conference for City
city Manager with ci department and division heads.
g P
May 4, 1995 Thursday Financial Commission discusses 1996 Budget
May 12, 1995 Friday Data processing capital outlay requests due. Vehicle capital
outlay requests due.
May 22, 1995 Monday City Council discusses elements of Capital Improvements
Program (C.I.P.). City Manager presents 1996 Operating
Budget issues.
June 8, 1995 Thursday 1996 Operating Budget requests due from all departments for
submission to the Finance Director.
June 19, 1995 Monday Consolidated 1996 Operating Budget requests forwarded from
the Finance Director to the City Manager.
June 19 through June 30 Manager consults as necessary with department and division
• heads as 1996 Operating Budget document is shaped.
June /July 1995 City Commissions make preliminary recommendations on
Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.) components.
Jul 3 th ough July 14 Manager develops Recommended 1996 Operating Budget.
g P P g g
July 17 through Aug 9 Finance Dept. writes and prints Recommended 1996 Operating
Budget.
August 1, 1995 Department of Revenue is to certify Local Government Aid
amounts.
August 10, 1995 Thursday Preliminary 1996 Operating Budget is delivered to the City
Council members.
August 21, 1995 Monday Joint City Council /Finance Commission meeting.
August 21 1995
Coun � C ty must notify City of the public hearing dates selected
by school districts.
August 31, 1995 Department of Revenue is to certify Homestead and
Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA).
Sept 6, 1995 Wednesday City Council holds work session to review Proposed 1995
Operating Budget.
Sept 11, 1995 Monday Last day for adoption of the Preliminary 996 Operating
Y P g
Budget and the Preliminary tax levy by the City Council.
City must select initial truth in taxation hearing date and a
date for a continuation hearing.
Sept 15, 1995 Certify preliminary 1996 Operating Budget and preliminary
tax levy to the County. City must also inform the County of
City budget public hearing dates.
Sept 18, 1995 Monday Utility Rate Study and Utility Funds budgets presented.
Sept 25, 1995 Monday City Council adopts the Utility Rate Study.
Sept 29, 1995 Friday Proposed 1996 Operating Budget is delivered to the City
Council members.
Oct 16, 1995 Monday City Council holds work session to review Capital
Improvements Program (C.I.P.) and Enterprise Funds
budgets.
Oct 23, 1995 Monday City Council approves C.I.P. and Enterprise budgets.
Nov ? ?, 1995 County must mail Truth In Taxation notices to each property
owner.
Nov 20, 1995 Monday City Council holds work session to review Proposed 1996
Operating Budget.
Nov ? ?, 1995 Wednesday Notice of public hearing placed with Post Publishing
December ? ?, 1995 City Council holds original public hearing on the 1996
Operating Budget.
December 12, 1995 Tuesday All counties to hold budget public hearings.
December ? ?, 1995 City Council holds reconvened public hearing on the 1996
Operating Budget.
December ? ?, 1995 City Council adopts the final 1996 tax levy and final 1996
Operating Budget at a subsequent public hearing held
during the regular City Council meeting.
. December 27, 1995 Weds Last day to certify final tax levy and final 1996 Operating
Budget to the County.
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Myrna Kragness
Councilmember Kathleen Carmody
Councilmember Debra Hilstrom
Councilmember Barb Kalligher
Councilmember Kristen Mann
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C 9
DATE: June 16, 1995
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1996 BUDGET
I would like Council Members to bring their 1995 budgets so they can be used as reference
documents. If you get an opportunity, please review the format of the budget. If there are
suggestions which will assist you in reviewing the 1996 budget proposals, please indicate them.
Since the City Council last discussed the 1996 budget at the May 2, 1995 worksession, there has
been some news from the State of Minnesota and budget requests have been turned in by city
departments. The following is a very preliminary listing of some of the major 1996 budget
issues as I see them. I haven't been able to complete a full summary of all department requests
• yet and can't tel youl any total figures. I would like for the City Council to provide staff with
their thoughts on major policy issues related to the budget. The staff can then keep these
priorities in mind as we develop the preliminary 1996 budget.
•
FINANCIAL IMPACT OF BONDING
DEBT SERVICE
The City Council has approved the 1996 Neighborhood Street Improvement for the
i
Woodbine Neighborhood. This will be financed by special assessment bonds which will
require an annual tax levy in excess of $100,000 beginning in 1996. The tax levy will
represent an increase over the 1995 levy.
If a community acilities bond issue ty s e is approved by a referendum, it will result in an
additional annual tax levy for the life of the bonds. It is uncertain whether this levy
would begin in 1996 or 1997 due to the unknown timing of the referendum.
• INFLATIONARY PRESSURES
Inflation is always a factor in every budget, and this year some of the general inflationary
pressures are predicted to increase for the things municipalities buy probably slightly
greater than the average Consumer Price Index increases will be. We also have a two -
year public works labor contract which calls for a three percent wage increase for public
works employees in 1996. We're currently in police arbitration for 1995 and what
usually happens is the arbitrators will give a two -year contract because by the time they
make their decision we're more than halfway through 1995 and it will add 1996 to the
contract.
Memorandum to City Council -2- Junel 16, 1995
• NON - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
With great pressures not to increase property taxes, we believe the City Council will
have to re- evaluate its previous policy and substantially increase, over time, the use of
user fees for more services rather than tax dollars. While we review most of our fees
annually, we've always kept them on the low side, and you may want to consider
bumping them up higher.
• POTENTIAL LOSS OF STATE AIDS
According to the June 2, 1995 League of Minnesota Cities "Cities Bulletin" Brooklyn
Center will suffer a $64,339 reduction in HACA. This may be offset by a $79,105
increase in LGA, for a net increase that at best will be less than one half percent. If you
assume that our total revenues must increase at an inflation rate of 3 %, then some other
revenues have to increase an extra $79,472 to make up for the lack of increase in LGA
and HACA.
• POTENTIAL Loss OF FEDERAL CDBG FUNDING IN 1996 OR 1997
With the change in the Federal Congress, it appears the CDBG Funding Program which
• we use mainly for our scattered site housing and housing rehabilitation program is
seriously threatened in 1996 and /or 1997. Again, as we get toward mid - summer or early
fall, we should know more about the status of these funds.
• INCREASED FUNDING REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY OPERATING DEPARTMENTS
The Fire Department has requested the addition of a full -time Fire Inspector and the
Government Buildings Division has requested that a part-time custodian be made full-
s
time. Many departments are requesting larger capital outlays either to make up for items
deferred in past years or to achieve greater productivity through better equipment. At
the time of this writing, I haven't gotten through all of the department budgets, so there
may be other significant new requests that I'm not aware of.
Again, this is not meant to be a complete list, but it is a listing of issues the Council should keep
in mind. We request if you believe certain other issues should be researched or reviewed more
closely, please indicate them now so we can address them as we develop the 1996 budget. Early
identification of these projects or issues by the Council is very important to staff especially if
review or research requires significant time and effort.
