HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 05-08 CCP Regular Session•
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Presentation:
a. Decision Resources - Community Survey
7. Approval of Minutes:
*a. April 24, 1989 - Regular Session
8. Resolutions:
*a. Accepting Proposals and Authorizing Execution of
Contracts for Furnishing and Installation of New
Lighting System in Constitution Hall (Improvement
Project No. 1989 -05)
-This is a 1989 budget item.
*b. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting
Proposal to Furnish and Install Automatic Watering
System for Central Park Plaza (Improvement Project No.
1989 -10)
-This is a 1989 budget item.
c. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting
Proposal to Conduct a Study of General City Hall Office
Space Needs
*d. Amending the 1989 Pay Plan
e. Approving Purchase of Software Program for the Fire
Department
f. Accepting a Proposal for Professional Telephone
Consulting Service and Authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to Sign a Contract
Denying Private Kennel License for Mabel Rustad, 5229
Great View Avenue North
*g.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MAY 8, 1989
7 p.m.
•
•
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
- 2 - May 8, 1989
h. Calling a Public Hearing and Amending Development
District Boundary Lines
9. Ordinances:
a. Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the
Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of
the Residents of the City, and Regulating and
Restricting Certain Development at the property Located
at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th
Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and
Highway 252
- This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
lO.Discussion Items:
a. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation for a
Feasibility Study for a Hockey Arena
b. City Engineer's Feasibility Report Regarding Proposed
Trail Construction on North Lilac Drive from
Centerbrook Golf Course to CSAH 57 (57th Avenue North)
- Improvement Project 1988 -19
c. Preliminary Report and Cost Estimate Regarding Paving
of Four Unpaved Alleys
d. Annual Planning Process Update
e. Establishment of a Cadet Program in the Police
Department
f. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations on Maximum
Contamination Levels for Lead and Copper
*11. Licenses
12. Adjournment
May 8, 1989
Petition from Citizens of Brooklyn Center
Requesting Change in Council Procedures
WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States provides for separation of church and state;and
WHEREAS: The Constitution also provides that there be no religious test for public office or any
position of public trust;and
WHEREAS. The First Amendment is intended not only to prevent government intrusion into
religious affairs,but also to prevent religious intrusion into government affairs;and
WHEREAS: The Brooklyn Center City Council begins it sessions with a prayer service,which
necessarily imposes a religious test on members of the City Council;and
I
WHEREAS:Anyone who does not participate in the prayer service is vulnerable to being
adversely singled out as somehow different,and not truly part of the community;and
• WHEREAS: The community of Brooklyn Center is made up of citizens of diverse beliefs and
non-beliefs of all kind, including Judeo-Christian religions, Eastern religions,non-believers
in a such as Buddhists agnostics,atheists and secular humanists;and
>� �a9 F � a
WHEREAS: Government-sponsored prayer services necessarily imply that those services
represent the government-preferred viewpoint in the community and constitute an
establishment of religion;
Therefore: The undersigned,citizens of Brooklyn Center and supporters,oppose the
unconstitutional practice of opening the sessions of the Brooklyn Center City Council with
prayer and petition that the practice be stopped immediately out of respect for the Constitution
of the United States, in fairness to the community and in recognition of the diversity of its
citizens.
.tt 00
C
RESIDRUTAL SLJRVEY
CITY OF BROOKLYN CEM'ER
Presented to:
The City of Brooklyn Center
MAY, 1989
Prepared b-,,!-.,
Decision R(,- %.)urces, Ltd..
Dr. Williaa:-, ADrris & tL-. Diane Traxler
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section One: Residential Demographics Page 5
Residency Patterns * Residential Stability * Household
Composition * Home Ownership * Age * Workforce *
Residential Area
Section Two: Quality of Life Page 19
General Quality of Life Rating * Like Most and Least
About Brooklyn Center * Neighborhood Appearance *
Individual Efficacy * Residential Needs * Ideal Housing
Needs
Section Three: Parks and Recreation Page 31
Leisure Time Pursuits * Importance to the Community *
General Park and Recreation System Rating * Current Mix
of Opportunities * Sponsored Recreational Program Usage
* Adequacy of Recreational Programs * Citywide Bikeway
System * Winter Maintenance of Trailways
Section Four: City Services Page 45
General City Services Evaluations * Current Public
Safety Problems * Police Patrolling * Importance of
Public Safety Programs * Contact with the City
Section Five: Issues and Policies Page 60
Maintaining Existing City Services * Current Perception
of Property Taxes * Property Tax Share of the City *
Knowledge about City Government * City Staff * Run -Down
Property * Community Standards on Property Appearance *
Housing Assistance for the Poor * Senior Telephone
Assurance Program * Civil Defense Siren * Landscaping
Residential Streets * Curbs and Gutters * City Codes *
Code Enforcement Personnel * Residential Housing Inspec-
tion * Level of Economic Development * Aggressive
Economic Development Efforts * Use of Development Incen-
tives * Oversized Vehicles * Group Homes * Water
Restrictions * Water Quality * Recycling Program
Section Six: Civic Center Expansion Page 101
General Support and Opposition * Reactions to Specific
Project Components * Other Facilities * Willingness to
Pay
Section Seven: Communications Page 111
Primary Source of Recreational Information * Primary
Source of City Government Information * "The City
Manager's Newsletter" * The "Brooklyn Center Post"
3
�./ '
- 'Y;' / /
'
TWIN
LAKE
001001E I ;
TWIN
LAKE
(UPPERI
r a-
PALME LAME PAR
Dale wa 1_
NNW
I
•
irr.aa.r • r cerepsi.
STREET
SEX
--f
g
J 1,l I ..(1 I '
9 r �r it �rTti
L lJh� ,T, ..E M.
�L /RYAN LAKE lr- -li�
r'" '"711 - 11 - 171
11 I MINNEAPOLIS III I II 11 II
Ell OF ._
�� >,. =1•- CITY OF
— �� lttT.H" BROOKLYN
r :::::.
MT« LAE
CENTER
.
sopo
- SCHOOL DISTRICTS
PRECINCT BOUNDARY 5
/, /, /, /1 HOUSE DISTRICT 47A
HOUSE DISTRICT 47B
SENATE DISTRICT 47 ENTIRE CITY
4
wide
� Sill 00Y-
R NT« A
j r 4 „TM •
A
111N
5100 a.
