HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 03-04 CCP Special Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MARCH 4, 1991
SPECIAL SESSION
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Opening Ceremonies
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Discussion Items:
a. Review of Proposed HRA Levy Legislation
b. Review of Proposed District #281 Police School
C. Discussion of Feasibility of Gambling Legislation
Modification to Allow Charitable Gambling Casino Events
d. Discussion of Group Home Lobbying Contract with Boland
and Associates
e. Impacts of State Financial Problems
f. Report on Tri -City Housing Legislative Efforts
(URAP /SUBRAP).
6. Adjournment
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -47
Exhibit C
A Bill for an Act
Relating to the Brooklyn Center
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Providing for Authority to Increase Levy
Section 1. Special Levy. In addition to the levy
authorized by Chapter 469.033, Subdivision
6 the Brooklyn Center Housing and
Redevelopment Authority may levy a
property tax of up to 0.0300 percent of
taxable market value. The amount of the
levy shall be an amount approved by the
governing body of the city. The proceeds
of the levy must be used for purposes
authorized by chapter 469.01 to 469.047.
Section 2. Local Approval. This act is effective the
day after approval by the governing body
of the City of Brooklyn Center and its
compliance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 645.021, Subdivision 3.
s
Representative Ann Rest
District 46A
Re Special Legislation
Dear Rep. Rest:
Thank you again for meeting with Jerry Dulgar and myself last week
to discuss our proposal for legislation to fund police /school
liaison officers. At that meeting, you expressed interest in
assisting cities within the Robbinsdale School District to seek
legislation that would enable cities to enact special levys for
this purpose. You also asked that our cities express their
intentions regarding such legislation. Lastly, you wanted
information about the program, it objectives, and any pertinent
data that would be relevant.
The Police /School Liaison Officer program has been around the
Robbinsdale School District in one form or another since 1971. At
that time, the cities of Robbinsdale, Plymouth, New Hope, and
Golden Valley received LEAA grants to implement the program and
have police officers in the junior high schools. With the passing
of the grant three years later, Robbinsdale and Plymouth dropped
out. New Hope and Golden Valley continued on with the program
picking up all costs. New Hope has maintained a full time officer
principally serving Cooper HS and Hosterman JH. Golden Valley has
maintained a part time liaison officer in Sandburg JH. 11.
The Robbinsdale School District and its citizens have not been
equally served by the program. The District currently has four
middle schools (which were formerly the junior highs) and two
senior high schools. During the last 15 years, Armstrong HS and
Plymouth Middle School have not had the availability of a dedicated
police /school liaison officer. Robbinsdale TLC (grades 5 -8),a more
recent school, also does not have liaison officer services. Only
Hosterman, Cooper and Sandburg and the student attending have had
the services of the program.
Police /School Liaison Officer Program
The program's purpose is to deliver police services to
students, parents and staff in a "non- traditional" way.
The program deals with the community problems that are
brought to the school setting. These problems are often
manifested through disruptive behaviors brought to the
schools that are often the result of: home and family
crises, sexual and /or physical abuse at the home, drug
abuse and dealing at the school, cultural diversity
clashes, gang activity, and deprivation of basic human
needs. The liaison officer works with the school staff
to: respond to the immediate security and peace problem,
coordinate the external response to a problem occurring
f
in school setting, and provide the students a person
who can help them deal with a "problem" that is effecting
their lives in the school setting.
The cities are asking you to consider authoring legislation that
would address the following problem and need:
Problem
Their is gross disparity between who gets and who pays
for the services of the program. The Robbinsdale School
District is comprised of seven cities -three whose
boarders are wholly within the district and four cities
whose boarder are only partly within the district. Of
these four cities, two cities have as many as four
different school districts in their city. New Hope and
Golden Valley are the home of Cooper, Hosterman and
Sandburg. Only those cities are funding police /school
liaison officers. The other five cities pay no costs
toward the program. Additionally, students going to
Cooper, Hosterman and Sandburg receive the services of
the program. Students going to Plymouth, Armstrong, and
Robbinsdale TLC receive no services.
The consequence to all of this is that some cities and
their residents pay and some don't. Some students and
school staffs have the availability of an officer and
some don't.
Solution
Legislation is being sought in order to establish a
special tax levy that would guarantee an orderly and fair
way to make the program available to all six schools and
assess all cities with the school district on an
equitable basis for the service. The legislation would
allow each city to establish a special levy against those
properties in their cities that are with in school
district to pay for the program. The cities would first
agree to join together and then agree on the factors on
which to base funding (ie. net tax capacity, households,.
population, K -12 student, etc.) . Lastly, the cities
would enter into an agreement with the school district
for the purpose of establishing goals, objectives and
program parameters.
I have prepared two spreadsheets with graphs that present some of
the demographic data of the seven cities and various options that
might be available to the cities to establish "equitable" funding.
I am preparing a resolution that I will be passing to each of our
cities that they will consider their intention to participate both
in the program and in the seeking of special legislation.
i
Thank you for considering this request. Please call on me if you
have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Robbinsdale School District— Population, Household & Student Data
1990 data
Net Tax Percent City
Capacity Percent Households Percent Population Percent Pop. in Dist. K -12 Percent
------------------------------------------ _------------- --- —_____ _.._ ____---- - - - - --
Brooklyn Center $7,768,805 9.81% 1,265 3.39% 3,177 3,33,6 11.00% 539 3.93%
Brooklyn Park $3,716,539 4.69% 1,670 4.47% 4,508 4.72 %!' 8.00% 1,024 7.47%
Crystal $13,618,378 17.19% 9,423 25.25% 23,788 24.90 % 100.00% 3,204 23.38%
Golden Valley $13,396,374 16.91% 5,756 15.42% 14,679 15.37 %> 70.00% 1,449 10.58 %''
New Hope $17,913,843 22.61% 8,403 22.51% 22,770 23.84% 100.00% 3,062 22.35 %'
Plymouth $14,577,484 18.40% 4,540 12.16% 12,213 12.78 %' 24.00% 2,732 19.906
Robbinsdale $8,226,268 10.38% 6,265 16.79% 14,396 15.07 %' 100.00% 1,692 12.35%
-------------- ------------------ - - - - -- 13702 10000%
; ---- _--- ___�-- - - - - --
Total $79,217,691 100.00% 37,322 100.00% 95,531 100.00% 100.00%
The number of households in
each city is derived by taking
the "percent City pop. in District Comparin Net Tax Cap
and multiplying that by the 1990 with pop ulation data
population estimate. The results 30.0% —
are divided by the Met Council's
estimate of persons per 25.0%
household. The percent of
population for the four cities 20.0%
not wholly in the District comes
from a 1986 Met Council estimate.
U 15.0%
1 suspect that the percent of pop.
for Ply. 8r Brklyn Pk. are a bit a
10.0%
high.
5.0% .
I I ,
0.0 %
Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Golden Valley New Hope Plymouth Robbinsdale
Cities
% of Households in DEN % Population in Dist.