•
1995 AND ESTIMATED 1996 HACA AND LGA AMOUNTS
1995 LGA Est 1996 LGA LGA Estimated HACA
(Before Admin. Before Admin. Increase 1995 1996 Increase
Reduction Reduction Decrease HACA HACA (Decrease
' 83,022 85,061 2,039 29,854 29,550 304
;Bemidji 2,203,213 2,256,616 53,403 240,294 217,110 23,184
;Rena 15,901 16,152 251 2,508 2,424 84
!Benson 804,278 823,256 18,978 107,917 104,847 3,070
:Bertha 132,240 133,809 1,569 15,002 14,483 519
Bethel 16,082 16,852 770 6,358 5,564 94
, Big Falls 52,418 54,424 2,006 7,927 7,679 248
Big Lake 260,136 268,601 8,465 168,124 162,431 JML3
elow 19,618 20,497 879 3,633 3,412 221
iBi fork 80,263 81,895 1,632 18,7811 18,126 655
!Bingham Lake I 17,8511 18,696 845 9,0141 8,789 225
Birchwood 1,3491 2,341 992 53,4861 52,034 liii2
Bird Island 215,851 223,704 7,853 102,6511 101,043 IL§L8
;Biscay 2,736 2,946 210 4,4551 4,360 95
Biwabik 311,463 319,848 8,385 108,7331 107,588 1,145
'Blackduck 108,835 112,096 3,261 39,1611 38,061 1,100
Blaine 1,196,822 1,259,988 63,166 1,645,1321 1,596,328 48,804
:Blomkest 18,8811 19,450 569 6,5121 6,280 232
:Blooming Prairie 277,4531 291,468 14,015 153,3911 150,587 2,804
Bloomington 01 0 0 3,742,3671 3,563,132 179,235
Blue Earth 665,2851 690,019 24,734 , 337,9011 331,238 6,663
Bluffton 2,622 347
725 2,5401 2,413 127
:Bock I 4,2211 4,3071 86 5201 481 39
Borup 7,2201 7,5801 360 1,2031 1,120 83
Bove I 280,4471 285,6261 5.179 68,4791 67,9911 (4
88
Bowlus I 13,5661 14,5011 935 7,5381 7,284 ► 254
Boy River
1,9491 2,0361 87 9151 886 29
Boyd 1 65,9921 67,472 1,480 21,4011 21,224 177
Braham
I 192.809 199,0261 6,217 41,764 40,320 1444
Brainerd 2,019,3821 2,082,517 63,135 569,6821 546,358 23,324
Branch 22.0791 25,928 3,849 123,604 120,975 2,629
'Brandon
53,4241 55,940 2,516
19,554 19,098 456
.Breckenridge 1,003,0631 1,024,599 21,536 131,828i 127,477 4,351
:Breezy Point I 01 0 0 18,6421 15,363 3,279
;Brewster t I 35,5961 7 4
3 99 2,398 17,3921 392 16 692
I 00
Bricelyn 72,318, 75,127 2,809 37,3701
36,897 473
Brook Park i 16 891
17 327 436
2,9 44 2,815 129
Brook Center 1,801,6891 1,880,794 79,105 1,336,593 1,272,2541 64,339
Brooklyn Park I 1,607,6221 1,712,1661 104,544 2,809,2461 2,713,064 96,182
.Brooks 8,785! 9,2111 426 3,8291 3,6571 172
Brookston ; 4,5921 5,073 481 2,189 2,1091 80
Brooten 107,7591 111,065 3,306 26,739 , 26,016 ! 23
:Browerville ; 79,528 F 83,4181 3,890 17,03SI 16,121 914
Browns Valley I 226,764 1 232,3601 5,596 1 55,3801 54,861 519
Brownsdale ! 72,5521 --- 7s - , s - 29T - 2,977 1 25,8891 25,110 779
Brownsville j 32.320; 33,4701 1 1 21,623 21,072 551
Brownton 122,5731 126,7051 26,705 4,132 , 73,311 72,6001 11
.Bruno j 20,9581 21,1251 167 1 1,643 1,528 115
Buckman 5,3091 5,8011 492 8,442 8,265 1
Buffalo i 561,6121 580,2021 18,590 240,2821 230,4881 9,794
Buffalo Lake
- 1103,3 - 43:1 03,343; 106,773 3,430 L 7 2,9321 71,649 1,283
Buhl j 385,0691 392,792! 7,723 103,629 102,8681 761
Burnsville 1 327,1291 327,129 I 0 . 2 946 110 i 2,851,9021 95,003
Burtrum I 13,4291 13,9131 ,
84 I 4 ' 3 967 88
Butterfield
, ,
1
86,317 89,376 i 3 059 j 38,439 i 37,876 I 563
Byron 1 1798881 185,0621 5 174 ! ; 190,082 1 . 184,566 5,516
Caledonia 452,132' 465.095: 12,963 122,240 117,547! ( 4,6 93
Callaway 31,967! 32,580 1 613' 5,038 4,773
(
; 265
June 2,1995 p 3
City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
MEMORANDUM
June 16, 1995
TO: Mayor Kragness and Council Members
FROM: Diane Spector
SUBJ: Second Draft of Bond Survey Questions
Attached is a second draft of the bond survey questions, which reflects the comments made by the
Council and the staff. It appears to be getting closer to the mark, however, it is still long. Decision
Resources, Ltd (DRL) suggests a package of 60 -80 questions; we are now at 88 questions, and we
were shooting for 70 -75 questions.
The questions included in this draft are very good, and it would be useful to know the residents'
opinions on these topics. I can think of a few of these questions which may be of lesser priority, but
I don't know that we can shave 13 -18 questions off without dropping some major area of questioning.
My suggestion is that the Council carefully review the questions for content and wording, noting any
• that seem of a lesser priority to you. At the work session Monday night, the Council could review
the lesser priority questions, and decide which should go and which should stay. Our agreement with
DRL specifies a fee of $7,200 for a base of 60 questions, with a $100 charge for each question over
60. The Council on September 26, 1994 authorized spending up to $11,000 on the survey and on
follow -up consultation from DRL. Follow -up consultation is billed at a rate of $100 per hour, and
includes work such as:
• developing a bond package from the survey results;
• developing communication tools, such as letters, brochures, and articles;
• assisting in the formation of volunteer committees, and their management.
An 80 question survey would cost $9,200, leaving $1,800 for consultation. That amount of funding
would be sufficient for some assistance from DRL, to interpret the survey results and put together a
package, and to develop some strategy and communications materials. DRL also offers a "tracking
survey," which is conducted a few weeks from the election, and identifies level of support,
information needs, etc. The cost of such a survey, estimated at $3,500, is not included in the
$1.1,000 already approved.
My recommendation is that the Council agree on a survey which addresses the issues which are
important, rather than try to bring down the number of questions to a specific number. After the
survey results have been returned, use the services of DRL to determine if there is support for a bond
issue, and what type of package and size would be supported. At that time, review where we're at as
far as cost for professional services, and make any adjustments to the budget as necessary.
I have included a copy of the 1989 community questionnaire and the executive summary for your
information and review.
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
JUN 15 ? 95 15:
Decision Resources, Ltd. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
3128 Dean Court RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 REVISED VERSION
• Hello, I'm Decision Resources, rces, Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of
Brooklyn Center to speak with a random sample of residents about
issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your
city council and staff are interested in your opinions and sug-
gestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses
will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire
sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1.
Approximate) how
Y man
Center? Y yea
rs have you lived in Brooklyn
2. As things now stand, how long in the future do you expect to
live in Brooklyn Center?
3• How would you rate the quality of life in Brooklyn Center --
excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
4. what do you like most about living in Brooklyn Center?
5. What do you like least about it?
6. What do you consider to be the most serious problem facing
the City of Brooklyn Center?
• Moving on....
7. In comparison with nearby suburban areas, do you consider
Property taxes in Brooklyn Center to be very high, somewhat high,
about average, somewhat low, or very low?
As you may know, the City share of the property tax is about
twenty percent, or about $19 per month for a typi
C yp cal Brooklyn
1 n
Center
home. Y
8. When you consider the property taxes ou and the qualit
Of city services you receive, would you rate the e
egeneralvalue of
city services as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each
one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the
service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
9• Police protection?
10. Fire protection?
11. Pavement ,repair and patching on city streets?
12. Storm water run -off control and flooding in your neighbor-
hood?
13. Snow plowing?
14. Park maintenance?
1
15. Trail maintenance?
16. Recreational programs?
17. Code enforcement, such nuisances as junk cars or poorly
kept up houses? •
IF ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #9 - #17, ASK:
18. Why did you rate as (only fair /poor)?
19. How would you rate the general appearance of your neighbor-
hood excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
20. Why did you rate your neighborhood appearance' as only
fair or poor?
Moving on....
21. During the past year, have any members of your household
participated in organized '
P activities g e sponsored by the City of
Brooklyn Center? (IF "YES," ASK: ) What
t were they.
IF "YES," ASK:
22. Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the
program(s)?
23. How would you rate park and recreational facilities in
Brooklyn Center -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
24. Do you feel that the current mix of recreational facilities •
in the City meets the needs of members of your household?
25. And, do you feel that the current mix of recreational facil-
ities in the City meets the need of the community?
IF "NO" IN EITHER OF TWO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS, ASK:
26. What additional recreational facilities would you like
to see the City of Brooklyn Center offer residents?
The City of Brooklyn Center is considering -
i
g a multi -purpose os
e bond
referendum for facility needs in the community. Part of this
referendum proposal might include additions and improvements to
the park system. I would like to read you a short list of poten-
tial components of the bond referendum. For each one please tell
me whether you would strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat
oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax increase for that
purpose. If you have no opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE LIST)
27. Replacement and improvement of dated playground equipment in
neighborhood parks?
28. Reconstruct ark
p shelter buildings in city larger arks?
29. Acquisition of the Joslyn y p
yn Property in Southwest Brooklyn
Center adjacent to Twin Lake for development of trails, athletic
fields, and preservation of wetlands?
2
�l� yeti oioo
612 929 -6166 DECISION RESOURCES 798 PO4 JUN 15 '95 15:
30. Completion of the trail system to connect all neighborhoods
across the city?
• The City of Brooklyn Center and area school district are consid-
ering the construction of an ice arena facility. The arena
would be used jointly by the City and by the school districts
serving Brooklyn Center. As you may know, there is a need for
more ice sheets in this area because of federal mandates requir-
ing equal opportunity for participation by both boys and girls.
31. Would you favor or oppose the construction of an ice arena
in Brooklyn Center, to be used jointly by the City and school
districts? Do you feel strongly that way?
Turning to the issue of public safety in the community....
32. Are there any areas in Brooklyn Center where you would be
afraid to walk alone at night?
IF "YES," ASK:
33. What area particularly concerns you?
I would like to read you a short list of public safety concerns.
34. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest
concern in Brooklyn Center. If you feel that none of these
• problems are serious in Brooklyn Center, just say so. (READ
LIST)
35. Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the
city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining problems are
serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE FIRST CHOICE AND RE-
READ LIST)
Violent crime
"Traffic congestion
Drugs
Youth gangs
Business crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud
Residential crimes, such as burglary, theft, and vandalism
ALL EQUALLY
NONE OF THE ABOVE
DON'T KNOW /REI~USED
36. Do you feel that crime in Brooklyn Center has increased,
decreased, or remained about the same during the past five years?
37. How would you rate the amount of police patrolling the
Police department does in your neighborhood -- would you say they
do too much, about right, or not enough?