SURVEY OVERVIEW
Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present the results
of this study to the City of Brooklyn Center. This section
provides a brief introduction to the specifications of the survey
and a guide to the organization of the written analysis.
While the most statistically sound procedures have been used
to collect and analyze the information presented herein, it must
always be kept in mind that surveys are not predictions. They
are designed to measure public opinion within identifiable limits
of accuracy at specific points in time. This survey is in no way
a prediction of opinions, perceptions, or actions at any future
point in time. After all, in public policy analysis, the major
task is to impact these revealed opinions in a constructive
fashion.
The Principal Investigator for this study was Dr. William D.
Morris; the Project Director overseeing all phases of the
research and analysis was Ms. Diane Traxler.
Research Design
The study is 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
on March 3 - 22, 1989.
The average interview took forty -one minutes.
All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a
randomly generated sample of the city. In general, random
samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire
1
universe of Brooklyn Center residents within + 4.5 percentage
points in 95 out of 100 cases.
Interviews were conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd.,
trained personnel from telephone banks in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Approximately twenty percent of all interviews were
independently validated for procedure and content by a Decision
Resources, Ltd., supervisor. Completed interviews were edited
and coded at the company's headquarters in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Statistical analysis and cross tabulations were
produced by the company's direct job entry access facility to the
University of Minnesota CYBER Computer System.
Organization of the Study
The results of this study are presented in the following
order:
The ANALYSIS consists of a written report of the major
findings. The results contained herein were also presented
verbally to the client.
The QUESTIONNAIRE reproduces the survey instrument as it was
used in the interviewing process. This section also includes a
response frequency distribution for each question.
Last is the COMPUTER OUTPUT which includes all statistically
significant cross tabulations and any multivariate statistical
analyses.
Any further questions the reader may have about this study
which are not answered in this report should be directed to
either Dr. Morris or Ms. Traxler.
2
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
3
i
I
ANALYSIS
I
I
4
SECTION ONE
RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
5
RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Respondents were asked a series of demographic questions in
order to first, establish a community profile, and second, to
identify large subgroups within Brooklyn Center which might
exhibit different or unique behavior from their peers. This
section will discuss the community at large, and also draw
significant comparisons with other cities in which the
researchers have conducted previous studies.
Residency Patterns:
Respondents were asked:
Approximately how many years have
you lived in Brooklyn Center?
A majority of residents reported living in Brooklyn Center for
over ten years; in fact, thirty -six percent had been there for
over twenty years:
LESS THAN ONE YEAR 6%
ONE OR TWO YEARS 10%
THREE TO FIVE YEARS 20%
SIX TO TEN YEARS 11%
ELEVEN - TWENTY YEARS 17%
OVER TWENTY YEARS 36%
Sixteen percent were new - comers of less than two years in the
community: a result somewhat lower than other inner -ring
communities, but still showing a significant level of turnover.
The median residential longevity was approximately 11.1 years.
Respondents were also asked:
In what city and /or state was your
immediately prior residence located?
Two thirds of the residents hail from Hennepin County, with forty flp
percent reporting movement from the City of Minneapolis:
6
•
•
•
BROOKLYN CENTER 4%
MINNEAPOLIS 40%
CRYSTAL 4%
OUT OF STATE 13%
RAMSEY COUNTY 6%
RURAL MINNESOTA 6%
BROOKLYN PARK 7%
NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY 9%
SOUTH HENNEPIN COUNTY 5%
ANOKA COUNTY 3%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 2%
These figures clearly indicate the traditional city- suburban
linkage between Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center which has
characterized much of its development.
It is possible to characterize the waves of migration which
have historically hit Brooklyn Center. There are several
pronounced differences in the characteristics of people who
settled in the city at different times. But, it is clear that
the dominant role Minneapolis once played is no longer the case:
Brooklyn Center has both regionalized and nationalized in the
housing market -- attracting more often suburbanites and out -of-
state transferees.
Readers should note at this point the stylistic protocol
used in this report. When selected subgroups are specifically
mentioned as possessing a trait in greater numbers, it means that
those groups are much more likely than the sample as a whole to
have that characteristic. It does not mean that unmentioned
subgroups do not have the characteristic, nor that the mentioned
groups are the only ones evidencing that behavior. The reader
should assume that all other groups exhibit approximately the
same percentage of the given opinion as does the sample as a
whole.
7
New - comers during the past two years have tended to be:
* Renters
* Apartment dwellers
* 18 -24 year olds
* Former Brooklyn Park residents
* Families containing pre - schoolers
Settlers from three -to -five years ago:
* Former Crystal, Northern Hennepin County,
and Ramsey County residents
* Families containing school -aged children
* Renters
* Apartment, Townhouse, and Condominium
dwellers
* 25 -34 year olds
* Precinct 2 and 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
Six -to -ten year residents were more frequently:
* Former Northern Hennepin County residents
* Townhouse and Condominium dwellers
* Professional /Technical households
* Precinct 8 residents
Eleven -to- twenty year residents possessed the profile:
* School -aged children
* 35 -54 year olds
* Precinct 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
Over twenty year "old- timers" were more likely to be:
* Brooklyn Center natives
* Former Minneapolis residents
* Seniors
* Home owners
* Over 45 year olds
* Retirees
* Precincts 4, 5 & 7 residents
* School District 279 residents
As young families leaving Minneapolis have headed to the South,
there has been a lessening of the traditional relationship
between Brooklyn Center and the core city. Currently, inter -
suburban moves are more likely to be the reason for people
settling in the community, rather than the purchase of a first
8
•
•
•
suburban house.
But, the data does indicate that Brooklyn Center may soon
face a problem which other inner -ring communities are dealing
with. There is a pronounced tendency for older residents with
"empty nests" to stay in their homes, restricting the available
options of younger families to settle or re- settle in the city.
While apartments will continue to attract younger residents, the
City may soon have to face a dearth of younger expanding families
within its borders. While not a major problem at the moment, the
study suggests that it could become one in the future decade.
Residential Stability:
The other side of mobility, prospective out - migration, was
examined through the query:
As things now stand, how long in
the future do you expect to live in
Brooklyn Center?