% Students in Dist. � . % Net Tax Capacity
Prepared by Dan Donahue
February 15, 1991
Various Revenue Schemes & Costs to Cities
5 Liaison officers - $288,000 Budget
Tax CapacitPopulation Average
Tax Capacity Households Population K -12 & K -12 & k -12 of All
----------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Center $28,244 $9,762 $9,578 $11,329 $19,787 $10,453 $14,728
Brooklyn Park $13,512 $12,887 $13,590 $21,523 $17,517 $17,557 $15,378
Crystal $49,510 $72,714 $71,714 $67,344 $58,427 $69,529 $65,321
Golden Valley $48,703 $44,417 $44,253 $30,456 $39,580 $37,355 $41,957
New Hope - $65,127 $64,843 $68,645 $64,360 $64,743 $66,503 $65,744
Plymouth $52,997 $35,033 $36,819 $57,423 $55,210 $47,121 $45,568
Robbinsdale $29,907 $48,345 $43,400 $35,564 $32,735 $39,482 $39,304
---- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Total $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $0
Lisison Officer Costs
so
by option and by city
--
70 -
60
50
b &:
d
A
ao fi
0
30
20 I r
''I A
10
0
Brooklyn Center Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale
Brooklyn Park Golden Valley Plymouth
Costs based on:
Tax Capacity Households population
K- 12Students�`
Tax Cap & K -12 All Four Criteria
Prepared by Dan Donahue
February 15, 1991
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date -3 14 A�
Agenda Item Number .5 L'
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CHARITABLE GAMBLING LEGISLATION
•«««**** r* a* a« w***** �* �**• ��** a** rawwwrrr** rrrr* �*** *•� *aa *� *+*rrrawrac * * *��� *ra•
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title �—
rr* rrrr +r * *�rrwrx+r�r *�rr�r *x�r ** art * * *a *r�r* err+ rrr* r***** xax+ �at�c�xrx* * * * * *�r * * * *r * * * * * *r * * * *ra�r
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
• «* rrx., r* �x�c■ r�r* �rac�r�r�r** c * *�r * * *�r *�r *�rr *x * «. «��r�tw ** prat*« x* * * * * * *�ra*.�r * * * * * * *r *. *x.. « *r
rr�r *ss *aaa * *• * *�r�rs *�r*
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
Since Brooklyn Center has opened the Earle Brown Heritage Center, a number of questions have risen regarding
charitable and casino type gambling. 1 have attached a copy of a letter 1 received from city attorney Charlie LeFevere
regarding his and the attorney general's office's opinion on certain types of casino gambling. With regard to the
employer's sponsored party, the letter attached is clear and it appears there is a difference in opinion between an
attorney in the attorney general's office and our city attorney. There have also been requests for consideration for
casino type gambling nights on behalf of charitable organizations. The law is quite clear on this subject and that type
of gambling is definitely not legal under state statutes.
A question has been raised as to whether or not Brooklyn Center should seek legislation to allow for the employer
sponsored casino type gambling to clarify a current law and /or legislation which would allow charitable casino type
gambling nights.
If the Council wishes the staff to pursue modifications of these gambling statutes, please give us direction and we
will start the process immediately. Please understand we do not know yet whether this would be an easy or difficult
process.
FEB 27 '91 14:51 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.Z
I I
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
Attorneys at Law 370 Pillsbury Center. Minneayolls. Minnesota 5502
ROBERT A. A] <OP 16121337 - 4300 JtiI3E A. LAW LER
PAt1. D. BAERTSCHI Facsimile 16121337.9310 CHARI,F> L. LEFEvEt
RO II. BATTY JOHN M. LEFEvRE.J:
MARY J. BRENDEN ROBERT J. I3NDALL
STEPHEN J. BCBL'L LAURA K. MOLLET
ROBERT C. CARL
DANIEL R. NELSON
CHRISTINE M. CHAI,F.
JOHN B. DEAN BARBARAL.PORTWO!
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL MARY FRANCFSSYA
ROBERT D AN
MARY G. DEIKES JAMES M, STROMME
JEFFREY ENG S TE Y F;N M. TAU .EN
STEFANIE N. GALEY
JAM Fs J. THOMSON.
337 -9215 LARRY M. WERTHEI`
CORRINE A. HEIN
' DAVID L. GRAVEN goNNIE L. WILKINS
� f.
JAMES S. HOLMES
DAVID J. KENNEDY OF COUNSEL
JORN R. LAWSON ROBERT L. DAYiosw
WELLINGTON H. LAW
JOHN G. HOEJCHLER
i
I,
I
January 18, 1991
Mr. Jerry Splinter
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
5301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Casino -type Gambling; Supplementary Opinion
Dear Jerry:
In my letter to you dated January 15, 1991, I gave the opinion that if participants
in a casino-type activity contribute nothing of value, directly or indirectly, it
would not be gambling. I gave as an example, a party hosted by a company or
individual for which the guests would pay nothing, directly or indirectly, for the
right to play. Under these circumstances, I stated that such an activity would not
be gambling. Although 1 am still of the opinion that this is a direct statement of
the law, it may oversimplify the issue somewhat, and therefore be misleading.
i.
My opinion was based on the idea that the host of such a party provides the where -
with -all to bet,, the game of chance, and the prize. If it were not for the host
providing everything, the player would have nothing. The player comes to the
casino -type event with nothing and if the player loses everything that has been
given him by the host, he leaves the same as he came. That is, over the course of
the party, the player has lost nothing. In this sense the player stands to win at the
end of the night but cannot lose since the player cannot end the evening with less
than he or she arrived with.
I have discussed this issue with Mr. Kevin Staunton, with the criminal enforcement
i division of the Attorney General's office. Mr. Staunton reaches the opposite
opinion, and concludes that such parties are unlawful gambling even if the host
provides the consideration for the gambling. His opinion is based upon the idea
that the first event is the giving by the host of a gift to the players. The players at
PEE 27 '91 14:51 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3
Mr. Jerry Splinter
January 18,1991
Page Z
j that point have something of value. The gift could be chips or tickets as opposed
to cash; however, because these chips or tickets could later be redeemed for
prizes, or used in lieu of cash to purchase or bid on prizes, or increase the chance
of winning prizes in a lottery, they do have a value at the time they are given to
the guest. Upon being received by the guest they belong to the guest. By entering
a game of chance, the guest stands to lose what belongs to him or her; therefore,
the Attorney General concludes, "consideration" is present and illegal gambling has
occurred.
I think that Mr. Staunton may have a point here. Frankly, I had not thought of the
issue in those terms. On further reflection, it seems to me that the limited facts
presented in the example (i.e. that the host provides the tickets to play, the host
provides the game of chance, and the host provides the prizes which are awarded or
are more likely' to be awarded to the most successful players) are not sufficient to
determine whether unlawful gambling has occurred. Some events falling within
this description would be unlawful while others would not.
For example, a casino party hosted by an employer could involve unlawful gambling
if it were organized as follows: Upon arrival at the party, all employees are given
their annual bonus in chips. Employees who do not come to the party are given
their annual bonus in cash. Chips may be redeemed at the end of the party for
valuable prizes. If the employee does not gamble, he or she can redeem the chips
at the end of the evening. Under these circumstances, I believe that the employee
has provided consideration for the gambling. That is, the employee has subjected
some valuable property to the element of chance to win or lose. Therefore, all of
j the elements of illegal gambling would be present.
On the other hand, an employer could sponsor a casino party which, in my opinion,
would not be a prosecutable offense. For example, an employer might provide each
employee with ten tickets, each of which had the name of the employee on it, and
which could only be used for the purpose of placing ten bets by that individual
employee. In. my opinion, the employee in this case would not be providing
ticonsideration" since the employee never has anything of independent value which
they stand to lose. If the guests can win a bet but stand to lose nothing of value, I
do not believe that a prosecutable- criminal offense has occurred.
These two examples may serve to demonstrate how one host - sponsored gambling
event could be illegal while another might not. However, I realize that the
examples are not particularly helpful because neither one describes situations
which actually occur.
We are definitely in a gray area here. The courts have not provided us with any
guidance as to how the law might be interpreted in cases where the host provides
the consideration. Various attorneys who deal routinely with these issues are
apparently not in agreement. It seems to me that this reflects a reasonable and
honest difference of opinion on a difficult issue.
I.