• 38. During the past few years, have you or members of your
household had the occasion to contact the Brooklyn Center Fire
Department for emergency service? (IF "YES," ASK.) How would
3
612-929-6166 DECISION RESOURCES 798 P05 JUN 15 '95 15:0
you rate their response time -- excellent, good, only fair, or •
poor?
39. During the past year, have you visited the Brooklyn Center
City Hall?
1V "YES," ASK:
40. On your last visit to City Hall, which Department dial
you visit -- the Police Department, Utility Billing,
Assessor's Office, Planning and Inspections, Engineer-
ing, or Administration?
Thinking about your last visit to City Hall, for each of the
following characteristics, please rate the Brooklyn Center
City Hall facility or staff as excellent, good,'only fair,
or poor....
41. Convenience of City Hall hours?
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTION #¢41, ASK THE TWO
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
42. 'What hours would be more convenient for you? •
43. What types of services would you want to access
at these times?
Again thinking about your last visit to City Hall, how would
you rate....
44. Waiting time for service?
45. Ease of finding your way around the building?
46. Courtesy of the staff?
47. Efficiency of the staff?
48. During the past year, have you had the occasion to telephone
the Brooklyn Center City Hall?
IF "YES," ASK:
49. On your last telephone call to City Hall, which Depart-
ment did you contact -- the Police Department, Utility
Billing, Assessor's Office, Planning and Inspections,
Engineering, or Administration?
'thinking about your last telephone call to City Hall, for
each of the following characteristics, please rate the
Brooklyn Center City Mall staff as excellent, good, only
fair, or poor.... •
50. Waiting time for the switchboard operator to answer
your call?
51. Courtesy of the switchboard operator?
52. Ease of reaching a Department staff member who could
A
respond to you?
53. Courtesy of the Department staff?
54. Efficiency of the Department staff?
• The City is also reviewing space needs in the Civic Center and
the two Fire Stations serving the community.
Let's talk about changes and improvements in City Hall and the
Fire Stations first. I would like to read you a list of
components which might be included in a bond referendum proposal.
For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a property
tax increase for that purpose. If you do not have an opinion,
just say so.... (ROTATE LIST)
55. Improved handicapped accessibility in both City Hall and the
Community Center?
56. Expansion of police Department office space to allow for
more space for detectives, locker rooms for female police offic-
ers, space for programs such as DARE, senior TAP, crime preven-
tion, and other programs?
57. Expansion of the holding cell and interview areas, to permit
separation of adult and juvenile offenders, men and women, and
victims and the accused?
58. Completion of energy efficiency projects at City Hall, such
as roofing, lighting, and window replacement?
59. Expansion of the two Fire Stations to provide more efficient
storage of fire - fighting equipment and training facilities,
adding locker rooms for our female firefighters, and providing
• space to station an ambulance from North Memorial Hospital?
6Q. Replacement of some aging fire engines and rescue /salvage
vans?
61. During the past year, have you or other household members
visited the Brooklyn Center Community Center swimming pool or
another activity in the Community Center?
62. Have you or any household member visited another city's
community center?
IF "YES," ASK:
63. Which city community center have you visited?
A second area of identified needs at the Civic Center involves
remodeling nd renovation
g of the Community Center. Y would like
to read you a list of components p s which could also be included in
a bond referendum. For each one lease tell 1 me if you would
strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose a property tax increase for that purpose. If you do not
have an opinion, just say so... (ROTATE LIST)
64. Construction of an indoor playground?
65. Addition of a gymnasium?
66. Addition of handball courts?
5
6 7. Construction of a senior citizen drop- -in center?
68. Expansion of the competition -type swimming pool into a
family- oriented pool area, with accessibility for young children,
seniors, and the handicapped, shallow depth areas, and water
fountains? •
69. Construction of additional community meeting rooms?
Now, let's talk for a moment about all of the bond referendum
proposals we have discussed. Suppose the City of Brooklyn Center
were to propose a bond referendum for six different types of
facility n eeds eeds at the next electi ..
on -park improvements; a
co mbination tion ice ar ena and outh activities
Y center; Police Depart-
ment addition; Fire Station additions; City Hall remodeling for
energy efficiency; and, Community Center remodeling.
70. How much would you be willing to see your MONTHLY property
taxes increase to fund this entire package? Letts say, would you
support a tax increase of $ per month? (CHOOSE RANDOM START-
ING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about $
per month? (REPEAT PROCESS)
PRICE POINTS: Nothing, $4.00, $8.00, $12.00, $16.00, $20.00
I would like your reaction to a specific referendum proposal....
Suppose the City proposed a ten million dollar bond package,
which in '
eluded these
six components. If approved, owners of a
60 000
$ homes
in th
y w
by about $5.70 per monthor$80.00 annuallyrforrfifteens increase
years. •
71. If the bond referendum were today, would you support or
oppose it? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way?
72. Could you tell me one or two reasons for your decision?
Let' t s talk about
the six components for a few more minutes.
review, the six different types of improvements were: ark .To
provements; a combination ice arena and youth activities center;
Police Department addition; Fire Station additions; City all
remodeling or Y
ing.
g energy eff�.ciency, and, Community Center remodel-
73. Which, if any, of the six types of improvements is most
important to you? (ROTATE AND READ LIST)
74. which, if any, of the five remaining components would you
rank second highest? (ROTATE, DELETE FIRST CHOICE, AND READ
LIST)
75. Is there any of the six components you would definitely
Oppose in a bond referendum? Which one? (RE -READ LIST, IF
NECESSARY)
76. Is there a second component you would definitely oppose?
(RE LIST, OMITTING PREVIOUS CHOICE)
6
V 1 L J L J V 1 V V
612 -929 -6166 DECISION RESOURCES 798 P08 JUN 15 1 95 15:1E
r
FRST SCND OPP1 OPP2
Police Department Addition 1 1 1 1
Park improvements 2 2 2 2
Fire Station Additions 3 3 3 3
Ice Arena and Youth Activities
Center 4 4 4 4
Community Center Remodeling 5 5 5 5
City Hall remodeling for energy
efficiency 6 6 6 6
ALL EQUALLY (VOL) 7 7 7 7
NONE OF ABOVE (VOL) 8 8 8 8
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9 9 9 9
Moving on....
77. What is your principal source of information about the
recreational programs offered by the City of Brooklyn Center?
78. And, what is your primary source of information about City
government and its activities?
79. Do you recall receiving "City Watch," the city's information
publication, during the past year? (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you or
any members of your household regularly read it?
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest.
Be sure to include Y ourself.
80. First, persons 55 or over?
81. Adults under 55?
82. School -aged or pre - school children?
83. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation
of your spouse or partner?
M. F:
84. Do you own or rent your present residence?
85. What is your age, please?
(READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED)
And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your
answers are held strictly confidential....
86. Could you tell me your approximate pre -tax yearly household
income. Does the income lie....
RANGES: UNDER $12,500, $12,500- $25,000, $25,001 - $37,500,
$37,501- $50,000, $50,001- $62,500, $62,501- $75,000, OVER $75,000,
7
612- 929 -6166 DECISION RESOURCES 798 P09 JUN 15 1 95 15:1
DON'T KNOW, REFUSED
87. Gender (DO NOT ASK)
Thank you very much for your time.
88. REGION OF CITY (FROM LIST)
8
FdE Decision
Resources Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 501
randomly selected residents of the City of Brooklyn Center.
Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers
between March 3, 1989, and March 22, 1989. The average interview
took thirty -eight minutes. In general, random samples such as
this yield results projectable to the entire universe of Brooklyn
Center residents within + 4.5 percentage points in 95 out of 100
cases.
Brooklyn Center is a mature, stable community with a social
conscience. Most residents have lived for at least ten years in
the community and intend to remain there for the duration. They
are proud of their community and tied to their neighborhood.
But, at the same time, residents are aware of the problems of
modern urban society and willing to do their share to ameliorate
them. This caring attitude toward others, then, markedly differ-
entiates the community from,many other suburbs.
• Demographically, Brooklyn Center is the typical inner -ring
suburban community. Fifty -three percent of the residents have
lived there for at least ten years. The median longevity is a
high 11.1 years. Sixty -nine percent do not see themselves moving
during the next ten years. While the city has relied upon
Minneapolis in- migration in the past, more recent arrivals moved
to Brooklyn Center from other suburban communities and from
outside the state. Today, only forty percent of the residents
moved to the community from Minneapolis.
Twenty -six percent of the interviewed households reported
the presence of school -aged children in their homes. This figure
is lower than "boom areas" like Eagan and Woodbury, but higher
than many other inner -ring communities. Nineteen percent of the
households contained senior citizens; twelve percent, exclusively
seniors. Pre - schoolers were found in fourteen percent of the
contacted homes. These figures suggest a modest increase in the
contribution of Brooklyn Center children to their schools during
the next five years.
Seventy -two percent of the respondents owned their current
residents. The remaining twenty -eight percent could be found in
both apartments, to a great degree, and single family dwellings.
Apartment and condominiums provided residences to about six
• percent of the community.
The average age of an adult resident was 43.9 years old.
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920 -0337
___
One -third of the population was under the age of 35, while
thirty -seven percent were over 55 years old. Married couples in
"empty nests" are the typical household composite in the city.