A strong majority of citizens indicated they planned to stay in
the community for at least another decade:
LESS THAN ONE YEAR 8%
ONE TO TWO YEARS 7%
THREE TO FIVE YEARS 12%
SIX TO TEN YEARS 3%
OVER TEN YEARS 54%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 15%
More transient residents tended to be:
* Renters
* Apartment dwellers
* 18 -24 year olds
* Clerical -Sales households
Residents who expected to stay at least ten years included:
* Over twenty year residents
* Seniors
* Over 45 year olds
* Retirees
9
* High school graduates
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Women working at home
* Precincts 7, 8 & 9 residents
* School District 281 residents
It should be noted that respondents over the age of 24 were more
likely to anticipate staying at least another five years; this is
a departure from the general suburban norm. A commitment by 25-
34 year olds, in particular, is rare among first- and second -ring
suburban communities. Usually transience extends quite deeply
into the ranks of this age group.
Household Composition:
Each resident was asked to report the number of current
household members who fell into specific categories. They were
told:
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...
Older family members were ascertained first:
First, persons 65 or over?
Nineteen percent of the households reported at least one member
over the age of sixty -five:
NONE 81%
ONE 10%
TWO 9%
This finding is typical of inner -ring suburban areas.
Next, adults:
Adults under 65?
Twelve percent of the households in Brooklyn Center were composed
solely of seniors:
10
•
•
•
•
•
•
NONE 12%
ONE 21%
TWO 55%
THREE OR MORE 12%
About two - thirds of the community are married couples.
Consistent with national trends, Brooklyn Center shows a
moderately high percentage of households in which adult children
still reside at home.
School -aged children were addressed next:
School -aged children?
Twenty -six percent of the households contained school - children:
NONE 74%
ONE 12%
TWO 9%
THREE OR MORE 5%
While clearly not as numerous as in Eagan, Woodbury, and other
growing communities, Brooklyn Center contains about the average
number of households with school children among inner -ring
suburbs.
Finally, toddlers:
Pre- schoolers?
Fourteen percent of the households reported pre - schoolers:
NONE 86%
ONE 9%
TWO 5%
This represents a significant upturn in the numbers of pre-
schoolers, one which may positively impact enrollments during the
next few years. However, the projected increase must be
discounted somewhat because many renter families with pre-
schoolers intended to move during the next few years.
It would appear, though, that Brooklyn Center may actually
begin to increase its contribution to its schools as toddlers
1 1
enter the system and high school students depart.
The modal household composition is two adults residing in a
single family home. "Empty nesters" characterize the community.
A second large group is two adults with at least one school -aged
child in residence. Senior households would provide the third
major cluster in the city. City policies may need to explicitly
take these profiles into account. For instance, recreational
offerings should focus somewhat more on activities for older
children as well as passive facilities for older adults and
senior citizens.
Home Ownership:
The sample was asked:
Do you own or rent your present
residence?
Twenty -eight percent reported renting their current residences, a
percentage typical of inner -ring suburban communities:
OWN 72%
RENT 28%
Renters tended to form two groups: younger, lower income family
units and senior couples or widows. The former, however,
predominated in the sample.
A follow -up query was posited:
Which of the following best
describes your residence?
Seventy percent of the residential units are single family
dwellings:
SINGLE FAMILY 70%
DUPLEX 1%
APARTMENT 22%
TOWNHOUSE /CONDOMINIUM 6%
12
•
•
•
•
Although renters tended to reside in multi -unit apartment
buildings or townhouses, about one quarter were living in single
family dwellings within the city.
Age:
Respondents were asked:
What is your age, please?
The median age was found to be 43.9 years old:
18 -24 7%
25 -34 26%
35 -44 18%
45 -54 13%
55 -64 22%
65 AND OVER 15%
REFUSED 1%
This age is slightly higher than other inner ring communities.
One pronounced distinguishing characteristic of Brooklyn Center
from other inner -ring communities, however, are the large number
of 25 -34 year olds. While one -third of the residents are below
the age of 35 years old, almost an equal number are above 55
years old. In light of the previously mentioned longevity
estimates, programs geared toward seniors play a major role, and
will continue to do so, in insuring residential satisfaction.
Workforce:
The study found a majority of Blue Collar and retiree - headed
households across the community. Respondents were asked:
What is the occupation of the head
of this household?
While White Collar households account for forty -four percent of
the residences, Blue Collar and retirees play an unusually large
role in the demographic make -up of this suburb:
13
PROFESSIONAL- TECHNICAL 16%
OWNER- MANAGER 18%
CLERICAL -SALES 10%
BLUE COLLAR 30%
RETIRED 22%
SCATTERED 5%
Over time, though, more professional- technical and owner- manager
households will settle in the community, if the recent past is a
reliable indicator. But, for the next decade, Brooklyn Center
will retain the character of a mature Blue Collar community.
Residents were also asked about their educational
achievements:
What is the last grade of school
you completed?
A majority of residents have never attended college:
LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL 6%
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 36%
VO -TECH SCHOOL 10%
SOME COLLEGE 25%
COLLEGE GRADUATE 17%
POST - GRADUATE 5%
REFUSED 1%
College graduates actually accounted for under one - quarter of the
city, while another quarter had attended college without earning
a degree. The most common educational attainment, however, was
high school graduation. Once again, though, newer residents and
younger residents are raising the overall educational level. In
comparison with other suburbs, this median educational attainment
is lower than the suburban norm, but higher than the Twin Cities.
Fifty -eight percent of married households reported both
spouses working outside the home. This mitigating factor assures
that the median income in Brooklyn Center will be approximately
the same as most inner -ring communities.
To examine household income further, residents were asked:
14
•
•
Could you tell me your approximate
pre -tax yearly household income. Does
the income lie....
The median household income was $32,870, about $5,250 less than
the suburban area median:
UNDER $12,500 6%
$12,500- $25,000 19%
$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%
The median level also proved to be about $630 higher than that of
Richfield, a similar inner -ring community.
In terms of household incomes, the city may be conveniently
broken into three segments: Under $25,000, dominated by seniors
and single spouse working households; $25,000 - $37,500, composed
mainly of professional /technical households and two - income blue
collar households; and, Over $37,500, a mix of two - income
professional- technical households and owner - manager households.