FEB 27 '91 14:52 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.4
Mr. Jerry Splinter
January 18,1991
Page 3
The question raised points out the difficulty and danger of providing advisory
opinions on the basis of abstract questions. In any case, I would recommend that
party organizers should be advised that the gambling laws may be enforced by the
City, the County, or the Attorney General; that the Attorney General, at least,
takes a very restrictive view; and that even if the City decides not to prosecute,
the Attorney General may. I do not believe that is prudent to advise someone that
their party will be legal or illegal without fairly detailed information about how the
party will work. Even if a guest comes to a party and pays no consideration to
come to the party and gambles nothing of value which they owned at the time they
came to the party, there could still be cases in which illegal gambling has occurred.
In most such cases I believe that it would be very difficult to support a criminal
prosecution. However, you should be advised that at least one attorney at the
Attorney General's office is of the opinion that a criminal offense occurs in such
cases.
If you have any further questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
i BRZ 91 -0 04
�. ec: James Lindsay
a
i
i
I
r
I
i
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Data
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
GROUP HOME LOBBYING EFFORT
r�rrr* r«* rrrrrr***** r***** wra• a+ r*«**...■ r■..*. rrc�►,► r ► *. * * * * * * *.�►ac *.�.. *�►.a * *.... «,►mat.«
,►.....■ *ate *ram * * * * * * «.
DEPT. APPROVAL:��
,!] r f A
Signature - title
«.«.. a** �** r* ��.* xwa*+ �srr� * * *�r�r.rc *aa+r *�r...�r «�r.* six. *era►* roc * * * *r *z *air *a�a�r *z�r.s *a►. «.,►. «.
rr•�rr�r * * *r•a�r�r�► *� * * *x
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
In the last few years we have sponsored a lobbying effort on behalf of Boland and Associates to lobby the legislature
to modify its rules on siting group homes to allow for more public input.
Attached is a proposal for extending the contract for the 1990 -91 session in the amount of $5,000.
If the Council wishes to continue this lobbying effort, it should approve a motion to authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to sign a contract extension.
•
�
�
�
Boland and Associates
490 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55117
�
December 2B, 1991
Mr. Gerald Splinter, City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed is the report on legislative efforts related to
group homes during the 1990 state legislative session
along with the documents that are discussed in the
report~
As we discussed, I have experienced some illnesses with
the family. Therefore, the report is being submittad
later than I would have liked it to be. Thank you for
your consideration.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or
suggestions.
Best Regards
Ron Christensen
Copy to: John Boland
� Enclosure: Lobby Report
�
�
�
�
�
-
-
,
�
���� BOLAND & ASSOCIATES
=� 490 East County Road B
Mapl eve ood Minnesota 55117
Page 1 of 3
�
MEMO TO: Brooklyn Center City CounciI
Mr. Gerald SpIinter, City Manager
From� Ron Chr�stensen
John BoIand
Reference: LegisIative efforts related to group homes
� during the 199O s tate IegisIative �ess i�n.
This year the tat egislature w=ls in session from February
12 until April 25. This 53 working days not
inc1uding weekends. During that time czver 150 new biI I were
introdu�ed in the house and were ree4-erred to the Health and
Human Service S Committee. In at n, many b IIs that were
orig�nally introduced in the 1989 -ess�on were reconsidlered by
this committee. Over 20 of th w i
e nely m u
trodced bills were
� related in some way to the Mental Iy Ill the Chemically
�ependent, or th� MentalIy Ret�rded. In �ddition there were
many �ssues 0isc us- s e in the Health and Human Services
Subcommittees' There W as �imil c t ii vi t y im the Health and
��� Human Services Committe f the Senate.
The abcrt elated iS Sues occupJed much of
� the time of the Health and Human Services Committees of both
� t�e Senate and House.
These committees are very active amd deal wi i5sues that a�
�f gre�t importance to the people that they a�f���. Therefo-e
the committee meetings are always fi Iled to c-apacity with
a tanding room only. This -equire-s- additional time before
meetin�s in securing a place to sit. It also requires prior
� cont�ct with the committee staff to determime the present
st�tu� o� i��ues to come before the committee. This
especially true if a person intends to testify before the
committee. It would not be very impresssive to testify on
Something that was not current in the committees
deliberations. Needless to say this takes a lot of time'
� Almost always. the biIls end up in a con+erence committee
� between the hcuse and senate very near the end o� the session~
The of the committee is to negotiate the
differences between the house and senate versions of the final
bilI. At this point there Js Iittle or no oportunity for new
input' However, old issues can re-emerge for consideration.
Therefore, it is important to attemd these con+erence
committee meetings to make your presence known and the react
to these situation=—
�
'
City of Br���I�yn Center
1990 Legis�at�ve S g 2 of 3
The final bilI is ccmteine� in C�apter 56B �s AN ACT relating
to the organization of state government�
appropri��ing money for human service= and a n L; other
purposes with certain �ondition�� amen�in� Minnesote Statutes
as listed om tbe document.
Enc�osse� is a Zoq.y of Chap�er 569 for your review.. Listed
beIIow a C Sections that deal with group homes or
as�ociat�o issues.
Pa�e 61 & 62 �ec. 47 subdivin 4 deals with the Ioca ti on
of re��dential homes.
Pages 62 through 70 Sec. 48 contain new legislation deaIing
wi�h rec�iver�h�� of resx.dential programs. This is a result of
Cc n about the cont�nuation of operation of these
faci��ties if financial diffi- ulties arise.
Page� 71 and 72 Bec. 50 deals with zonIng and other Ian4d L5
regulations of monresidentieI programs.
Page 90 Se�. 66 and Sec. 67 deal with permitted single
fami5y u�e and muItifami1y use and _z.dds famiIy �ay c�re for 14
or few�r children as � perm�tted single famiIy u�e.
Pages 1�� through 111 Sec. 9D through 93 deaI with ruies�
stmdies and rz2po�A s in relation to the treatment of chemical
dependency and mantaI illnes These are important pages
becau�e they d��I with some of the issues that were involved
in the y House dispu =nd are issues that we have been
uorkimg on at the Ie�i���ture.
Page 114 Sec. 101 deals with a report required for changes
� in the cperation of the chemJcaI dependency treatment fund.
Page 215 Sec~ 97 deaIs with mente1 h ea! th practIticmers for
children.
Page 216 Sec. 101 deeIs with property related payment rates
� for nursing homes.
Pages 215 and 216 are mentined here because it may be
desirab�e to pur�ue these type� of legislation for th�e
treatment of the mentally ill and dependent.
A I�sting of bills that were introduced to the House and then
re+erred to Hcealth and Human Services is attached. This
lis�:ing is for the Sevsenty-Sixth Session of the Legislature
�
which covers the years of 1989 and 199O. We had copies of most
of the bil�� th�t were relevant to group homes for the
mentaIIy ill and chemically dependent for our review. We have
not incIudedl then with this report since Chapter 568 contains
� Uhe final result of the consider_�tion by the legislature.
However, some of them will come before the legislature in the
-- future.
�
� ^
�
of Br=0oklyn Center
199O Ls�it�ve Se�s�on Page 3 of 3
A major part of our effort een to Counteract legislation
introduc�d by others th�t would permit an increase in the size
� of group homes and would force oispersaI into the �uburbs. Our
efforts heve not been dispersal as desirable but have
been to improve the operation of group homes and to improve
t iting proce�s be�ore d�sper��I to any location. It is
�ifficuIt to say with certainty wha� affect ones efforts have
had on the complicated pro.= of lobbying the legi Iature.
However, we feel that our efforts have caused some bills to be
with�rawn by '-he author and others to be modified or not
introduced. In turn. we have not introduced some bills that we
wouId desireo to because of consideration of potential
result�.
We have been involved in monit or inc- the Iegislature and in
becoming acquainted with the various 1egislators that are
involved with group home is�ues.