The largest occupation group in Brooklyn Center was Blue
Collar households, at thirty percent. Retirees were next at
twenty -two percent. Upper socio- economic status occupations,
such as Professional - Technical and Owner- Manager, accounted for
an additional thirty -four percent. This occupational structure
is reflected in the educational achievement of residents: fifty -
two percent of the respondents had not attended any college.
Dual income households also dominated: fifty -eight percent of
married couples indicated that both spouses worked outside of the
home. The median yearly household income proved to be $32,870,
almost $5,000 less than the suburban average. This latter result
is not surprising, given the older and Blue Collar tint of the
city.
Current in- migration suggests that the occupational
structure of the city will become increasingly White Collar.
Newer residents tend to be Owner - Manager and Professional-
Technical
should also slowly increase
job -holders. This trend h
� Y
the median household income over time.
Brooklyn Center residents are generally content with their
city. Ninety -two percent approved of the quality of life there;
twenty -eight percent approved very strongly. The most prized •
characteristic of the city is that it is "complete ": residents
do not have to travel miles to see grass, parks, shopping, and
other amenities. The location of the community within the
Metropolitan Area highway network -- at the intersection of two
expressways -- was also viewed in a positive light. Finally, the
strong neighborhoods and small town atmosphere of the community
was pointed to by about one - quarter of the sample. Brooklyn
Center, then, affords residents a unique combination of
qualities: nearby convenience to necessities, rapid access to
the Metropolitan Area, and strong connectedness and community
identity.
While a majority of residents were either unable to isolate
one char the disliked about the community -- thirty
n y y -
Y
one percent maintaining there was nothing they disliked -- two
interrelated problems arose. Ten percent complained about the
condition and crowding of roads and highways in the city.
Another nine percent pointed to the adverse effects of growth and
urban sprawl. While concern has not reached the levels
registered in outer ring communities, these problems were
referred to often enough to merit further attention.
Residents were very proud of the appearance of their
neighborhoods. Eighty -nine percent rated their neighborhoods as
either "excellent" or "good." The preservation of the •
attractiveness of these areas underlies the support for many
potential actions by the City, which are discussed later in this
report.
There is a strong sense of connectedness between residents
• and their government. A very low twenty percent felt that they
could not have a say about the way the City of Brooklyn Center
run things. Even more impressive, a record high of seventy -one
percent felt they could have an impact if they wished. City
government, then, is seen as responsive to the needs of most
residents.
When asked about their residences, ninety -three percent of
the sample felt that they met the current needs of their
households. Seventy -seven percent also thought their residences
would continue to meet their needs during the next decade. Of
the twenty -one percent who took exception, one -in -four thought
their current residences could be improved to meet future needs.
The remainder were searching for other types of accommodations:
moving from a rental unit to owned housing, moving to a townhouse
or condominium, or searching for more affordable housing. The
latter two groups were especially pessimistic about finding their
needed new residences within Brooklyn Center; the former
residents, those searching for starter homes, were more
confident. But, it should be noted for future development, that
a fairly sizable unmet demand for condominiums and townhouses
exists within the community.
A very high value is placed upon the Brooklyn Center Park
and Recreation System: Eighty -six percent of the sample rated it
• as either "excellent" or "good." And, eighty -two percent of the
sample were satisfied with the current range of opportunities
located within it. City parks and city playgrounds were very
important to most residents. The community center, pedestrian
trails, and bicycle paths also registered substantial support,
about two - thirds of the sample per facility. The swimming pool
was felt to be very important by fifty -five percent. Only the
golf course, which possesses a much more limited participant
profile, was deemed as "somewhat important" rather than "very
important" to most residents. In general, the park and
recreation system outstandingly meets the needs of the citizenry.
Recreational programming also received very high grades.
Twenty -seven percent of the sample reported participating in
organized city- sponsored activities; softball drew the largest
audience. Satisfaction with the programming was unanimous -- an
astonishing achievement! In fact, the only reason given for not
participating again in the future was age -- either children were
now too old or seniors felt they could no longer take part.
Eighty -six percent also felt that programs for adults and seniors
met their needs. But, seven percent thought more varied
opportunities for seniors should be explored. Ninety percent
felt that programming for youth and children were also adequately
meeting community interests and demography. It is also a
testimony to the effectiveness of the city- sponsored recreational
• activities that ninety -nine percent stated that no current
programs should be discontinued!
Respondents were asked their opinions of two potential
expansions of the park system and its programming. While sixty- •
five percent of the residents supported the construction of a
city -wide off - street bikeway system, only forty -one percent still
favored the proposal if a property tax increase were required to
fund it. This project should be viewed as having substantial
support, but lacking a clear mandate. But, fifty -eight percent
supported the City spending funds to provide for the winter -time
maintenance of trailways for walking, cross- country skiing, and
other purposes. Since fifty -two percent of the sample reported
spending their leisure time in outdoor activities, these support
levels are consistent with the general orientation of residents.
City services were awarded generally solid ratings by
residents of Brooklyn Center. Exceptional services, rated as
"excellent" or "good" by over eighty -five percent of the
residents, included fire protection, snow plowing, police
protection, park maintenance, and sewers. City street repair and
maintenance and animal control were rated highly by almost
seventy -five percent of the sample; but the former attracted
"only fair" and "poor" ratings from twenty -five percent of the
community, while the latter was criticized by twenty percent.
Only water quality was rated lower: sixty -four percent
favorably; thirty -three percent, unfavorably. Designated
problems included the bad taste of the water, upkeep of the
streets and recurring potholes, and loose animals. Overall,
however, in comparison with other communities, Brooklyn Center
serves its residents very well, indeed.
Public safety was explored in more depth. Residents saw
three major problems facing the community. Drugs was rated as
the greatest or second major problem facing Brooklyn Center by
forty -six percent of the residents. Juvenile crimes and
vandalism and burglary were similarly rated by about thirty -seven
percent of the sample. Following from these perceptions, the
DARE Program was ranked the most important public safety service
by eighty -six percent of the community. Almost as strongly
rated, the Advocacy Program and expanded drug enforcement topped
the eighty percent mark. Neighborhood Watch, an anti - burglary
program, was well- received by seventy -eight percent. A concern
for the welfare of children -- both from drugs and abuse --
together with the desire for household security sets the general
tone of these responses.
Sixty -eight percent of the community rated police patrolling
in their neighborhood as "about right." But, twenty -three
percent felt that it was currently insufficient. Concern was not
centered in one part of the community; however, residents living
in households with annual incomes over $62,500 were more critical
about the current level of police protection.
Thirty percent of the residents reported contacting someone
who worked for the City during the past twelve months. •
Complaints, questions, water - related and recreation queries were
the usual reasons for the contact. Unlike many other communi-
ties, Brooklyn Center residents were able to identify the
Department they first contacted; in other words, there is a much
greater knowledge of the organization of the city staff on the
part of residents. An impressive four -to -one ratio stated
satisfaction with they way their inquiry was handled.
Dissatisfaction stemmed from both process and treatment, with the
former more often specified. The City Hall staff, then, is doing
a very fine job in handling the requests of its residents.
Brooklyn Center residents are clearly not reflexively "anti -
tax." As long as residents feel a need has been demonstrated and
that the funds will be used effectively, majorities will support
increased funding requests. Fifty -five percent of the sample
would support a property tax increase to maintain city services
at their current level. This result, in part, follows from the
generally high ratings they currently receive. In addition, a
majority of residents feel that property taxes in the city are
about average for most suburbs. For many people, though, this
feeling is based upon generalities rather than specifics: forty-
eight percent were unable to estimate the percentage of their
property taxes that the city takes. And, among those who
ventured a guess, the average was a somewhat high 18.6 percent.
The City could substantially increase its reservoir of good will
among residents by more broadly communicating the very cost -
effective way it provides its well- regarded services.
The work of the'Mayor. and Council was comparatively well-
known to Brooklyn Center residents. Forty -one percent knew
either a "great deal" or "fair amount." Seventy -six percent of
the community approved of their job; only four percent
disapproved. The nineteen -to -one ratio of approval -to-
disapproval is one of the strongest in the Metropolitan Area. In
g P
probing these judgments, no specific policy decisions were
mentioned; instead, confidence in the general direction of the
city was the basis of the ratings. One systematic complaint
among the small number of dissenters was noted: lack of
communications.
The City Staff received similarly favorable ratings.
Twenty -four percent of the residents indicated they had "quite a
lot" or "some first -hand contact with city staff. Sixty percent
of the sample rated the staff as either "excellent" or "good ";
nine percent rated it less highly. The six -to -one favorability
ratio is also comparatively solid. It should also be noted that
about half of the lower ratings were attributed to "no special
reasons" or to hearsay. In any case, the staff is certainly
aiding the very positive image that the community has of its
City.
Wide support for actions to maintain the quality of housing
were evidenced. Sixty -nine percent of the sample favored a
systematic program for acquiring run -down homes incapable of
• rehabilitation and razing them. Eighty percent supported
ordinances setting stringent g ri gent community standard on property
appearance. Eighty -nine percent favored increased and rigorous
enforcement standards on all rental units. Sixty -six percent
supported regular inspections on the outside of all owner
occupied housing.. only on the regular inspection of the inside
of all owned occupied housing was exception taken: by a forty
percent to fifty -five percent margin, the sample opposed these
actions. There is a clear and consistent mandate for pro- active
steps to insure the quality of residential neighborhoods in the
community.