Residential Areas:
For detailed analysis, Brooklyn Center was broken into two
types of zones. First, households were classified by their
precinct location. The entire sample was divided:
PRECINCT:
1 14%
2 15%
3 15%
4 10%
5 8�
0
6 14%
7 10%
8 11%
9 4%
0
15
Since these sub - sample sizes are so small, precincts will be
singled out only when they exhibit behavior which is strikingly
different from the remainder of the city.
Next, the school district in which the residence fell was
also determined. The percent of the sample contained within each
district is shown below:
SCHOOL DISTRICT
#286 28%
#279 36%
#281 21%
# 11 15%
As will become clear, there are several major differences in
attitudes and opinions which distinguish these parts of the city.
Summary and Conclusions:
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
16
•
•
• 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.
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.
17
Newer residents tend to be Owner - Manager and Professional -
Technical job- holders. This trend should also slowly increase
the median household income over time.
18
•
SECTION TWO
QUALITY OF LIFE
19
QUALITY OF LIFE
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a series of questions
about their general levels of satisfaction with the community and
its citizens. An exceptionally high level of contentment was
noted, with citizens being very positive about their community.
In fact, the only major issue that seemed to plague a worrisome
share of citizens was redevelopment and its consequences. But,
even on this issue, the concern had not reached critical
proportions. Residents, overall, see Brooklyn Center as a "high
quality of life" community and possess a strong civic identity.
General Quality of Life Rating:
Residents were asked to evaluate the quality of life in the
community:
"good ":
How would you rate the quality of
life in Brooklyn Center -- excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
Ninety -two percent rated the community as either "excellent" or
EXCELLENT 28%
GOOD 64%
ONLY FAIR 5%
POOR 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
This rating placed Brooklyn Center above the norm for suburban
communities. The twenty -eight percent awarding the "excellent"
rating is also a strong showing.
Groups more enthusiastic included:
* Seniors
* 3 -5 year residents
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 5, 6, 7 & 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
20
•
•
•
•
•
Only residents of School District 286 tended to be more negative
in their judgments.
Like Most and Least about Brooklyn Center:
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a pair of queries to
determine what positive and negative characteristics of their
city mostly impacted them. First, favorable characteristics were
assessed:
What do you like MOST about living
in Brooklyn Center?
Three views emerged: "city- oriented" residents spoke about the
completeness of Brooklyn Center -- the availability of retail and
commercial opportunities as well as fully developed
neighborhoods; "suburban- oriented" residents referred to the
location of the community within the area transportation network;
and "small town enthusiasts" prized most the close -knit
neighborhoods and friendly residents. Each viewpoint was held by
about one - fourth of the respondents:
DON'T KNOW 10%
CONVENIENCE - SELF - CONTAINED COMMUNITY 23%
NEIGHBORS 6%
LOCATION 18%
NEIGHBORHOOD 12%
SCHOOLS 5%
SAFE -LOW CRIME 2%
CITY IS WELL RUN 7%
SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE 11%
PARKS -OPEN SPACES 3%
EVERYTHING 3%
Brooklyn Center is one of the few communities in the Metropolitan
Area which has been able to blend and satisfy the three different
viewpoints commonly held by suburbanites.
Some groups were more adamant about their feelings than
others:
21
"Convenience \Self- Contained" was listed most frequently by:
* 6 -10 year residents
* Precinct 7 residents
* School District 281 residents
"Location" was key to:
* 3 -5 year residents
* Precincts 5 & 7 residents
"Excellent City Services" played a major role for:
* Over twenty year residents
* Retirees
* Precinct 1 residents
"Good Schools" were important to:
* Households containing children
* 35 -44 year olds
Other characteristics tended to be uniformly spread across the
population.
Respondents were then asked a related question:
What do you like LEAST about it?
Roads - Traffic and Growth - Sprawl were the two major areas of
discontent:
DON'T KNOW 25%
NOTHING 31%
LOCATION -NOT CONVENIENT 4%
TAXES 4%
ROADS-TRAFFIC 10%
GROWTH - SPRAWL 9%
CITY GOVERNMENT 2%
CRIME 3%
CITY SERVICES 4%
POLICE 2%
SCHOOLS 2%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 6%
As redevelopment progresses, policy makers may wish to monitor
residential feelings toward the infrastructure and density of the
community.
The number of people who found "nothing" they disliked about •
22
•
the city was substantially higher than the suburban norm.
• Thirty -one percent of the respondents could be classified as
•
"boosters." The profile of the "booster" was:
* Senior singles
* 55 -64 year olds
* Precinct 6 residents
On most indicators, seniors are very happy with their lives in
Brooklyn Center.
"Roads- Traffic" was cited more frequently by:
* Professional- Technical households
* $25,000 - $37,500 yearly income households
"Growth- Sprawl" was more of a concern to:
* Professional - Technical households
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
More affluent white collar families, then, seem to be the center
of the apprehension about redevelopment and its consequences.
With nineteen percent of the community worried about this issue,
it could play a definite role in city politics for the
foreseeable future.
Neighborhood Appearance:
Residents were asked to evaluate their neighborhood:
How would you rate the general
appearance of your neighborhood --
excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
Eighty -nine percent rated it as "excellent" or "good ":
EXCELLENT 2H0
GOOD 61%
ONLY FAIR 8%
POOR 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
This satisfaction level is at the norm for most suburban
communities.
23
Groups especially pleased with their neighborhoods included:
* Seniors
* Owner - Manager households
* Under $12,500 and $50,000 - $62,500 yearly
income households
* Precincts 5 & 8 residents
Groups less flattering in their evaluations:
* Blue Collar households
* Precinct 1 residents
* School District 286 residents
As a start, policy makers may wish to more systematically
investigate the cause of the problems in that precinct.
Individual Efficacy:
Another component of the quality of life examined in this
study was the sense of individual efficacy: that is, the ability
to impact change in the city. Normally, the percentage of
alienated residents ranges between twenty and thirty, with higher •
scores indicating potential voter volatility. Respondents were
asked:
Other than voting, do you feel
that if you wanted to, you could
have a say about the way the City
of Brooklyn Center runs things?
