Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 09-17 CCM Special Session CORRECTED COPY MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDTPJGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CE" +TER IN T13E COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were. City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. PUBLI HEARING Mayor Nyquist opened the public hearing on the proposed 1985 City Budget. He noted that Ann Wallerstedt, Barb Jensen, and Jack Weber were in the audience to speak to the Council on funding a Mediation Service Program. He also stated that he felt that he had a personal conflict of interest with the program but did express his support for mediation service. He then turned the meeting over to Councilmember Celia Scott. Bill Hawes also excused himself from consideration of the mediation service, indicating that he too felt that he had a conflict of interest. Councilmember Scott then recognized Barb Jensen. Barb Jensen stated that she felt that each of the Councilmembers were familiar with mediation service from their past history, and indicated that she would be comfortable with answering any of the questions that the Council might have relative to their funding request. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the certainty of other funding sources indicated to the Council in their memorandum. Barb Jensen indicated that she was very confident of the funding sources and that such funding sources would continue over time. Councilmember Theis indicated that he noted in the mediation services' budget an increase in the staff budget and inquired as to the reason. Barb Jensen indicated to the Council that the 1985 budget reflect a full -time position as opposed to a previous half -time position. Councilmember Theis then inquired as to the percent of activity performed outside of Brooklyn Center by the mediation services. Barb Jensen indicated that she had not specific figures on that but would estimate about 30% of their activity is outside of Brooklyn Center. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the relationship between mediation services and City staff. Barb Jensen indicated she felt mediation services should be used more often. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why the City Manager had not recommended funding from mediation services in his budget. The City Manager indicated that he recommended such services only when they would reduce a mandated service requirement of the City. He indicated that he did not feel it was improper funding for the City but that it was not required. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to include $2,000 in the budget as a one -time expenditure with a source of funding not to be determined at this time. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Hawes abstained. Councilmembers started review of 1985 revenues for the City. Councilmember Hawes 9- 17--84 -1- inquired why there is a drop in the estimated revenues from rental licenses. The City Manager indicated that it reflects an over estimation of revenues from the previous year. Following a brief discussion, Councilmember Theis indicated he thought it might be an appropriate time to reconsider the rental license fees. He then requested that the staff review the present rental license fees and policies. Following a review of other revenues, Councilmember Theis inquired as to the origination of engineering and clerical fees. The Finance Director indicated that the City charges a 9% engineering fee for all of its projects. He also indicated that the reduction in the revenue for this item reflected conservative estimation of the same. Councilmember Theis inquired as to revenue sources for legal fees. The City Manager replied that they reflect items with billable costs, such as City plats. He indicated those costs are passed on to the applicants. The Council then took up business of reviewing the proposed budget. The Council first reviewed the City Council Budget, Unit No. 11. Councilman Lhotka inquired about the $17,000 for watershed districts. The City Manager indicated the dollar figures he has for membership were correct, but that the cost to the City should be reduced over a period of time. Councilmember Lhotka also indicated his concern with Suburban Rate Authority, indicating he felt the City was not getting a fair return on its money. Councilmember Theis questioned the raise in the Northwest Human Services budget. The City Manager indicated that he would check on the reasons for a raise in their budget. The Council then moved on to the Charter Commission Budget, Unit No. 12. Following a brief review, there was no questions from the Council and they moved on to the City Manager's Budget, Unit No. 13. Councilmember Lhotka inquired about dues and subscriptions under the Manager's - budget. He inquired as whether or not such subscriptions, etc., are being monitored. The City Manager replied that they in fact, were. The Council then reviewed Election Voter's Budget, Unit No. 14. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the rental expenses or rental. fees' in the budget. The City Manager indicated that those fees were there for the rental of churches, etc. He then pursued the discussion about handicapped inaccessibility, and the cost of making voting places accessible. The City Council then reviewed the Assessing Budget, Unit No. 15. Councilmember Theis inquired as to why there is an increase in the cost of part -time clerks. The Director of Finance indicated that it reflected 'an increase in step only and not hours. The Council then reviewed the Finance Department's Budget, Unit No. 16. Councilmember Theis noted that last year we had made an adjustment for the chief accountant and wondered if any further adjustments were going to have to be made because of the comparable worth this year. The City Manager indicated that at the moment none were being recommended, but that the comparable worth question was the subject of an ongoing study. The Council then reviewed Unit No. 17, Independent Audit. Councilmember Theis asked why there was a reduction in this item. The Finance Director indicated that the City was able to perform more of the functions and were better prepared for the auditors, allowing them less time here. 9- 17 -84 -2- The Council then reviewed Unit No. 18, Legal Counsel. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the current status of the 1984 budget. The Finance Director noted that he had exceeded the amount budgeted . The City Manager noted that primary cause of that was the Northwest Human Services lawsuit. Following a brief discussion, the Council requested a report back on the specifics of Legal Counsel budget to determine whether or not the reduction called for by the City attorney would be appropriate. The Council then reviewed Government Buildings Budget, Unit No. 19. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why some services were being contracted out. The City Manager indicated that we were getting better service, primarily, because they had supervision when contracted out and in the end was cheaper for the City. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the Unit No. 10, in Capital Outlay, and inquired as to how long they had been there. The City Manager replied approximately ten years. A brief discussion then ensued relative to sprinkling the lawn area and the effect that the iron water had on the buildings. The Council then reviewed Detached Worker Program. There were no questions. In review of the Police Department Budget, Unit No. 31. Councilmember Theis inquired why additional police officers were not being recommended by the Manager. The City Manager indicated that quite a few of the personnel have been hurt and would be back in the near future. He indicated he would be better able to justify additional personnel once they were at their full complement. Following a brief discussion, Councilmember Theis indicated that he would like the City to explore the need for additional police personnel. Councilmember Hawes then inquired as to the need for the domestic assault intervention item. The City Manager indicated that the department needs an advocate to help deal with domestic situations. The police are often viewed,as the enemy by both parties in a domestic situation. He indicated that a neutral party when used, had beneficial results. He indicated that the program was designed after the Duluth program. The advocate, under this program, would inform the parties of available sources of help. He indicated that the police department has recorded a noticeable reduction of repeat offenders under the program. He stated by getting the parties to counseling that, in fact, it is reducing the amount of police and court time resulting in a reduction of cost to the City. Councilmember Hawes then inquired whether this was an ongoing program. The City Manager indicated that it was. The Council then took up review of Fire Department Budget, Unit No. 32. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the position of the fire educational officer, and why the City Manager had recommended against it. The City Manager felt that there was not adequate justification for the position, and that it was inconsistent with other positions in the fire department as much as it had provided a monthly salary. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the nature of the rescue van and the need for the same. The City Manager indicated that the proposed van would replace the current van which is scheduled for replacement. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the difference between the rescue van and the salvage van. ,The Finance Director then reviewed the retirement benefits and noted a request from the Fire Department for a 20% benefiting increase for active members and a 10% increase for all vested and retired members. Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the number of beneficiaries or retirees currently on the fund. It was indicated that the cost was approximately $60,000 a year. He is not sure of the exact number. 9- 1.7 -84 -3- The Council then reviewed Planning & Inspection, Unit No. 33; Emergency Preparedness, Unit No. 34; and Animal Control, Unit No. 35. They had no questions on those three budget items. The Council then reviewed the Engineering Department Budget, Unit No. 41. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as the microfilm reader proposed in the 1984 budget and the reader proposed in the 1985 budget, having a $6,600 difference. It was indicated the cost on the new one was for strictly a reader and not a reader and printer. The Council then reviewed Street and Construction Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 42. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to whether or not the street department was saving any money by contracting the seal coating. The City Manager indicated that by going with a private contractor, they were more efficient, and that we had fewer problems in the neighborhood because their inability to get in and out faster. He indicated that the cost of the two was very similar. There was an inquiry about the age of the vehicles being replaced. The Council requested that the staff check to see what equipment will be replaced next year and asked they be provided with a list of equipment, the age, life expectancy, and a scheduled replacement. Councilmember Hawes indicated that he felt the new seal coating program in his area had worked very well. The Council then reviewed the Vehicle Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 43. Councilmember Theis inquired if the computer for that department was in this particular budget. The City Manager indicated that all of the computer equipment being proposed would be found in the Unallocated Budget, Unit No. 80. The Council then reviewed Traffic Signs and Signals, Unit No. 44. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if this budget was strictly maintenance. The City Manager affirmed that it was from- maintenance only. He indicated that the installation of new lights is funding out of state aid, if needed. The Council then reviewed budgets for Street Lighting, Unit No. 45; Weed Control, Unit No. 46; Health & Welfare, Unit No. 51; Parks & Recreation, Unit No. 61. There were no questions. The Council then reviewed the Park and Recreation Adult Recreation Programs, Unit No. 62. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the use for the recorder of players The City Manager indicated that those were used in the various classes being offered by the City's Park and Recreation department, such as aerobics, dancing, etc. The Council then reviewed the Teen Recreation Program, Unit No. 63 and Children's Recreation Program, Unit No. 64. There were no questions. The Council then reviewed the General Recreation Program, Unit No. 65. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the activities being sponsored at the Northview Junior High. The City Manager indicated that the City offers various classes at Northview Junior High, including scuba diving and swimming. The Council then inquired as to whether or not the skating rinks would remain . at the same level under the proposed budget. The City Manager indicated that it was an increase of two in the number of skating rinks that would be offered in the 1985 Budget. The Council then reviewed the Community Center Budget, Unit No. 66. Councilmember 9 -17 -84 -4- Lhotka inquired as to the increase of professional services over previous years. The City Manager indicated that it reflected the cost of scuba classes that were to be offered in the City's pool. He also indicated that such costs were reimbursed by fees. The Council then reviewed the Park Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 69• There were no questions. The Council then reviewed the Unallocated Budget, Unit No. 80. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the reason for an increase in the data processing budget. The City Manager explained that it was an expanded use of systems and the addition of new systems within the City. The Council then requested that the staff provide them with a breakdown on all data processing costs. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to recess the public hearing for the evening and to reconvene the public hearing on September 24, 1984. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:11 p.m. F a s''e D putt City Clerk L Mayor y I 9- 17 -84 -5-