Support was also expressed for programs helping the more
vulnerable elements of society. By sixty -four percent to twenty -
seven percent, residents supported a program to provide economic
assistance for housing the poor. Support was also evident for
the acceptance of group homes in Brooklyn Center, to house the
mentally retarded and the non - violent mentally ill. In the
former case, eighty three percent of the residents approved of
the establishment of group homes for that purpose; in the latter
case, sixty eight percent agreed. Residents were more split on
accepting homes for recovering chemically dependent individuals,
fifty -six percent to forty ercent, and absolutel opposed to
P PP
Y
group homes for recently released ex- prisoners. Unlike many
other suburban communities, residents of Brooklyn Center possess
an active social conscience.
Several miscellaneous programs were also tested. While only
twenty -four percent of the residents were aware of the Senior
Citizen Telephone Assurance program, the target audience of •
seniors was much better informed. No unfavorable ratings among
those acquainted with this program were registered. Seventy -
three percent of the residents also reported hearing the Civil
Defense sirens on the first Wednesday of each month.
The appearance of streets and boulevards was a policy area
in which much less consensus appeared. By a narrow forty -six
percent to forty percent margin, the sample supported spending
funds to develop a full maintenance program for the trees lining
boulevards in the city. Most residents, in fact, could think of
no other actions the City should undertake to assist landscaping
improvements on residential streets. A program for installing
curbs and gutters on residential streets not having them was
opposed by a fifty -four percent to thirty -six percent majority.
Housing stock, rather than landscape, appears to be the clear
priority of most residents.
The City was felt to be doing a good job in the enforcement
of codes. Sixty -five percent reported that enforcement was
"about right." However, twenty -seven percent rated it "not
tough enough." Junk cars and loose animals were the two major
enforcement complaints. While only twenty -six percent of the
sample reported contact with code enforcement officials during
the past two years, satisfaction with that contact was unusually
mixed. Those reporting recent contact split only two -to -one in
rating it "satisfactory." While dissatisfaction was not
substantial, it is disproportionately high in comparison with
other municipal ratings.
Brooklyn Center respondents favored an aggressive, but
thoughtful, approach to further commercial and retail development
and redevelopment. By two -to -one, they support an aggressive
effort to attract new and retain existing commercial and retail
development.
But the use of development incentives such as tax
P ,
breaks, was supported by a lessened forty -nine percent to forty -
one percent margin. This cautious attitude, however, was not
indicative of a sweeping policy concern, but a more case -by -case
usage of incentives. By three -to -one, for example, residents
favored using development incentives in the Lynbrook Bowl Area.
But, by only a three -to -two margin were incentives endorsed for
the 96th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Area. Many
residents seem to cautiously factor in the current state and
present needs of an area before approving of incentives.
Parking and storage issues were also addressed. By a
seventy -one percent to twenty -four percent margin, respondents
supported an ordinance prohibiting the parking of commercial
vehicles over twenty -one feet in residential areas. But, by
sixty -four percent to thirty percent, they oppose the prohibition
of the storage of large recreational vehicles and boats on
residential property. The distinction between private and public
was critic
property al to this difference.
The imposition of group homes on the community was a very
controversial issue. • As was referred to earlier, residents are
• willing to accept certain types of group homes within the city.
They resent, however, the ability of the State of Minnesota to
dictate to community. By a seventy -four percent to eighteen
percent difference, respondents favored spending money to lobby
the legislature for the ability to place some controls on the
siting of group homes. In fact, forty -six percent of the sample
strongly favored lobbying the legislature. Even more relevant as
an indication of strong feelings, though, was that fifty -five
percent of the residents would accept a modest tax increase to
cover the costs of the lobbying effort. The City may wish to
consider more aggressive activities in Saint Paul to recover its
jurisdiction over these decisions.
Water -- both quality and quantity -- provoked some concern,
but was found not to be a pressing issue. Seventy percent of the
sample endorsed the use restrictions imposed during the drought
of 1988. Another twenty -one percent felt the restrictions were
not tough enough and would support more stringent ones if the
need arose. But, sixty -three percent of the community would not
favor an increase of any kind in their water rates to fund
measures to reduce the need for further restrictions. Similarly,
hardness of water was a very serious problem to over one -third of
the residents. Again, however, fifty -eight percent were
unwilling to pay higher water rates to improve the quality of
water. While water may be a bother, it is not deemed serious
• enough to warrant further costs to the citizenry.
The pick -up system for disposing of separated recyclable
materials was found to have great appeal. The projected usage of
fifty -one percent of the households within Brooklyn Center is an •
comparatively outstanding rate of participation.
Public transportation was not found to be a major problem
for most residents. Twenty -four percent of the residents
presently use the bus service available in Brooklyn Center.
Three -in -four of the service users are satisfied. And, most of
the current non -users could not be enticed to use the public
transport system in any case.
Residents were asked their opinion of the expansion of the
City Hall and Community Center buildings. By a fifty -two percent
to thirty percent margin, respondents favored the project in
concept. In any proposal, three items will prove particularly
attractive to residents: (1) construction of a senior citizens
drop -in center; (2) addition to the City Hall, providing more
space for police, fire, and general offices; and (3) and indoor
walking and jogging track. In fact, of the six potential
components tested only one provoked citizen ire: handball
courts. Construction of a new gymnasium and expansion of the
exercise and fitness room garnered narrow support. In terms of
paying for the expansion, a majority of residents would accept a
property tax increase of $25.00 to fund the project. With
thirty -six percent of the sample unwilling to see their property
taxes increase at all, though, the City may wish to place the
question on a November election ballot rather than hold a special •
election, in order to insure a high turnout.
Communications with residents was the only issue area in
which a re- examination of current methods seems indicated. Most
residents rely upon mailings and the park brochure for
information about recreational offerings. The newspaper is the
primary vehicle for obtaining information about City government
and its activities. But, it is troublesome that only eight
percent of the residents rely upon the city newsletter and
sixteen percent reported they had no communications channel to
rely upon. Residents who receive information then obtain it
through vehicles that cannot ordinarily be structured by the
City.
"The City Manager's Newsletter" was received by only thirty-
seven percent of the residents, an unusually low figure in
comparison to most suburban communities. The current delivery
system, then, clearly needs to be reconsidered. Twenty -eight
percent of the residents reported regularly reading the
publication, and most regarded the newsletter as at least
"somewhat effective." This lack of readership is a very critical
problem, though, since only sixty percent of the community
receive and read the "Brooklyn Center Post," a low readership for
a suburban weekly newspaper. In essence, substantial portions of
the community are unable to inform themselves about the actions
and activities of City Hall. Since newspapers do not seem to be •
the answer, the City may need to substantially increase the reach
and al
qu it of its newsletter.
i
t
In summary, Brooklyn Center residents are very proud of
their community. They are content with the past and generally
satisfied with prospects for the future. Maintenance, rather
than augmentation, is the crux of the policy agenda held by most
residents. Balancing social responsibility with prudent fiscal
management is also a recurring issue. Enhancing the present
components of the community -- its retail and job- producing
opportunities -- while preserving its livability and cohesiveness
will be the key question a decision-makers
y qu f cing in the next
decade.
'y!
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. BROOKLYN CENTER RESIDENTIAL
3128 Dean Court QUESTIONNAIRE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide
polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the
City of Brooklyn Center to speak with a random sample of
residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being
taken because your city representatives and staff are interested
in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all
individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only
summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 6%
have you lived in Brooklyn ONE OR TWO YEARS ...... 10%
Center? THREE TO FIVE YEARS ... 20%
SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 11%
ELEVEN - TWENTY YEARS.17%
OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 36%
2. In what city and/or state was our immediately iatel riot
your P
residence located?
a ed.
BROOKLYN CENTER: 4% MINNEAPOLIS: 40% CRYSTAL: 4%
OUT OF STATE: 13% RAMSEY COUNTY: 6% RURAL MN: 6%
BROOKLYN PARK: 7t NORTH HENN. CO.: 9% SOUTH HENN. CO.: 5%
ANOKA CO.: 3% SCATTERED: 2%
3. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 8%
in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS ....... 7%
live in Brooklyn Center? THREE TO FIVE YEARS ... 12%
SIX TO TEN YEARS ....... 3%
OVER TEN YEARS........ 54%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 15%
4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT .............28%
life in Brooklyn Center -- excel- GOOD ................ .64%
lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR ..............5%
POOR..... .............2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1%
5. What do you like MOST about living in Brooklyn Center?
DON'T KNOW: 10% CONVENIENCE - EVERYTHING IS HERE: 23%
NEIGHBORS: 6% LOCATION: 18% NEIGHBORHOOD: 12% SCHOOLS: 5%
SAFE 2% CITY WELL RUN: 7% SMALL TOWN: 11% PARKS: 3%
EVERYTHING: 3%
6. What do you like LEAST about it?
DON'T KNOW: 25% NOTHING: 31% LOCATION: 4% TAXES: 4%
ROADS: 10% GROWTH - SPRAWL: 9% CITY GOVERNMENT: 2% CRIME: 3%
SERVICES: 4% POLICE: 2% SCHOOLS: 2% SCATTERED: 6%
1
7. In general, do you usually spend OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES.... 52%
Your leisure time in outdoor INDOOR ACTIVITIES ..... 18%
activities, weather permitting, BOTH ..................30%
or indoor activities?