Over seventy percent of the citizenry felt empowered:
YES 71%
NO 20%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9%
Twenty percent alienation is at the bottom of the range of
restlessness: it is among the lowest ratings the researchers
have encountered in the Metropolitan Area.
Groups more likely to feel empowered included:
* 6 -10 year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
* Precinct 6 residents
24
•
•
•
future:
Groups more alienated:
* 11 -20 year residents
* Retirees
* Precinct 1 residents
The City may wish to probe more deeply at the estrangement of
seniors within the community.
Residential Needs:
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a series of questions
about the adequacy of their housing to meet both current and
future needs. First, interviewees were queried:
Does your current residence generally
meet the needs of your household?
Only seven percent of the sample rated their current residences
as inadequate:
YES 93%
NO 7%
Only households containing children and 25 -34 year olds were more
likely to be dissatisfied with their current homes.
Future needs were examined by the query:
Do you feel that your current resi-
dence will meet the needs of your
household during the next decade?
A moderately high twenty -one percent did not feel their housing
would meet their needs during the next decade:
YES 77%
NO 21%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
Groups more likely to rate their housing acceptable for the
* Over ten year residents
* Seniors
* Home owners
* Over 45 year olds
* Retirees
25
* Women working at home
* Precincts 4 & 5 residents
Groups much less optimistic about their future housing needs
being met:
* Less than five year residents
* Renters
* 18 -34 year olds
* Clerical -Sales households
* $25,000 - $37,500 yearly income households
* Precinct 9 residents
Younger and newer residents, then, are much more likely to
envision moving within the next decade.
Those residents who indicated future concerns were asked:
Could your current residence be
improved to meet those future needs?
Less than one - quarter of this group felt that meaningful
improvements could be made:
YES 5%
NO 14%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
Respondents who felt that changes could be made based their
perceptions on:
COULD ADD ON 4%
Those who were much less optimistic about changes in their
current home being possible reasoned:
WANT TO MOVE 3%
WILL BUY OTHER HOME 2%
WOULD NOT PAY TO ADD ON 3%
WANT APARTMENT- CONDO 3%
NOW RENT 3%
Through exploration of housing improvements and additions,
the City of Brooklyn Center may be able to drop out - migration by
almost one - fourth. But, the availability of starter homes, a
• major yearning by apartment dwellers, would also significantly
26
•
•
reduce the movement of young families out of the city.
Ideal Housing Needs:
To ascertain the housing preference of residents,
interviewees were asked:
If you were to move, what type of
housing would you seek?
A plurality would seek single family homes:
WON'T MOVE 7%
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 41%
APARTMENT 12%
LARGER SINGLE FAMILY 5%
CONDO - TOWNHOUSE 18%
RETIREMENT HOME 4%
OUT OF METRO AREA 4%
But, an unusually large eighteen percent would search for a
condominium or townhouse. This latter figure constitutes a
• relatively high potential demand for that building option.
"Single family home" seekers tended to be:
* 1 -2 year residents
* Households containing children
* 25 -34 year olds
* Owner - Manager households
* Precinct 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
"Apartment" searchers were:
* Single Seniors
* Over 65 year olds
* Retirees
* $12,500 - $25,000 yearly income households
* Women in the home
"Condominium- Townhouse" buyers were more likely to be:
* Over five year residents
* 45 -64 year olds
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 4 & 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
For future planning, particularly in attracting "empty nesters"
27
from their single family homes, senior apartments and moderately
priced townhouses and condominiums might be considered.
Respondents were then asked about the availability of that
type of housing in Brooklyn Center:
How likely do you think it is that
you would find that type of housing
in Brooklyn Center -- very likely,
somewhat likely, or not at all likely?
Only forty -eight percent of the sample reported that it was
either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the housing was
available in the city:
VERY LIKELY 25%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 23%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 26%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 11%
While single family home enthusiasts were fairly certain that
their ideal housing could be found in the community, prospective
condominium and townhouse buyers were far less certain about
availability.
The type of housing mix in Brooklyn Center does not appear
to be a major detriment to retaining population. If a problem
may exist, it is in the turnover and availability of alternative
housing for key groups, such as growing families and seniors.
Summary and Conclusions:
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
28
•
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 characteristic they disliked about the community -- thirty -
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. Although 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
29
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 potential demand for condominiums and
townhouses exists within the community.
30
•
•
•
SECTION THREE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a series of questions
about city parks and recreational facilities. They were asked to
rate existing facilities on their importance in making the city
an attractive place to live. They were then asked about their
own participation in city- sponsored activities which used many of
the facilities. Overall, residents place a high value on the
parks and recreation system, evidence good participation rates,
and appear satisfied with current offerings.
Leisure Time Pursuits:
PARKS AND RECREATION
Interviewees were asked to evaluate their free time:
In general, do you usually spend
your leisure time in outdoor activi-
ties, weather permitting, or indoor
activities?
A majority of the community was outdoors - oriented:
OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES 52%
INDOOR ACTIVITIES 18%
BOTH 30%
But, this result is somewhat less than the overall suburban norm,
reflecting the number of senior households in the city. Policy
makers may wish to place some accent on indoors activities to
accommodate the nearly one -fifth of the populace which adheres to
that lifestyle preference.
Outdoor enthusiasts tended to be:
* Less than one year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
32
•
Indoor enthusiasts were more often:
* Seniors
* Over 65 year olds
Residents spending their time both indoors and outdoors:
* Precincts 7 & 9 residents
The importance of ample senior activities within the sponsored
recreational mix cannot be understated.
Importance to the Community:
Respondents were first instructed:
They were then told:
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....
This series of questions attempts to detect community consensus
about the importance of each existing facility.
City playgrounds.
City playgrounds were one of two facilities which scored
"very important" ratings of approximately eighty percent:
VERY IMPORTANT 78%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 1H0
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 3%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
• They were rated particularly important by:
33
* Less than one year residents
* Precinct 2 residents
* School District 286 residents
The small number placing little importance on the playgrounds
were scattered throughout the sample.
Clearly, playgrounds are one of the facilities which
citizens rate as critical to the well -being and balance of a
community.
The golf course.