�ncIosed is a copy of the Le�islative Auditors Report cm
[ of munity F,e enr-es �or Adults With Menta� Ilness. This '
report is the direct resul t of our efforts at the Iegislature
during the Kelly Hou— considerations. It also seems to be
reflected in some of the actions of the legislature as
mentioned in Chapter 568. We have been informed that this
audit is a major reason that the Kelly House management
deci�ed to ch_ange their et_forts and Iocate the faci1ity
somewhere else. We find the Ietter on the second page o� the
r�port ted December 20 19B9 (especiaIly the second
paragraph) to be interesti n that it ind��ates that there
is a need improvement in the Mental Health System. That
has been the of our lobby efforts.
The pro Cess of lobbying the state legislature is often a
frustrating and time consuming process. However, it has become
a necess- ary function of most governmental agencies because
others are doing it. It �� c�ear that those that are involved
in informing tbe IegisIa tor s Eq1bout their interests have
received betteer con�iderat�ns. We �ugge�t that City Council
continue the�e efforts on behalf o f tbe citizens of BrookIyn
Center.
Additional efforts wilI also be required at the county and
Metro Council levels. The Metro Council is havinq a strategy
meeting on February 20 to discuss the "Sit�ng of Controver�-iaI
Facilitie�". Someone Shoul� repre�sent Brooklyn Center at this
meeting.
����k
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Dateg
Agenda Item Numbe ^ �
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
MNMMNMMIFNMMMMKitl FfiiF iF iF iF iFMii iF if iFMNif %iF iiMNiFMMNMNii it iF iF iFNt ■MMNiFMMMMiiNNiFMM MMNiFMiF it itNNNltM•#at N1lNNM
N 1F N N iF N M M iF iF M N iF M 1F 1F -0F iF iF iF M iF
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
IMPACTS OF STATE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
�►+ r�r* a►.* �r r.. r. ► r***■ r�..+►. �rrr«+ rra..« �r.. �r** �r..« x*. �r�r. �r�r* a►« �r�r ..��r *r�rrr *�rrw....► « «�r� **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
«...r* *era► *+r «x **■« �r�racr* ac** ac.+ �** �r** �* * *�► « ■. * *+rr * *r�r� ■��rx* *�c�rr .+ter « *+�rs * * * *s * * * *r *�r. *.:
..rr *� *rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
«•.« rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrac�*+ t** x�c. rr* �► �r* �rxrr. ��r« xr� * * * *r� *rx�ra+� * * * * * *.r�r..
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
1 have enclosed a packet of information regarding the state budget crisis received from the North Metro Mayors
Association, copy of an article from the League magazine, and other materials relating to this issue. Please pay
special note to the first chart of the North Metro Mayors Association packet titled "Comparison of Property Tax
Burdens for the City of Brooklyn Center payable in 1990, current law versus estimated payable 1990 based on the
Governor's proposal for fiscal year 1993." It shows the impact of Governor Carlson's proposal for modifying the
property tax system which basically shifts the burden of property taxes from commercial /industrial and apartment
property to single - family residential property. The greatest portion of this burden will impact on homes under
$70,000.
We will have available at the meeting presentation materials which we believe could be used as the basis for an
informational effort to inform our citizens of the impacts of these various state proposals on the City's services. We
believe it will be critically important to mount an informational process which will have an impact on the citizens and
legislature's perception of the impact of the budget cuts proposed by Governor Carlson.
NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION
Organized 1985
SPECIAL ALERT
TO: North Metro Mayors Association Board Members -
City Mayors and Managers /Administrators
FROM: Joseph D. Strauss
Sarah M. Nelson
DATE: February 27, 1991
RE: Potential Loss of Local Government Aids
This past week, a NMMA Ad Hoc Committee met with officials of the City of
Minneapolis to discuss the proposed Local Government Aid (LGA) cuts. (The group
included three mayors, four city managers, our lobbyists, Sarah and Joseph.)
It was agreed that the following themes need to be the basis of a communication
campaign with our local legislators, business communities and media, namely:
• City spending has been responsible throughout the 1980s.
a. Show per capita spending figures.
b. Show bar charts of state, county, education and city spending past ten
years. (See attached materials prepared by the League.)
• Reason for state budget shortfall is not the result of increases in spending
by cities.
• City services are a necessary part of everyday life for residents of our
communities; i.e. police and fire protection, water maintenance, health
inspections, street repair and plowing, etc.
a. Show detailed list of services provided. (See Minneapolis percentage
budget breakdown of each department)
b. State the specific service cuts that would have to be made by your city
as the result of the loss of LGA revenue losses. Be very specific and
accurate. Do not over state the consequences.
• City spending serves people, it is geared to meet their needs and
expectations. Who will suffer because of these aid cuts`? The people who
rely on these essential services.
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
Telephone 612- 493 -5115 FAX 612- 424 -1174
i
• What happens to property taxes if local government aids are eliminated or
severely cut''
Either....
a. There are increased property taxes, or
b. Essential services must he cut.
There are no other alternatives available!
These themes need to be communicated to the Governor, your legislators, the media, local
Chambers of Commerce and your local community.
Also, you need to know that the "circuit breaker" concept proposed as part of the
Governor's budget balancing package will not do what they are predicting First, the
formula has yet to be created. Preliminan evaluations of this idea are that it cannot
achieve its intended propose, that is, to reduce the impact of potential property tax
increases on the homeowner. More information will be available on this subject as it
becomes available.
The group also agreed to meet again at a later date for further discussion following the
introduction of specific legislation. We will keep you informed on this subject.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW TO COMMUNICATE YOUR CONCERN AND TO
SHARE THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED ABOVE WITH THOSE LISTED.
COMPARISON OF PROPERTY TAX BURDENS FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN.CENTER 02/21/91
PAYABLE 1990 CURRENT LAW vs. ESTIMATED PAYABLE 1990 BASED ON GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR FY 1993 05:05 PM
Mpls IGR
PAYABLE 1990 CURRENT LAW ESTIMATED PAYABLE 1990 BASED ON GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR FY 1993
See attached memo.
City tax extension rate = 16.974% City mill rate ----- - ----> 9.855
Total tax extension rate = 102.001% Total mill rate ---- -----> 43.528
- - - -- CITY - ----11--•-- TOTAL ----�
Estimated Eff. Estimated Eff. % %
Market Tax City Total Tax Market Tax City Total Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax
Value Capacity Tax Tax Rate Value Capacity Tax Tax Rate Change Change Change Change
>> Homestead << ( 1 / 2
40,000 400 68 408 1.02% 40,000 20,000 197 871 2.18% 129 190.3% 463 113.4%.