As you may know, Brooklyn Center's park and recreation system is
composed of playgrounds, the golf course, city parks, the
swimming pool, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails, and the
community center.
Let's examine each of these facilities from the point of view of
making the city more attractive to residents and potential home
buyers. For each, please tell me whether you think it is very
important, somewhat important, or not at all important that
Brooklyn Center have that recreational facility....
VERY SMWT NOT D.R./
IMP IMP IMP REF.
8. City playgrounds. 78% 18% 3% 2%
9. The golf course. 26% 44% 25% 5%
10. The swimming pool. 55% 35% 8% °
3�
11. The community center. 69% 22% 5% 5%
12. Bicycle paths. 62% 29% 7% 3%
13. Pedestrian trails. 66% 29% 2% 2%
14. City parks. 80% 16% 2% 3%
15. Overall, would you rate the park EXCELLENT .............42%
and recreational facilities in GOOD ..................44%
Brooklyn Center as excellent, ONLY FAIR ..............8%
good, only fair, or poor? POOR ...................0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 6%
16. Are there any facilities not currently in the parks that you
or members of your family would use, if they were there?
(IF "YES," ASK:) What are they?
NONE 82% SENIOR ACTIVITIES: 1% POOLS: 3% TRAILS: 2%
TENNIS: 1% SHELTERS: 3% SKATING: 1% SCATTERED: 7%
Changing focus....
17. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR .................55%
crease in city property taxes if OPPOSE......... ...35%
it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 10%
services at their current level?
2
18. Do you consider property taxes in EXCESSIVELY HIGH ....... 7%
Brooklyn Center to be excessively RELATIVELY HIGH ....... 21%
high, relatively high, about ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 54%
average or comparatively low? COMPARATIVELY LOW ...... 6%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 11%
As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of
Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, and local school districts.
19. For each dollar o
of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT P Y . 7-s
you pay, about what percentage do 10% TO 20 %............22%
you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30 %............10%
ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEEDED) 31% TO 40 % .............5%
41% TO 50 % .............
51% TO 60 % .............1%
OVER SIXTY PERCENT ..... 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 48%
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each
one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the
service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXC GOOD FAIR POOR D.K.
20. Police protection? 27% 60% 7% 3% 3%
21. Fire protection ?' 31% 59% 1% 0% 9%
22. City street repair and
maintenance? 19% 55% 20% 5% 2%
23. Water quality? 14% 50% 17% 16% 3%
24. Sewers? 11% 75% 5% 0% at
25. Snow plowing? 47% 43% 6% 2% 1%
26. Animal control? 12% 60% 12% 8% 8%
27. Park maintenance? 23% 63% 5% 1% 7%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #20 -27, ASK FOR EACH:
28. Why did you rate as (only fair /poor)?
BAD WATER: 17% UPKEEP: 6% POTHOLES: 5% POLICE: 3%
LOOSE ANIMALS: 8% ANIMALS + POTHOLES: 3% SLOW: 5%
WATER + POTHOLES: 5% MULTIPLES: 7%
29. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT .............28%
appearance of your neighborhood GOOD ..................61%
-- excellent, good, only fair, ONLY FAIR ..............8%
or poor? POOR ...................1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2%
3
30. Other than voting, do you feel YES ...................71%
that if you wanted to, you could NO ....................20%
have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 9%
of Brooklyn Center runs things?
31. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL .............6%
about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT ........... 35%
City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE ........... 56%
fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 4%
32. From what you know, do you ap- STRONGLY APPROVE...... 16%
prove or disapprove of the job SOMEWHAT APPROVE...... 60%
the Mayor and City Council are SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE.... 2%
doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.... 2%
And do you feel strongly that DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 19%
way?
IF OPINION STATED IN QUESTION ,J32, ASK:
33. Why do you feel that way?
NO REASON: 12% HEARD - READ: 7% NO PROBLEMS: 18%
CITY WELL RUN: 15% GOOD JOB: 181 COMMUNICATE: 2%
COULD IMPROVE: 5% SCATTERED: 3%
34. How much first -hand contact have QUITE A LOT ....... . .... 6%
you had with the Brooklyn Center SOME ..................18%
City staff -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE ........... 38% • `
very little, or none at all? NONE AT ALL........... 36%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2%
35. From what you have seen or heard, EXCELLENT .............11%
how would you rate the job per - GOOD ................. #49%
formance of the Brooklyn Center ONLY FAIR ..............8%
City staff -- excellent, good, POOR ...................1%
only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 31%
IF RATING GIVEN IN QUESTION #35, ASK:
36. Why did you rate city staff as ?
NO REASON: 9% HEARD - READ: 5% HELPFUL: 16%
NO PROBLEMS: 11% GOOD JOB: 19% COULD IMPROVE: 1%
37. Did any members of your household participate in organized
activities sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Center? (IF
"YES," ASK:) What were they?
NO: 73% SOFTBALL: 8% SENIOR ACTIVITIES: 1% SWIMMING: 2%
OTHER SPORTS: 4° °
-s CENTER ACTIVITIES: 3-s PLAYGROUND: 2-s
MORE THAN TWO: 5% SCATTERED: 3%
IF "YES" IN QUESTION ##37, ASK:
4
38. Were you generally satisfied SATISFIED .............26%
or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED ........... 0%
program(s)? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1%
39. Would you or members of your household participate
again? Why or why not?
YES - FUN: 4% YES - NO REASON: 9% LOW COST: 1%
GOOD PROGRAM: 8% NO - TOO OLD: 3% SCATTERED: 1%
40. Are there any programs for adults and senior citizens not
now in operation you would like to see offered? (IF "YES,"
ASK:) What are they?
NONE: 86% MORE SENIOR ACTIVITIES: 7% EXERCISE: 2%
MORE CLASSES: 2% SCATTERED: 3%
41. Are there any programs for children or youth not now in
operation that you would like to see offered? (IF "YES,"
ASK:) What are they?
NONE: 90% MORE PLAYGROUND: 2% TEEN CENTER: 3% PROGRAMS: 20
DAYCARE - LATCHKEY: 2% SCATTERED: 1%
42. Are there any programs for either adults or children which
you feel should be discontinued? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are
they?
NO: 99% ADULT LUNCHES: 1%
43. Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR /STILL FAVOR ..... 41%
construction of a city -wide FAVOR /NO OPPOSE....... 13%
off- street bikeway system? FAVOR /DON'T KNOW ...... 11%
(IF "FAVOR," ASK:) Would OPPOSE ................24%
you still favor it if a DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 11%
property tax increase were
required to fund construction?
44. Would you support or oppose the SUPPORT ...............58%
City spending funds to provide OPPOSE ................34%
for the winter -time maintenance DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 7%
of trailways for walking, cross-
country skiing, and other purposes?
45. Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR .................69%
City developing a systematic OPPOSE ................19%
program for acquiring run -down DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 12%
homes incapable of rehabilitation
and razing them?
46. Should the City enact ordinances YES ...................80%
requiring residents to maintain- No ....................15%
property appearance to a stringent DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 5%
community standard?
5
47. Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR........ 27%
City establishing a program to SOMEWHAT FAVOR........ 37%
provide economic assistance for SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ...... .16%
housing the poor? (WAIT FOR STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 11%
RESPONSE) And do you feel DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 10%
strongly that way?
48. Are you aware of the city -spon- NOT AWARE........... .76%
sored Senior Citizen Telephone AWARE/FAVORABLE ....... 16%
Assurance Program? (IF "YES," AWARE/UNFAVORABLE ...... 0%
ASK:) Do you have a favorable AWARE /NO PERCEPTION.... 6%
or unfavorable perception of DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 3%
the program?
Let's talk about public safety in Brooklyn Center....
I would like to read you a short list of public safety problems.
49. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest
problem in Brooklyn Center. If you feel that none of these
problems are serious in the city, just say so. (READ LIST)
50. Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the
city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining
problems are serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE
FIRST CHOICE AND RE -READ LIST)
FIRST SECOND
Personal safety from violent crime 7% 11%
Burglary 24% 13%
Traffic and pedestrian safety 6% 9%
Drugs 27% 19%
Juvenile crimes and vandalism 16% 20%
Other 2% 1%
None are serious 10% 14%
Don't Know /Refused 8% 12%
51. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH ...............3%
patrolling the police department ABOUT RIGHT ........... 68%
does in your neighborhood -- NOT ENOUGH ............ 23%
would you say they do too much, DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 7%
about right, or not enough?
The City of Brooklyn Center, is reviewing several police and
public safety programs in order to make decisions on the possible
expansion of services. I would like to read you a short list
and have you tell me, for each one, whether ou feel that program
Y p gr am
is very important, somewhat important,, or not at all important
for the City to have.
VERY SMWT NOT D.K.
52. The DARE Program, a "say
no" to drugs program for
grade school children. 86% 12% 1% 1%
6
VERY SMWT NOT D. K.