The golf course was rated "very important" by only one -
fourth of the citizenry:
VERY IMPORTANT 26%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 44%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 25%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5%
It drew higher ratings from:
* Senior couples
* Over 45 year olds
* Retirees
* Blue Collar households
* Precincts 4 & 7 residents
Clerical -Sales households and Precinct 5 residents tended to view
the golf course as unimportant to the community. The golf
course, in fact, received the lowest ratings of any facility
tested.
The swimming pool.
The swimming pool was deemed "very important" by fifty -five
percent of the respondents:
VERY IMPORTANT 55%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 35%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
Women working outside the home and Precinct 4 residents placed an
34
• especially high importance on it; 3 -5 year residents, retirees,
•
and School District 281 felt it was unimportant to the community.
The community center.
The Brooklyn Center Community Center was rated "very
important" by almost seventy percent of the sample:
VERY IMPORTANT 69%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 22%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 5%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5%
Groups feeling even more strongly positive toward the Center
included:
* $25,000- $37,500 yearly income households
* Women working outside of the home
* Precincts 2 & 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
3 -5 year residents, over 65 year olds, and School District 281
residents were more likely to view the facility as unimportant.
Any proposed expansion of the facility should consider explicitly
the offerings to senior citizens.
Bicycle paths.
Bicycle paths were judged "very important" by sixty -two
percent of the respondents:
VERY IMPORTANT 62%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 29%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 7%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
High value was placed on the paths by $37,500- $50,000 yearly
income households, Precinct 3 residents, and School District 11
residents. Precinct 7 households were more likely to view them
as unimportant.
35
Pedestrian trails.
Pedestrian trails were viewed almost identically to bicycle
paths, with fewer residents feeling they were "not at all
important" to the city:
VERY IMPORTANT 66%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 29%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
Groups feeling more strongly about the community benefits of the
trail system:
* 45 -54 year olds
* Over $37,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 4 & 7 residents
Indifferent ratings were scattered throughout the sample.
City parks.
City parks were rated "very important" by eighty percent of
the sample, the highest showing of any facility on the
questionnaire:
VERY IMPORTANT 80%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 16%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
Professional - Technical households and Precinct 2 residents were
even more enthusiastic about the parks.
A simple rank ordering indicates the relative importance
Brooklyn Center citizens attach to each component of their parks
and recreation system:
(1) City parks;
(2) City playgrounds;
(3) The community center;
(4) Pedestrian trails;
(5) Bicycle paths;
36
•
(6) The swimming pool;
(7) The golf course.
Clearly, outdoor facilities lending themselves to unstructured
and spontaneous activities lead the list of most valued
offerings.
General Park and Recreation System Rating:
Respondents were asked to evaluate the overall system:
Overall, would you rate the park
and recreational facilities in Brooklyn
Center as excellent, good, only fair,
or poor?
A very high eighty -six percent rate the park and recreation
system facilities as either "excellent" or "good ":
EXCELLENT 42%
GOOD 44%
ONLY FAIR 8%
POOR 0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
This ranks among the highest ratings of a park and recreational
system the researchers have encountered in the Metropolitan Area.
Groups granting even stronger "excellent" ratings included:
* Professional - Technical households
* Women working at home
* Precinct 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
Groups with higher "good" percentages:
* 1 -2 year residents
* $12,500 - $25,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 7 & 8 residents
"Fair" judgments were found more often among:
* Precinct 2 residents
* School District 286 residents
ratings suggest that residents view their park and
• These
recreation system as a first -class offering.
37
Current Mix of Opportunities:
Residents were asked:
Are there any facilities not currently
in the parks that you or members of
your family would use, if they were
there? What are they?
The overwhelming majority of residents were satisfied with
current offerings:
NONE 82%
MORE SENIOR ACTIVITIES 1%
OUTDOOR POOLS 3%
MORE TRAILS 2%
MORE TENNIS COURTS 1%
MORE PICNIC SHELTERS 3%
ICE SKATING 1%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 7%
An outdoor swimming pool and more picnic shelters were the only
facilities which gained more than a threshold of three percent
support.
Sponsored Recreational Program Usage:
To determine the popularity of city- sponsored programs,
interviewees were asked:
Did any members of your household
participate in organized activities
sponsored by the City of Brooklyn
Center? What were they?
The suburban norm for sponsored recreational program usage is
thirty percent; Brooklyn Center scored at twenty -seven percent
during the past twelve months:
NO PARTICIPATION 73%
SOFTBALL 8%
SENIOR ACTIVITIES 1%
SWIMMING 2%
OTHER SPORTS 4%
COMMUNITY CENTER ACTIVITIES 3%
PLAYGROUND 2%
38
•
MORE THAN TWO ACTIVITIES 5%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 3%
By far, softball was the most popular program among the
citizenry.
Program users were then asked:
Were you generally satisfied or
dissatisfied with the program(s)?
Their verdict was unanimous:
SATISFIED 26%
DISSATISFIED 0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
The City provides excellently structured opportunities for its
residents.
Another viewpoint on meeting consumer demand, queries:
Would you or members of your house-
hold participate again? Why or why not?
Most residents would participate again:
YES - IT WAS FUN 4%
YES - NO PARTICULAR REASON 9%
YES - PROGRAMS ARE LOW COST 1%
YES - GOOD PROGRAM 8%
NO - CURRENTLY TOO OLD OR CHILDREN GROWN 3%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 1%
The only reason given for not repeating their participation was
the age of the respondent or the growth of their children.
In general, the City is meeting the recreational needs of
its citizens very well.
Adequacy of Recreational Programs:
Residents were next asked about the coverage of recreational
offerings. First, adult and senior programs were assessed:
Are there any programs for adults
and senior citizens not now in oper-
ation you would like to see offered?
What are they?
39
An impressive eighty -six percent were satisfied with present
offerings:
While suggestions were scattered, there was a slight cluster of
feeling that more senior activities should augment the current
roster.
A similar query was posited for children and youth
recreational programs:
additions:
NONE 86%
MORE SENIOR ACTIVITIES 7%
MORE EXERCISE PROGRAMS 2%
MORE CLASSES 2%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 3%
Are there any programs for children
or youth not now in operation that
you would like to see offered? What
are they?
Again, ninety percent of the respondents could offer no new
411
NONE 90%
MORE PLAYGROUND ACTIVITIES 2%
TEEN CENTER 3%
MORE PROGRAMS IN GENERAL 2%
DAYCARE - LATCHKEY OFFERED 2%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 1%
The responses indicated a slight demand for a teen center within
the city, but the numbers suggesting this facility were rather
small.