50,000 500 85 510 1.02% ( 50,000 25,000 246 1,088 2.18% 162 190.3% 578 113.4%
60,000 600 X102 612 1.02% 60,000 30,000 296 1,306 2.18% 194 190.3% 694 113.4%
65,000 650 110 663 1.02% ` 65,000 32,500 320 1,415 2.18% 210 190.3% 752 113.4%
70,000 720 122 734 1.05% 70,000 35,000 345 1,523 2.18% 223 .182.2% 789 107.4%
80,000 920 156 938 1.17% ( 80,000 40,000 394 1,741 2.18% 238 152.4% 803 85.5%
90,000 1,120 190 1,142 1.27% 90,000 45,000 443 1,959 2.18% 253 133.3% 816 71.5%
100,000 1,320 224 1,346 1.35% 100,000 50,000 493 2,176 2.18% 269 119.9% 830 61.6%
150,000 2,820 479 2,876 1.92% 150,000 75,000 739 3,265 2.18% 260 54.4% 388 13.5%
200,000 4,320 733 4,406 2.20% 200,000 100,000 986 4,353 2.18% 252 34.4% (54) -1.2%
300,000 7,320 1,242 7,466 2.49% ) 300,000 150,000 1,478 6,529 2.18% 236 19.0% (937) -12.6%
500,000 13,320 2,261 13,587 2.72% I 500,000 250,000 2,464 10,882 2.18% 203 9.0% (2,705) -19.9%
» Non- homestead Residential << 3
50,000 1,500 255 1,530 3.06% 50,000 25,000 246 1,088 2.18% (8) -3.2% (442) -28.9%
100,000 3,000 509 3,060 3.06% 100,000 50,000 493 2,176 2.18% (16) -3.2% (884) -28.9%
150,000 4,500 764 4,590 3.06% 150,000 75,000 739 3,265 2.18% (25) -3.2% (1,325) - 28.9%
Apartments « 3.6
50,000 1,800 306 1,836 3.67% 50,000 37,500 370 1,632 3.26% 64 21.0% (204) -11.1%
100,000 3,600 611 3,672 3.67% I 100,000 75,000 739 3,265 3.26% 128 21.0% (407) -11.1%
150,000 5,400 917 5,508 3.67% 150,000 112,500 1,109 4,897 3.26% 192 21.0% (611) -11.1%
>> Commercial /Industrial Preferential << ' 3.3 / 5.06
50,000 1,650 199 1,695 3.39% 50,000 37,500 263 1,604 3.21% 64 32.0% (91) -5.4%
100,000 3,300 398 3,391 3.39% 100,000 75,000 526 3,208 3.21% 127 32.0% (183) -5.4%
150,000 5,830 704 5,990 3.99% 150,000 125,000 876 5,346 3.56% 172 24.5% (644) -10.7%
500,000 23,540 2,842 24,186 4.84% 500,000 475,000 3,329 20,316 4.06% 487 17.2% (3,870) -16.0%
1,000,000 48,840 5,896 50,181 5.02% 1,000,000 975,000 6,834 41,701 4.17% 938 15.9% (8,480) -16.9%
5,000,000 251,240 30,330 258,137 5.16% 5,000,000 4,975,000 34,869 212,783 4.26% 4,540 15.0% (45,354) -17.6%
10,000,000 504,240 60,872 518,083 5.18% 1 10,000,000 9,975,000 69,914 426,636 4.27% 9,042 14.9% (91,447) -17.7%
>> Commercial /Industrial Non-Preferential << 5.06
50,000 2,530 305 2,599 5.20% 50,000 50,000 350 2,139 4.28% 45 14.7% (461) -17.7%
100,000 5,060 611 5,199 5.20% 100,000 100,000 701 4,277 4.28% 90 14.7%. (922) -17.7'/.
150,000 7,590 916 7,798 5.20% 150,000 150,000 1,051 6,416 4.28% 135 14.7/. (1,383) -17.7%
500,000 25,300 3,054 25,995 5.20% I 500,000 500,000 3,504 21,385 4.28% 450 14.7 (4,609) -17.7%
1,000,000 50,600 6,108 51,989 5.20% 1,000,000 1,000,000 7,009 42,770 4.28% 900 14.7% (9,219) -17.7%
5,000,000 253,000 30,542 259,945 5.20% I 5,000,000 5,000,000 35,045 213,852 4.28% 4,502 14.7% (46,093) -17.7%
10,000,000 506,000 61,084 519,891 5.20% ( 10,000,000 10,000,000 70,089 427,705 4.28% 9,005 14.7% (92,186) 17.7%
Q f
m
t \t1`
co
Q co
cc
LLI
' \',1� \+ \fit \,\ \ \` \ \`',Ct, \\\ \ \t +.\ \t , \ , t\�� \, \\ •, � II
M N z
ME
co
a
�\` �\ � \\\��`� \\\� \ \t \��; \ \• \,\t \ \' \t \ \`u t`` \,k \t` \t,\ „ "l\ t,\ \t\�,t\ \t\ \t \.` ",�1�
..1 I i
i! � \ \ . �� \ \� \ \�\ \\fit `:. \t\ 1 \ \\ \ \� \\ `� \ „ \v,\ \\ + \� \ \`.t \ \`� \ \\ \`t \ � \\ \,\ \` \\� t \ \. \ \\\ •� � Ur �
i \ \t \\ \ \\ h, U \ \,\, , , + \ \ \\ Q \ \ \\ \ \ \�\\ +, \t , )\,\ \ \ \ \` \ \1 t 1\ \� t 1 ,. , \ •\� \ \
\ \\t \\ \\
ROW
11 A�\\\\\ l\\ 1�\ ��\ �� \ \t \�� \' \\� \i�\\\ \\\\` \ \� \ \ ti
wN
'p \a \.A \V�V'vv, v\\, tA` v A \ \,A t\v\ t , 1\0
v V +t, -vu v +vA\
y v �� \., t , v� �a,�, A v�, v v yv \wt , vv�� A ,v�w v Vw`_ Cb
co
� I
`• � II
\� ���,\ \\\t� \fie \\,\ \ \\� \\\ `\ t\\ \` t+'\ t� \ \ \� \\ \ \`�`\
t \,�\. ,o \ , \, \
o
IM
CA CA o C
O v� I
LO N a
I 14 t Ow T-
of
I�
1
i
� • ?1F RS}�iF�� 4� f,} i ��i �2 v� Cf
hr „1y�1'raf 1�, 7 ' {�,'ii � � �,ti �t }��I 1 nh����•,�. }�
�3 tD ii x13fa � t i ii it g,� ��a f rlxr�#
�'• �t ,� p i, � yatl.cs , 'x�t�44 , _�� ( €t,�f
� � � is �R�it 3 �f' :�• _ �� }
w j
sr�i #'d , ;rT } T ' •f yf
f "tx, �>ti "r�'j + ;���; �1 ; q } } i y k �i ,•� i y � ) `c t $��� ��� 3 � 3 �
��} �4� � i � � til 4 �•. '4� I� YiR �L'F �,: � £L *�+;
1 1 ��}� 'j k,47 �� € ` Y tT�it , 1�� ° }a R .��tF'�rt'<fi���r'�a�Lt�l� �j` # � {�3�•
j 4 � Nary: '{ °,� 4 t 1 h ', v r d �t��. ` < +�l ir' � �D t�•bL
, p S a r r " Tic ? 'tYD 3.z § �i tq€
� �� � ¢ x � +" „,f h� c� ti�i�.�k,3�� , ° s < <r �Y '.
i,��t }�4 a �531�, - ;� tt b � �i ef •r Zs1 fe �g "� r �� -
r
I i tF � =r, S i 1 ��i , t��`� �i3 ��'� .ti� t�I; ,jl •► ;� fa�� +' " ;a },
;�. i r i �,ke 4 t•G e 3^}� i r k ��14,I 5 =i! s � �� S � , i. t � +� 3:
'i;?s�:is { 4•' f J„3s�3�;i3�i� 1..'i.a:�,��j 'irk.'• y< ,:jt IZ ,� i�i
i � 3� i t i it � �r; ��� t�k p3 {: s �1��1 � r}�tfr � tZ�tpt. r ��s �A .
CHANCE IN . MN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Between 1980 and 1989
# of Full --time Equivalents, per capita /per student
20 .19.4%
P
e
r 17.196
C 1
e
n
#
C
h
a 0
n
9
e - -- ..... - 3.1
96
- 6.9%
-10
Cities Schools Counties State
Source: Bureau of the Census.
A—ML League of Minnesota Cities. 11/12/90.
GROWTH IN STATE AID TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Fiscal 1984 vs. Fiscal 1991
70 -- ---- _ —_ _ - -- - -- - - -- - _ - -
P 60 -.
63% City aid up less than inflation.
e
r
C 50
e
n
t 40 ...
n 30 27%
C � 27°{0... .
r
e 20 18%
a
s
e 10
0-
- --
Schools Counties Cities inflation
Source: Thomas Research
Based on Finance Dept. data
League of Minnesota Cities. 11/28/90.