53. Neighborhood Watch, a
crime prevention program
for citizens of residential
areas. 78% 20% 2% 0%
54. Business Crime Prevention
Programs. 37% 42% 7% 14%
55. The Advocacy Program to
assist in child abuse
cases. 85% 11% 1% 3%
56. Expanded drug enforcement
efforts in the community. 81% 15% 1% 3%
57. In general, do you hear the Civil YES ...................73%
Defense sirens on the first NO ....................25%
Wednesday of each month at DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2%
1:OOPM?
58. Should the City spend funds to YES....... %
Y P ............460
develop a full maintenance NO ....................40%
program for the trees lining DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 14%
boulevards in Brooklyn Center?
59. Are there any further services which the City of Brooklyn
Center should provide to assist landscape improvements on
residential streets? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they?
NO: 85% SIDEWALKS: 4% MORE TREES: 2% MAINTAIN: 7%
FLOWERS: 1% SCATTERED: 1%
60. Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR........ 13%
institution of a program for SOMEWHAT FAVOR........ 23%
installing curbs and gutter on SOMEWHAT OPPOSE....... 24%
residential streets not currently STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 30%
having them? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 10%
And, do you feel strongly that
way?
Moving on....
61. During the past twelve months, YES .............30%
have you contacted anyone working NO ............. .............70%
for the City of Brooklyn Center
other than the police or fire
departments, whether to obtain
information, to get service, or
make a complaint of any kind?
is IF "YES" IN QUESTION #*61, ASK:
7
62. What was the nature of your most recent inquiry, that
is, what information or service did you want?
BLDG. PERMIT: 2% WATER RELATED: 3% ANIMAL CONTROL: 1%
QUESTION: 6% COMPLAINT: 8% REC QUESTION: 3% TAXES: 2%
SCATTERED: 5%
63. Which department or official did you contact first
about this inquiry?
DON'T KNOW: 3% POLICE: 2% WATER: 4% INSPECTOR: 3
PARK -REC: 1% PUBLIC WORKS: 2% COMM. ED.: 1%
CENTER: 1% ASSESSOR: 3% SCATTERED: 6%
64. In general, were you satis- YES ...................24%
fied.with the way your in- NO .....................6%
quz'Y was
i handled.
IF "NO" IN QUESTION #64, ASK:
65. Why were you dissatisfied?
NO SOLUTION: 2% NO RESPONSE: 3% RUDE: 1%
66. Do you feel the City is too tough, TOO TOUGH ..............3%
about right, or not tough enough ABOUT RIGHT ........... 65%
in enforcing the City 'Code on NOT TOUGH ENOUGH...... 27%
such nuisances as animal control, DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 6%
garbage disposal, junk cars, and
noise?
IF "TOO TOUGH" OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #66, ASK:
67. Why do you feel that way?
JUNK CARS: 7% LOOSE ANIMALS: 9% NOISE: 3% TRASH: 3%
UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT: 2% CARS + ANIMALS: 1% SCATTERED: 3%
68. During the past two years, have NO CONTACT ............ 74%
you had contact with code enforce- CONTACT/SATISFIED ..... 16%
ment officials? (IF "YES," ASK :) CONTACT/DISSATISFIED ... 9%
Were you satisfied or dissatisfied CONTACT /NO OPINION ... :.1%
with their courtesy and job per- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1%
formance?
The inspection of housing in Brooklyn Center for code violations
is a function of city government and staff. I would like to read
you a short list of proposals; for each one, please tell me
whether you strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat
oppose, or strongly oppose it.
8
STR SMW SMW STR D.K.
SUP SUP OPP OPP REF.
69. Regular inspections on the
outside of all owner occupied
housing? 19% 47% 20% 9% 4%
70. Regular gu r inspections on the
inside of all owner occupied
housing? 9% 31% 25 30% 4%
71. Increased and rigorous en-
forcement standards for
rental dwelling units? 53% 36% 3% 2% 7%
72. Do you think that the City of TOO MANY ..............12%
Brooklyn Center has too much, ABOUT RIGHT ........... 78%
too little, or about the right TOO FEW ................6%
amount of commercial and retail DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 4%
development?
Many cities are being squeezed financially to maintain their
current services levels while holding the line on property taxes.
One possible alternative is to attract commercial and retail
development and expand the tax base. It has the disadvantage of
sometimes creating more congestion on city streets. But, it has
the advantage of providing -additional sources of city revenue.
• 73. Would you support or oppose an STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 27%
aggressive effort by the City of SOMEWHAT SUPPORT...... 36%
Brooklyn Center to attract new SOMEWHAT OPPOSE....... 19%
and retain existing commercial STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 11%
and retail development? (WAIT DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 8%
FOR RESPONSE ) And do Y ou feel
strongly that way?
74. Would you favor or oppose pro- STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 16%
viding development incentives, SOMEWHAT SUPPORT...... 33%
such as tax breaks, to attract SOMEWHAT OPPOSE....... 22%
new and retain existing retail STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 19%
and commercial developments? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 10%
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you
feel strongly that way?
Let's consider some actual locations in the City where
development incentives could be used. Would you strongly favor,
somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose offering
development incentives to potential retail and /or commercial
projects at:
ST F SM F SM O ST 0 D. K.
• 75. 69th Avenue North and
Brooklyn Boulevard? 12% 36% 19% 15% 17%
9
ST F SM F SM 0 ST 0 D.K.
76. The Lynbrook Bowl Area at
65th and Camden Avenues
North? 19% 41% 14% 8% 19%
77. Does your current residence YES ...................93%
generally meet the current needs NO .....................7%
of your household?
78. Do you feel that your current YES ...................77%
residence will meet the needs NO ....................21%
of your household during the DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2%
next decade?
IF "NO" IN QUESTION #78, ASK:
79. Could you current residence YES ....................5%
be improved to meet those NO ....................14%
future needs? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2%
IF OPINION GIVEN IN QUESTION #79, ASK:
80. Why do you feel that way?
COULD ADD: 4% WANT TO MOVE 3% WILL BUY OTHER: 2
WOULD NOT PAY: 3% WANT APT.- CONDO: 3% NOW RENT: 3%
81. If you were to move, what type of housing would you seek? i
WON'T MOVE: 7% SINGLE FAMILY: 41% APT.: 12% LARGE SF: 5%
CONDO - TOWNHOUSE: 18% RETIREMENT HOME: 4% OUT OF METRO: 4%
IF ANSWER GIVEN IN QUESTION #81, ASK:
82. How likely do you think it VERY LIKELY ........... 25%
is that you would find that SOMEWHAT LIKELY....... 23%
type of housing in Brooklyn NOT AT ALL LIKELY ..... 26%
Center -- very likely, some- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 11%
what likely, or not at all
likely?
As you may know, the original buildings in the Civic Center were
built in 1970. The City is currently considering an expansion of
the City Hall and Community Center buildings there.
83. Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR........ 17%
expansion of the Brooklyn Center SOMEWHAT FAVOR........ 35%
Civic Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) SOMEWHAT OPPOSE....... 18%
And do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 12%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 19%
I would like to read you a list of potential components of an
expansion of the civic center. For each one, please tell me if
You would strongly favor it, somewhat favor it, somewhat oppose
it, or strongly oppose it.
10
ST F SM F SM 0 ST O D.K.
• 84. Addition to the City Hall,
providing more space for
police, fire, and general
offices. 17% 48% 12 8% 15%
85. Construction of a new
gymnasium. 13% 33% 25% 16% 13%
86. Construction of a Senior
Citizens Drop -In Center? 35% 371 13% 7 4 6 9%
87. Handball courts? 6% 261 30% 24% 14%
88. Expansion of the exercise
and fitness room? 12% 35% 21% 16% 16%
89. An indoor walking and
jogging track? 23% 31% 19% 18% 9%
90. Are there any other facilities you would like to see in an
expanded Civic Center? (IF "YES," ASK :) What are they?
DON'T KNOW: 6% NONE: 80% ICE RINK: 1% SPA: 1%
YOUTH ACTIVITIES: 2% RACQUETBALL: 1% MORE ROOM: 1%
• SENIOR PROGRAMS:'1% SCATTERED: 6%
The building of a Civic Center expansion might require passage of
a bond referendum. Taxpayers could be asked to pay for the
expansion of the facility and to share in the cost of operating
the center. User fees would also underwrite its operation to
some extent.
91. How much would you be willing to NOTHING ...............36%
pay in additional property taxes $25........ .........23%
to support the construction and $50...................11%
partial operation of an expanded $75 ....................7%
Civic Center? $100 ...................7%
(START WITH A RANDOM CHOICE) Let's $125 ...................1%
say, would you be willing to pay $150 ...................1%
$ per year? (MOVE TO NEXT $175 ...................1%
CHOICE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.... 14%
ANSWER. REPEAT.)
In the Summer of 1989, the City will prohibit the parking of
commercial vehicles over 21 feet long in residential areas.
92. Do you support or oppose this STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 38%
new ordinance? (WAIT FOR SUPPORT ...............33%
RESPONSE) And do you feel OPPOSE ................10%
strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 14%
• DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.....5%
11
93. Would you support or oppose the STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 13%
prohibition of the storage of SUPPORT ...............17% •
large recreational vehicles, OPPOSE ................29%
campers, and boats on residential STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 35%
property in Brooklyn Center? DON'T MOW /REFUSED..... 6%
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you
feel strongly that way?