As a last index, residents were asked if any current
programs were unnecessary:
Are there any programs for either
adults or children which you feel
should be discontinued? What are they?
Only adult lunches for seniors was suggested for termination:
NONE 99%
ADULT LUNCHES AT THE SCHOOLS 1%
40
•
•
And, the suggestion registered at a minimal one percent.
Overall, the recreational offerings for both youth and
adults are considered to be high quality, possess good topical
breadth, and are not duplicative or antiquated.
Citywide Bikeway System:
Brooklyn Center interviewees were asked their reaction to an
off - street citywide bikeway system:
Would you favor or oppose the construc-
tion of a city -wide off - street bikeway
system? Would you still favor it if a
property tax increase were required to
fund construction?
While sixty -five percent support the concept of the plan, support
is reduced if additional tax monies would be required:
FAVOR /STILL FAVOR 41%
FAVOR /NOW OPPOSE 13%
FAVOR /DON'T KNOW 11%
OPPOSE 24%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 11%
If a property tax increase were needed, forty -one percent would
support the plan, while thirty -seven percent would oppose it.
"Hard- core" supporters tended to be:
* Less than one year residents
* 6 -10 year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* Professional - Technical households
* Precincts 3 & 9 residents
* School District 11 residents
Residents who supported the concept, but switched to
opposition if higher taxes were needed, also fall among new-
comers to the community. Opponents of the proposal were
generally 55 -64 year olds and Owner - Manager households.
While support does exist, the project should not be
41
considered a recreational planning priority; selling the concept 4 1,
would be highly dependent on the size of the property tax
increase.
Winter Maintenance of Trailways:
Residents were queried about a proposal to maintain the
city's trails during the winter months:
Would you support or oppose the City
spending funds to provide for the winter
-time maintenance of trailways for
walking, cross - country skiing, and
other purposes?
Almost sixty percent of the citizens supported spending funds for
this purpose:
SUPPORT 58%
OPPOSE 34%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
Supporters were more likely to be:
* 6 -10 year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
* Professional - Technical households
* Under $37,500 and over $62,500 yearly
income households
* Women working outside the home
Opposition was significantly higher only among single seniors.
The City may wish to investigate the costs of this program
in light of the good level of support.
Summary and Conclusions:
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
fa sample were satisfied with the current range of opportunities
located within it. City parks and city playgrounds were very
42
•
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
43
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.
44
•
i
CHAPTER FOUR
CITY SERVICES
45
CITY SERVICES
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a series of questions
about city services and policies. In general, a high level of
satisfaction was found to be the case. In comparison with other
suburban communities, Brooklyn Center does an excellent job in
providing basic services to its residents.
General City Services Evaluations:
Brooklyn Center respondents were asked their evaluations of
the provision of eight services. They were instructed:
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?
Five city services were rated exceptionally high -- police
protection, fire protection, sewers, snow plowing, and park
maintenance. City street repair and maintenance as well as
animal control received less enthusiastic, albeit still positive,
ratings. Only water quality polarized the citizenry.
Police protection?
Eighty -seven percent of the residents approved of their
police protection:
EXCELLENT 27%
GOOD 60%
ONLY FAIR 7%
POOR 3%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
The favorable -to- unfavorable ratio was also at an outstanding
nine -to -one.
Residents more impressed included:
46
* 1 -2 & 6 -10 year residents
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 3 & 7 residents
* School District 11 residents
Fire protection?
Ninety percent approved of the fire protection in the
community:
•
Only Owner- Manager households were more sharply critical in
their judgments. Most respondents, however, view the Brooklyn
Center Police Department as am efficient and effective service
provider.
EXCELLENT 31%
GOOD 59%
ONLY FAIR 1%
POOR 0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9%
• Both the lack of unfavorability and the solid excellent -to -good
ratio indicate solid approval.
City street repair and maintenance?
Seventy -four percent of the residents approved of the street
repair and maintenance taking place in Brooklyn Center:
EXCELLENT 19%
GOOD 55%
ONLY FAIR 20%
POOR 5%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
The twenty -five percent who disapproved constitute a sufficiently
large pool for some concern.
Higher evaluations arose among:
* Precincts 1, 2 & 7 residents
Lower evaluations more frequently came from:
47
* 3 -5 year residents
* Precincts 4, 5 & 8 residents
Upkeep and potholes were equally likely to be specified as the
source of the unhappiness.
Water quality?
Only sixty -four percent of the sample approved of the
quality of their water:
EXCELLENT 14%
GOOD 50%
ONLY FAIR 17%
POOR 16%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
With thirty -three percent of the sample more negative, the
problem has reached sufficiently high proportions of
dissatisfaction to warrant some attention.
Groups judging the water quality much better included:
* 6 -10 year residents
* Precincts 1, 4, 5 & 8 residents
Lower ratings were the norm among:
* 35 -44 year olds
* 3 -5 year residents
* Renters
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 5 & 6 residents
Water hardness was the major objection to the water.
Sewers?
Eighty -six percent of the respondents rated city sewers
favorably:
EXCELLENT 11%
GOOD 75%
ONLY FAIR 5%
POOR 0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8%
Residents of Precincts 3, 5 & 8 were more generous in their
48
•
•
• evaluations; disapproval was scattered across the sample. Unlike
•
many other suburban areas, sewers are not a major concern of the
citizenry at the present time.
Snow plowing?
Ninety percent of the residents approved of the snow plowing
service provided in Brooklyn Center:
EXCELLENT 47%
GOOD 43%
ONLY FAIR 6%
POOR 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
This rating is one of the strongest in the Metropolitan Area.
Groups rating the service even higher included:
* Seniors
* 1 -2 year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
* Precincts 5, 2 & 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
Only residents of Precinct 4 were more critical in their
comments, and slowness was their major concern.
Animal control?
Animal control efforts were approved of by seventy -two
percent of the interviewees:
EXCELLENT 12%
GOOD 60%
ONLY FAIR 12%
POOR 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8%
Twenty percent of the sample were dissatisfied. These results
are less negative than found in many other suburban communities,
but constitute a significantly large concentration of discontent
for Brooklyn Center.