5
7
� I
I � �
cq
L
LLJ �- , �I
F °' I�
> v. c
c C : c li
- D O :
Illlfl :. O
:: 11:::• •:... !'1 {1
,�••'; \� �VA:`;`� ; \ \tiv v�t�w \fir \ A��• `b
co
L.L
ow
cr)
X ".."WI A ll-. X 1,
v Ism
A :t
was • q���` l � \, �� \�,,�' !i
Z) LO
O
1 L�
V) to
Department % of Tax Operating Fund
Fire 11.80
Police 22.18
Public Works 23.70
Parks 12.40
Library 6.32
Inspections /Licenses 5.12
Health 2.34
Emergency Communication 1.46 85.32
Finance 1.87
City Clerk /Elections 1.47
Mayor /Council .58
Assessor 1.13
Attorney 2.25
Personnel /Civil Service 1.73 9.03
OTHER 5.65
Corrections, Planning, Telecommunication, Em. Prepared.,
Civil Rights, Civilian Review, Coordinator, Public Affairs,
Employment Programs, Youth, Neighborhood Services.
HITS ON HOMEOWNERS
1. Hit to Cities
Current Levy = $1.2 billion.
Aids = $506 million
Proposed Cut Aids to $175 million.
Effect 27% increase in City levies to stay even
2. HACA
Current $498 :pillion total
$142 million is to Cities
Proposal Eliminate
Effect Another $356 million increase in aids
3. Classification Rates
Current 1 -2 -3 on homes, 4.95 on C/I
Proposed 2 on homes /4 on C/I
Effect Homes up to $178,000 have more tax
capacity - CI comes down
Offset: Increase in circuit breaker of $200
:pillion
League reports on
finance research
ANDREA LUBOV
n the spring of 1990, the Cities have held down their spend- public spending ranks low when com-
LMC board and staff saw mg, particularly when compared with pared with other states. It is 26th for
j that the 1991 Legislature other local governments. Cities' per police and 31st for fire.
might consider reducing capita spending — including capital Minnesota cities differ among them-
local government aid to spending, increased, after adjusting for selves almost as much as they differ
---_A cities. Cities didn't want to inflation, by only 3.3 percent between from other levels of government.
face the alternatives of cutting services, 1980 and 1988. In contrast, during the Larger cities have more specialized ser-
raising taxes, or spending a portion of same period per capita spending (in vices than smaller ones. In many met -
their reserves. And, cities saw that their constant 1980 dollars) by counties ropolitan communities counties and
levy limits might not allow them to increased by 18.6 percent, and per regional authorities provide services,
raise their taxes to cover cuts. _ such as libraries, 911 services, and air -
In order to better present cities' case ; ports. Cities provide these services in
to the Legislature, League staff did ' - __.' _ " "" `
Greater Minnesota communities.
research in state and local finance. In With such a massive cash The cost of complying with state
addition, the League contracted with
mandates, changing social circumstan-
Thomas Research, Briggs and Morgan, ces, and levy limits are increasing pres-
and Publicorp for specialized research shortage, the entire tax sure on city finances. Many city costs,
in finance issues affecting cities. The a t1 particularly those that cities cannot con -
research was important to help under - and spending system will trol, have been increasing faster than
stand and counteract recommendations b the rate of inflation.
from the Ladd Commission, a group be under scrutiny during Over 90 percent of the cities
evaluating the state's local government responding to the survey said that they
aid formula. would increase taxes if they have to
According to the November 1990 the 1991 session. face large cuts in state aid and have the
budget forecast, state expenditures will choice of whether to increase taxes or
exceed revenues by at least $1.2 billion cut services. But, most cities said that
by the end of the 1992 -1993 biennium. pupil spending by schools increased by they would have to do both.
With such a massive cash shortage, the 22 percent. (1988 is the most recent Many cities tried'to maintain ser-
entire tax and spending system will be year for which spending information is vices without increasing taxes when the
under scrutiny during the 1991 session: available for all three levels of govern- 1990 Legislature cut aid. These cities
In the weeks following the forecast, ment.) Between 1988 and 1989, city spent a portion of their reserves, and
local government aid was a prime spending rose by only 2.9 percent, well some delayed maintaining their infra-
target for budget cuts. The challenge to under the 5 percent rate of inflation for structure and purchasing equipment,
cities during 1991 became all too clear. that year. only temporary solutions at best.
Some preliminary results of the Public employment trends also show Some cities that had onl minimal
research available at year end are cities are frugal. The average number reserves said that they had to borrow
reported here. of city employees per resident fell by money in order to make up for the
Cities are prudent spenders of the 6.9 percent between 1980 and 1989. cuts. Other cities said that they were
tax dollars they receive from their resi- During the same period per capita increasing user fees and other revenue
dents and from state aid. Per capita city county employment increased by 19.4 sources in order to continue paying for
spending in 1989 was virtually percent and per capita state employ - the municipal services they believe to
unchanged from its 1980 level. Then, ment increased by 11.1 percent. For be essential. Cities that reported reduc-
cities spent $426.30 per capita, and by schools, the number of employees per ing services most often cut parks, recre-
1989, after adjusting for inflation, cities student fell by 3.1 percent. Despite ation, and street services.
were spending only $427.39 per capita falling enrollment and school employ- Nearly all cities said infrastructure
(expressed in 1980 dollars). The dip in ment during this period, spending per repair, replacement, or construction as
spending from 1980 through 1983 is student rose by 22 percent. one of their greatest unmet needs.
due to large aid cuts. This spending Minnesota has been cited as a state Many cities, nonetheless, mentioned
record is impressive considering that with high public spending, particularly street and other infrastructure replace -
during this period cities have had to on education, welfare, and highways. ment or construction as services they
absorb additional personnel and envi- City spending on these services, how- would reduce if they had to make
ronmental mandates. At the same time ever, is minimal. In those spending further cuts. 9
the federal government cancelled gen- categories where spending by cities Andrea Lubov is an economic
eral revenue sharing, withdrawing $40 dominates total state and local govern- development analyst with the League
million from cities. ment spending, e.g. police and fire, ofNfinnesota Cities-
MINNESOTA
APPROPRIATION BY OBJECT CLASSIFICATION
1991 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
CAPMAL OUTLAY (7.6X)
ALL OTHER (5.4X)
i
SUPPLIES /REP. (8.5X)
UTIUTIES (3.8X)
DEFT RETIRE (5.77)
PERSONAE SVGS (58.37.)
PROF. SERVICES (7.07)
CONTINGENCY (1.57
COMMUNICATIONS07
INSURANC S. X)
APPROPRIATION BY FUNCTION
1991 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
GEN. GOVT. (16.9%)
PUBLIC SAFETY (33.07.)
='"l3JC WtCR'XS (tT_H%)
HEALTH /SCC SVC (1.0 %)
ECONOMIC DEV. (1.69:)
DEBT RETIRE (3.77.)
RECREATION (16.8 %)
UNALLOCATED (7.3 %)
APPROPRIATION BY FUNCTION
0 1991 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
1991 Percent of
Proposed Total
Public Works (17.6 %) Appropriations Appropriations
-------------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - --
Street Maintenance 1,011,872 8.7%
Engineering 440,465 3.8%
Vehicle Maintenance 423,569 3.6%
Street Lighting 143,000 1.2%
Traffice Signs & Signals 37,000 0.3%
Weed Control 3,000 0.0%
---- - - - - -- - - - - --
2,058,906 17.6%
Recreation (16.8 %)
--------------- - --
Parks Maintenance 722,242 6.2%
Community Center 456,872 3.9%
Adult Programs 304,015 2.6%
Administration, P & R 299,286 2.6%
General Programs 87,253 0.7%
Children's Programs 76,386 0.7%
en Programs - - -- 13,975 - - 0_1%
1,960,029 16.8%
Recreation Fee Revenue 734,545
37% of the Recreation Appropriation is offset
by fees collected by the Recreation Department.