At present, the State of Minnesota requires all communities to
accept group homes serving unrelated people for certain types of
needs. Groups homes have been established in the past for
purposes such as housing retarded adults or children, housing
recovering chemically dependent individuals, housing the non-
violent mentally ill, and providing halfway houses for ex-
convicts. The city cannot prohibit or invoke zoning regulations
to prevent their establishment. A group home for six or fewer
people must be accepted in residential areas; a home for seven to
sixteen people must be accepted in multi - family housing areas.
I would like to read you a short list of possible group home
facilities. For each one, please tell me whether you would
strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or
strongly disapprove a group home of that type coming to the city.
ST AP APPRP DISAP ST DP UND
94. A group home for retarded
children or adults? 40% 43% 8% 5% 4%
95. A group home for recov-
ering chemically dependent
individuals? 19% 37% 23% 17% 5%
96. A group home for non-
violent mentally ill
people? 22% 46% 17% 8% 6%
97. A group home for recently
released ex- prisoners? 5% 14% 24% 52% 4%
Once again, state law will not permit the City of Brooklyn Center
to refuse the siting of a group home.
98. Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR........ 46%
City spending funds to lobby the SOMEWHAT FAVOR........ 28%
legislature for the ability to SOMEWHAT OPPOSE....... 10%
place some controls on the STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 8%
siting of group homes? (WAIT DON'T MOW /REFUSED..... 7%
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel
strongly that way?
IF "STRONGLY" OR "SOMEWHAT FAVOR," IN QUESTION n98, ASK:
12
99. Would you still favor the FAVOR .................55%
• lobbying effort if a modest OPPOSE ................14%
property tax increase were DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 7%
required to cover the costs?
Let's talk about water....
100. Thinking back on the water use re- STATEMENT A............5%
striction imposed during the STATEMENT B...........70%
drought of 1988, would you say STATEMENT C...........21%
they were: DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 4%
A. Too restrictive and totally
unacceptable;
B. About right in view of the
problem;
C. Not tough enough and would
support more stringent ones
if the need arose.
101. Would you be willing to see your NO ....................63%
water rates increased in order 10% INCREASE .......... 22%
to fund measures to reduce the 25% INCREASE ........... 4%
need for future use restrictions? 50% INCREASE ........... 1%
(IF "YES," ASK:) How much of an 75% INCREASE ........... 0%
increase? (CHOOSE RANDOM START 100% INCREASE .......... 1%
POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN) DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 9%
• Thinking about water quality now, how serious a problem do you
feel the following characteristics of water are in Brooklyn
Center -- very serious, somewhat serious, or not at all serious?
VERY SMWT NOT ALL D.K.
102. Hard water? 35% 29% 33% 3%
103. Red water from iron? 14% 20% 62% 4%
104. Black specks from
manganese? 15 15% 65% 6%
105. Taste or odor? 17% 18% 63% 2%
106. Would you be willing to see your NO ............ .......58%
water rates increased in order 25% INCREASE .......... 29%
to improve the quality of water 50% INCREASE ........... 4%
in the city? (IF "YES," ASK:) 100% INCREASE .......... 1%
How much of an increase? (CHOOSE 150% INCREASE .......... 1%
RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR. 200% INCREASE .......... 0%
DOWN) 300% INCREASE .......... 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 8%
Changing focus....
•
13
107. The City will be instituting a VERY LIKELY ........... 65%
pick -up system for the disposal SOMEWHAT LIKELY....... 23% .
of separated recyclable materials. NOT AT ALL LIKELY ..... 10%
How likely will you be to use it DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 3%
-- very likely, somewhat likely,
or not at all likely?
108. Do you currently use public YES ...................24%
transportation -- the bus NO ....................75%
service -- available in Brooklyn DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1%
Center?
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #108, ASK:
109. Are you generally satisfied. SATISFIED .............19%
or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED ........... 5%
IF "NO" IN QUESTION'##108, ASK:
110. Are there any changes or improvements that could be
made which would increase your likelihood of using it?
(IF "YES," ASK:) What would they be?
DON'T KNOW: 21% NONE: 38% ON TIME: 1% CLOSER: 1%
SPECIFIC ROUTES: 2% MORE OFTEN: 1% SCATTERED: 1%
i
111. What is your principal source of information about the
recreational programs offered by the City of Brooklyn .
Center?
NONE: 8% PAPER: 6% MAILINGS: 34% SCHOOLS: 2% POST: 7%
PARK BROCHURE: 28% BULLETINS: 4% PEOPLE: 9%
USE CENTER: 2% TV: 1%
112. What is your primary source of information about City
government and its activities?
i
NONE: 16% CITY NEWSLETTER: 8% MAILINGS: 10% POST: 28%
PAPER: 21% PEOPLE: 9% CABLE: 4% SCATTERED: 2%
I
i
113. Do you recall receiving "The City YES ...................37%
Manager's Newsletter," the city's NO ....................57%
information publication, during DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 6%
the past year?
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #113, ASK:
114. Do you or any members of YES ...................28%
your household regularly NO .....................8%
read it? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1%
14
i
i
115. How effective is the city VERY EFFECTIVE ........ 13%
newsletter in keeping you SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.... 19%
informed about activities NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE ... 2%
in the City -- very effec- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 3%
tive, somewhat effective,
or not at all effective?
116. Does your household receive the RECEIVE/READ .......... 60%
"Brooklyn Center Post" news - RECEIVE /DON'T READ ..... 4%
paper? (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you DON'T RECEIVE ......... 35%
generally read it? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.....2%
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to
youngest....
117. First, persons 65 or over? 0 81% 1: 10% 2: 9%
118. Adults under 65? (including 0: 12% 1: 21% 2: 55%
yourself)? 3: 12%
119. School -aged children? (Grades 0: 74% 1: 12% 2: 9%
K - 12) 3: 5%
120. Pre- schoolers? 0: 86% 1: 9% 2: 5%
121. Do ou own or rent our resent OWN...... ... .7
Y y p 2%
residence? RENT ..................28%
122. Which of the following best SINGLE FAMILY ........70%
describes your residence? DUPLEX ..................1%
(READ CHOICES) APARTMENT .............22%
TOWNHOUSE /CONDOMINIUM..6%
123. What is your age, please? 18- 24 ..................7%
(READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34o ....... o ........ 26%
35- 44 .................18%
45- 54 .................13%
55-64.o ............... 22%
65 AND OVER..... __,15%
REFUSED. ... _oo .... o..J%
124. What is the occupation of the head of this household?
PROFESSIONAL- TECHNICAL: 16% OWNER - MANAGER: 18%
CLERICAL- SALES: 10% BLUE COLLAR:.30% RETIRED: 22%
SCATTERED: 5%
15
125. What is the last grade of school LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL..6%
you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE..36%
VO -TECH SCHOOL........ 10%
SOME COLLEGE .......... 25%
COLLEGE GRADUATE...... 17%
POST - GRADUATE.......... 5%
REFUSED ................1%
And now, for one final question.........
126. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12,500..........6%
pre -tax yearly household income. $12,500 - $25,000.......19%
Does the income lie.... $25,001 - $37,500.......27%
$37,501- $50,000.......22%
$50,001- $62,500........7%
OVER $62,500...........2%
DON'T KNOW .............5%
REFUSED...............12%
127. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT ASK) MALE ..................45%
FEMALE /AT HOME........ 23%
IF "FEMALE," ASK: Do you work FEMALE /WORKS OUTSIDE..32%
outside the home?
PRECINCT: 1: 14%
2: 15%
3': 15% •
4: 10%
5: 8%
6: 14%
7: 10%
8: 11%
9: 4%
SCHOOL DISTRICT: #286: 28%
#279: 36%
#281: 21%
# 11: 15%
16
i i •
Quality of Life
Brooklyn Center
Excellent 28
Poor 2
Only Fair 5
Good 64
Decision Resources, Ltd.
i
A&
-------------
P -OF ----------
Ono
Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important
City Services
Brooklyn Center
120
100 . ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ; ..............................................................................
..........
........... ...........
.......... ...........
........... ...
........... .......
...........
.......... ......... ........ ..........
..........
80 ......... .........
...........
..........
..........
..........
60 . . ......... .......... .......... ......... ..........
40 .......... ......... ........ .......... ......... ..........
20 . . ......... ....... ...... ........ ...... ... ...
0 1-
Police Fire Street Water Sewer Snow Animal Park
Excellent Good Onl y Fair Poor
DecIsIon Resources, Ltd.
Public SIssues
Brooklyn Center
Violent Crime
Burglary
Traffic
Drugs
Juveniles
f
Other
3 =
_
None
Don't Know
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Greatest Problem ® Second Concern
Decision Resources, Ltd.
• •
Civic Center Expansion
Brook) y n Center
City Hall Addition
New Gymnasium
Senior Drop -In
3
Handball Courts
I
Fitness Room
Indoor Track
Proposal
0 20 40 60 80 100
Favor ® Oppose
Decision Resources, Ltd.
Group Homes
Brooklyn Center
Retarded _
Chem Dep
Mental III
Ex- Prison
Lobbying
Lobby /Tax
0 20* 40 60 80 100
Approve Disapprove
Decision Resources, Ltd.