10 ESTIMATED SOURCES OF FINANCING
1991 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
INTERGOVT. (27.8 %)
PROPERTY TAX (39.7%)
FUND BALANCE (2.6 %)
t
LODGING TAX (3.3 %)
MISCELLANEOUS (8.9 %)
LIC. & PERMITS (2.7%)
COURT FINES (2.4 %) FUNDS TRANSFERS (5.0%)
SERVICE CHARGE (7.5 %)
ESTIMATED SOURCES OF FINANCING
1991 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
1991 Percent of
Estimated Total Estimated
Intergovernmental (27.8 %) Revenue Revenue
-------------- --------- - - - - --
Local Gov't Aid 1,955,069 16.7%
HACA 1,000,000 8.6%
State Police Pension Aid 180,000 1.5%
State Fire Pension Aid 85,000 0.7%
Others 28,000 0.2%
---- - - - - -- - - - - --
3,248,069 27.8%
s a a s m m s a s s s s s a s a
L.G.A. vs. Property Taxes
6 - - -__
5
X N
4
0 3
2
116 X
VV 00
XN
OU 00 OCEN
00 00 00
00 00
00 m 001 00
00 00
m 001
001 00
xx
00 00 00
1
0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
LOCAL GOVT AID ® PROPERTY TAX
40
DEMISE Or LOCAL GOVERNMEN'r Alf)
IN TWO YEARS
LASS OF
AID DECREASE EXPECTED TOTAI--:
YEAR RECEIVED IN A I D S 6% GROWTH AID I-O5
1989 X2,657,957
1990 X2,060,162 X597,795 X159,477 $757
1991 X1,955,069 X105,093 X123,610 $228,70.3
TWO YEAR LOSS X702,888 X283,087 $985,975
CURRENT 3% PROPERTY TAX LEVY LIMITATION DOES NOT
ALLOW FOR REPLACEMENT OF' LGA AID LOSS
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Cash Flow Analysis
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
to
a�
C
•_ °- 5.0
O
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
❑ 1990 Revenues + 1990 Expenditures
Expenditures exceed revenues for each month of 1990. To avoid
short -term borrowing for monthly cash flow needs, adequate fund
balance is required.
DISTRIBUTION OF TAX DOLLAR COLLECTED
FROM OSSEO S.D. 1279 RESIDENTS IN 1990
CITY OF B.C. 17.479 (15.9X)
VO -TECH SCHOOLS 1.103 (1.0X)
MSCEL1ANEOUS 5.631 (5.1X)
OSSEO S.D. 57.1347 (52..5X)
HEN NERM CCL. ZT.g16 (25.4X)
TOTAL TAX CAPACITY RATE IS 109.976
GENERAL EXPENDITURES IN ACTUAL DOLLARS
11
10
9
8
7
V 6
r-
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1955 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
® ALL OTHER SPENDING ® PUBLIC SAFETY
1
>.... � -� -s -� -te .�♦ ♦ ��♦�i . ♦. ♦.����
,•.�.•.•, • ♦• ♦ •.• ♦•.0•, •ong
i'i'OOi i'OOOi � ♦•������ i�f + � • R�� i�������i � ♦ � f � a ����♦ ♦� ♦� � ♦��� ♦� ♦�
i'i'i'i'i �'i'i'i'i ♦ ♦ 1 t • + � f � %�� ►���� i�� ♦ ����i ��� ♦ � ♦ � ♦ � a ��������� ♦.. ♦ i
..... ..... .. -. -. -. ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
i'i•: ►i'i i'i�: 'i ♦: `i'i•i`i' i'i 'i' i'i•:`i'i 'i�`i' i�'i' 'gsx ♦i♦i`�'i 'ib`i'
ice♦ ♦. +•�� �i ♦i+.. r ♦ . ♦ . s. . ♦ . +. .�i ♦. i ♦i S•+♦ � ♦ . +♦ � ♦ ► ♦ . R + f ♦ . ♦♦� ♦♦♦� � ♦ ♦L R ♦ ♦ �
� .- � -� -� -� �.♦.. ♦♦♦.. �.... �... ♦ i- � -� -� -� �- � -� -� -� ifs. ♦ ♦.. ♦. �...- ....-
if.f♦ �..f. �.... -.♦♦♦ ..... -.... -♦♦.. ♦f ♦f. ....a ♦...•
+ -•�• -• . � • •. • . � • :• .i i4S�.'♦� �L S'.•i i A'r'i ♦`.S`.`i i`•S4•� i• fi r- �. -i•
.� ♦��R�� ♦ ♦`i`R + � . ♦ ♦ ��1�� R�.�
♦ �R.. ♦♦ . ♦ R f. ♦ ♦R.. -♦ R.. ♦ 1 ♦.a ♦♦ ♦• ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦+.. f ♦R.. ♦♦ S♦. •♦ � ♦.+ +i �IiS`Oi �bS ♦Ria ♦i4`♦ i♦ ♦ . 4.
♦...♦ -♦.♦- ♦♦..- i -� -� -te �- � -� -� -� i..♦♦ �...♦ i..♦♦ off.♦ �-b♦♦ ♦♦.♦♦
i ♦ ♦. ♦ i..♦ ♦ � -� -gyp -� .- �- � -� �- . -� -� -� i ♦.♦♦ � ♦.. ♦ � ♦. ♦♦ ♦ ♦ f ♦♦ i ♦♦ iO�Of'i�
�p -. -. - .... -♦- - . -. -. -� �♦♦.♦ �♦..♦ i'ggg- �'i'i'i'i �'.'.' -'at •- '.' -' -a Oi0'.'� -♦.a
� + A � � •�i. � . • ••. � � 4•. �• -•••- � i4 `i`i i`•S'•'i i4•�4.5 � . • `♦�i
♦♦♦.. .♦♦.. ♦♦♦.. .♦•♦a .♦♦ ♦i� � ♦ iS`s +i iaf►S`di ♦i`P♦ +i i P• +ia �♦.�ii i♦ `•Ri
�i'ODiR �i0 -i'�s i- � -� -� -� �- � -�. -� �- � -� -� -� ♦- � -� -� *� �- � -� -� -� i- � -� -� -� � -� -te �- . -�. -� ♦- � -� ♦� -�
- � -� -♦ -� ♦- � -� -� -� �- � -� -� -� .- �- � -� -� .- � -♦-� -� �- � -� -� -� i- � -� -� -� i -� -� -� � -�-. ♦� ♦ �- �- � -. -♦, ♦- �. -� -�
.f... ♦f... ♦.... ..1N ♦ ♦�f'. ..f..
♦ ♦.♦ � ♦f.. ...f. ....♦ �...♦ � ♦..- ....♦ ♦. ♦.♦ 1111♦ ... ♦� �- . ♦.. -�
. ..� .... ..... �.. . •r4 .....� �. , .� •Pig �r..W!
♦ ♦+.. ♦ ♦ ♦p., 1`. ♦ - ♦ . ♦. ♦ . +♦ .- ♦ ♦. + + -� �i ♦ii.� i- a ♦. + + -� .i ii 'i ♦ ice f
- � -� -� -� .- � -� -� f- � -f -� ♦ � ♦ -� -� -� -te �- � ♦� -� -� i- � -��� -� f- � -� -� -� .♦a♦ �- �- � -� ♦- � -� -�� � -� -s,
1
:1 .
'1 1•
• �r r
1
w;•;•;.;�� � ♦.�� ;��., �- o -� ♦ �
1 . 1 . � i i . f�������� . ♦ ♦.�. ► ►� 's ♦ . • � • 1 ►♦ �. ♦.e ► ' • � ♦ ♦•�•► ►�
- � -� -� -� i- � -R -� -� i- � -� -� -� i- � ♦ � + s -�
%i- � -a -� -� %%% �- � ♦� -� -� �- � -� -� -� .- � -� -� -� i -p� -pi �- � -� -� -� � -� -gyp -�
pgggg
�i r. ♦� ♦ ♦ 4.4 ♦ � � ♦ + -. + + +� ♦ ♦ • • .- �i'-• ♦ ♦• -.- �l � -. -• ♦ � � ♦ •-.-• R � ♦ ♦ •- . -•d', ♦ ♦ • -S• � ♦ .SS ♦ � ',♦ ♦ . -. -•
. - - -- - -� -�-t '.'.'WM ♦♦. ♦. ♦♦1♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ �.... i♦..♦ � -� -� -♦ * te a � *� - ♦ -� -� �- � -��� -�
4� -� -p� %� -� -� -� ♦ - - -- - - -� -� . -� -gyp -� ♦ - - -- - - -- - -� -� -� MOOR i -p� -p� �-�-�-
i'I 9900 @'Oi� - �
ip - -- - -� -� -� i- -� -� -� . -� -� -� -te i - - -- - - -� -� -� -per - ♦� -� -� -� i0i''i�
�..♦♦ . f f-- f- ♦ ♦-- f ♦ f ► ♦�. f- ♦ ► ♦-- ♦ - ♦ -� i- ff ► f -� .- f -f ► f -� i- f ♦ f ♦ f I f-- f -f ♦
fi -• Or•a••-r i•`�r`r� ��•�r`� +•`i•• -� i-• -.-•-� �- +� -• -� i�•��•-� �-•-. -• ► r� � •-.-.-� • •i 4 s
- ♦� ♦ ♦ -i i ♦� +-- ♦ ♦ . R R- i- ♦ ♦ . • +f i- ♦ ♦ . R R- i- ♦ ♦ . R R -�
�- � -� -� -� . ♦� + ♦ - i . ♦ �R R .� - � i - 1 ♦ L - 1 ♦ -� ; ♦ ♦ -�
- � -� -� -i � -� -� -� �- � -� -� -i �- � -� -�9 �- � -� -� -i ♦- � -� -� -� �- � -� -� -�
ff... ♦111. .111. ♦1111 ♦...• -..♦• ♦1111 ♦♦... ♦..1a ♦..+• .f ♦.+
i---- .,- -� -� -� .- .--- -� -� -� -te -� -� -� i---- .,- - -� -., i---- -� -� -� -te i- 0-�-�- ?- -� -� -�
1 i- f ♦ f ♦ f-- f ♦ f 1 f -i .- ♦ ♦ f ► ♦ -� .- f ♦ f r f -f ♦- f ♦ . 1 f-- ♦ ♦ f ♦ ♦-- ♦ - ♦ -� i- ♦ ♦ f ► f -i R-♦ ♦ ;- f .- ♦ -. ♦ -�
� ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ � �• ♦ � • ♦ 1� � ♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ � ♦ r fi ♦ e r r ♦ � e ♦ � r r r . + �i � �i ♦ � r • 1
4•�` • � `i.� ♦� i • . r ♦ 1 ♦iii ♦ ♦i �i`i •`i� ♦ ••y� ♦ ♦ •���� + � • . • ♦ i .. • + �.S` ,'� • • �}
♦��� ♦Oi ��♦�+� -� �i`i���i, i- �� ♦ ��� a �- � ♦ � -� i -�L �- � ♦ . R � -� �- ��•� -� �- �. �- � ♦. ♦� -� � -+O•p�
1
e ♦ -f -. -i !- f -. -. -� �- . -. -. -� �- .- . -. -♦ �- p. -♦ -� �- ♦ -♦ -♦ -� y. -♦ -f -� �- f -. -. -� �.!A.! ♦!i .�i01.!i� !.!a!ilfe
;1 •1
INFLATION ADJUSTED SPENDING PER CAPITA
400
350
$336.88
300
$271.32
250
200
150
100
50
0
1980 11111 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
INFLATION ADJUSTED SPENDING PER CAPITA
400
350
300 NE
250
200
150
100
50
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
MALL OTHER SPENDING ® PUBLIC SAFETY
(QSMAN) 4w
PERSONNEL /EMPLOYEE RELATIONS STATE MANDATES
------------------------------------- - - - - -- , {
�t
• PAY EQUITY STUDY, IMPLEMENTATION, AND REPORTING 4,f
• BINDING ARBITRATION FOR ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES — " `
•AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
•COSTLY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM •_: �'
. WORKERS' COMPENSATION ENFORCEMENT FOR CONTRACTORS AND LICENSEES -
• WORKERS' COMPENSATION PRESUMPTION OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES JOB- RELATED
>.:.
s MANDATORY PUBLIC PENSION PROGRAM
• CONTINUATION OF HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE AFTER EMPLOYEE TERMINATION
• PREVAILING WAGES PAID ON PUBLIC CONTRACTS
�x
• VETERANS' PREFERENCE`REQUIREMENTS {
EMPLOYEE RIGHT -TO -KNOW ACT = 4
• PARENTAL LEAVE REQUIREMENT = -
• SICK CHILD CARE LEAVE
• SCHOOL CONFERENCE AND ACTIVITIES LEAVE
. BONE MARROW DONOR LEAVE
. A WORKPLACE ACCIDENT — INJURY REDUCTION ACT (AWAIR)
PUBLIC SAFETY STATE MANDATES
----------- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
• PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING
= • PROSECUTION OF GROSS MISDEMEANORS
• POWERS OF PEACE OFFICERS 4
• TEMPORARY DETENTION FACILITIES/DETOXIFICATION J CENTERS
y.
• 911 LOCAL EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE`''
i CONFINED SPACE ENTRY STANDARDS
. ANIMAL CONTROL STANDARDS FOR APPREHENDING AND HOLDING r
• "FIRST RESPONDER" AND FIREFIGHTING BY CITY EMPLOYEES ON STATE HIGHWAYS �kc r�¥
,
ENVIRONMENT STATE MANDATES
--------------------------
• WASTEWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS
• DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
• SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS OR PLAN
• WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES REGULATION
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS
• RECYCLING
• MINNESOTA CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT
PLANNING STATE MANDATES
r
• REQUIRED LAND USE PLANNING
• REQUIRED STATE ZONING STANDARDS
• UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
• FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT f
• FLOOD INSURANCE
. SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT REPORTING
TRANSPORTATION STATE MANDATES
-----------------------------
• MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROADS STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
fi-
GENERAL GOVERNMENT /RECORD KEEPING STATE MANDATES
--------------------- ---------------------------
'
• STATE RECORD RETENTION SCHEDULE 3,
• MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT
ti
• OPEN MEETING LAW
. CONDUCTING ELECTIONS REQUIREMENTS
• COMPETITIVE BIDDING = u
• EXAMINATION OF BONDED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
• SUMMARY BUDGET STATEMENT PUBLICATION
--
• HOME RULE CHARTERS �
• MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
.. .;.
.,�' J A
t m
t his °i
REVENUE CONSTRAINTS STATE MANDATES
---------------------------- - - - - --
• LEVY LIMITS
}
• TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY `
• LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
• LIMITATIONS ON MAXIMUM PENALTIES AND FINE
• TRUTH IN TAXATION
f
MISCELLANEOUS STATE MANDATES
-------- ---------------- - - - -;
1
• MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES
• GRANDFATHERED CONTRIBUTIONS TO REGIONAL LIBRARIES
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL REQUIRED NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR UNDERGROUND EVACUATION
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL MANDATES
• FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA)
• IMMIGRATION AND REFORM ACT (IRCA)
• CONSOLIDATED OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT (COBRA)
• MEDICARE EXTENSION
• SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT ('SARA)
• AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
ADDITIONAL COUNTY MANDATES
,<
• RECYCLING - BOTH CITY -WIDE PROGRAM AND INTERNAL PROGRAM °
f x 1. tEVr,a{.'y't
,
4
. .r
_ 3 