49
Groups rating the service more highly included:
* 1 -2 year residents
* Renters
* 25 -34 year olds
* Precincts 2, 5, 7 & 8 residents
* School District 279 residents
Lower ratings were found among:
* 45 -54 year olds
* Senior singles
* $12,500 - $25,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 1 & 7 residents
* School District 281 residents
Given the geographical cleavages in this data, the City may wish
to further investigate the reasons for this dissatisfaction in
limited areas.
Park maintenance?
A solid eighty -six percent of the respondents rated park
maintenance as either "excellent" or "good ":
EXCELLENT 23%
GOOD 63%
ONLY FAIR 5%
POOR 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
Higher ratings were evidenced among:
* Blue Collar households
* Precincts 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9 residents
* School District 11 residents
This is an impressively high evaluation, numbering among the top
that the researchers have found in the Metropolitan Area.
While some dissatisfaction exists with certain services,
particularly water, the average Brooklyn Center citizen is very
satisfied with the level of services provided by the City.
Current Public Safety Problems:
There has been a growing interest in the ranking of the
50
•
•
•
suburbs on various and assorted crime indices. To obtain the
views of residents about crime in the city, respondents were
asked:
Let's talk about public safety in
Brooklyn Center....
I would like to read you a short list
of public safety problems.
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.
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.
The table below lists both the major problem and consensus crime
issue (rated either "first" or "second "):
Personal safety from violent crime 7% 18%
Burglary 24% 37%
Traffic and pedestrian safety 6% 15%
Drugs 27% 46%
Juvenile crimes and vandalism 16% 36%
Other 2% 3%
None are serious 10% 24%
Don't Know /Refused 8% 20%
Drugs was clearly the major concern of most residents in the
community. Burglary and juvenile crime and vandalism literally
tied as the second major public safety issue in Brooklyn Center.
"Drugs" were especially upsetting to:
* 45 -54 year olds
* Precinct 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
"Juvenile Crime and Vandalism" was rated more highly in
Precinct Two.
51
FIRST COMPOSITE
"Traffic and Pedestrian Safety" bothered renters and
Precinct 7 residents much more.
"Burglary" was uppermost to:
Police Patrolling:
* 45 -54 year olds
* Professional /Technical households
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 5 & 7 residents
Given this segmentation, communications channels and programs
targeted to these various groups would be especially effective.
Residents were asked:
How would you rate the amount of
patrolling the police department does
in your neighborhood -- would you say
they do too much, about right, or not
enough?
Almost seventy percent felt that the amount of patrolling in •
their areas was "about right ":
TOO MUCH 3%
ABOUT RIGHT 68%
NOT ENOUGH 23%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
However, just under one - quarter of the residents reported that it
was "not enough." Professional /Technical households were much
more likely to feel this way. The problem for deploying more
patrol cars is that the people who yearned for more vigilance
were scattered across the city. As a result, there appears to be
no scheduling trade -offs which could adequately address the
unhappiness. Even so, Brooklyn Center residents were less likely
to complain about patrolling in comparison with their peers in
other communities.
52
•
41)
Importance of Public Safety Programs:
Public safety departments offer a number of prevention
and aid services to the public. Brooklyn Center residents were
asked their reaction to five of these programs:
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 you feel
that program is very important, some-
what important, or not at all impor-
tant for the City to have.
They were then read a list of five programs, with a brief
explanation of several non - obvious titles:
The DARE Program, a "say no" to drugs
program for grade school children.
By far the most valued program, eighty -six percent of the
sample rated the DARE Program as "very important ":
VERY IMPORTANT 86%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 12%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
Residents of Precincts 6 and 8 were particularly supportive of
this effort. The importance placed upon DARE should not be
surprising in light of the fact that drugs are viewed as the most
serious public safety problem facing the community.
Neighborhood Watch, a crime prevention
program for citizens of residential areas.
Neighborhood Watch was rated "very important" by just over
three - quarters of the sample:
VERY IMPORTANT 78%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 20%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 0%
53
Less than one year residents, seniors, renters and Precinct 3
41,
residents rated the program even more highly. Again, in light of
the concern over burglary, these results are not inconsistent
with other opinions.
Business Crime Prevention Programs.
Only thirty -seven percent of the respondents felt that this
business - oriented program was "very important ":
VERY IMPORTANT 37%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 42%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 7%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 14%
The tendency in most communities is to rank non - residential
program as of intermediate importance, particularly when well -
defined residential crime problems are cited.
The Advocacy Program to assist in
child abuse cases.
Eighty -five percent of the residents ranked the Advocacy
Program as "very important ":
VERY IMPORTANT 85%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 11%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
With all the media attention on this growing problem, the
importance placed on child abuse is logical. Precinct 5
residents were even more strongly supportive of this program.
Expanded drug enforcement efforts in
the community.
Eighty -one percent of the residents felt that "expanded drug
enforcement efforts" were "very important ":
54
VERY IMPORTANT 81%
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 15%
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
45 -54 year olds and 3 -5 year residents placed a particularly
great emphasis on this.
The results suggest that programs aimed at the drug problem
and children at risk will be greeted enthusiastically by most
residents. For whatever reasons, both of these issues have
manifested themselves in Brooklyn Center, and citizens expect the
City to take affirmative actions to mitigate their consequences.
Contact with the City:
Residents were next asked if they had any interaction during
the past year with people working for the City of Brooklyn
Center:
During the past twelve months, have
you contacted anyone working 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?
Thirty percent of the sample reported contact:
YES 30%
NO 70%
This proportion was about at the norm for Metropolitan Area
suburbs.
Groups more likely to have contacted the City include:
* 35 -44 year olds
* Professional /Technical households
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
Groups much less likely to have done so:
* 45 -54 and over 65 year olds
* Below $12,500 yearly income households
Older and less affluent residents, then, were much less likely to
55
have had first -hand contact with the City.
Respondents reporting interaction were queried:
What was the nature of your most
recent inquiry, that is, what infor-
mation or service did you want?
General questions and complaints dominated:
BUILDING PERMIT 2%
WATER RELATED (APPOINTMENT TO READ METER) 3%
ANIMAL CONTROL 1%
GENERAL QUESTION 6%
COMPLAINT 8%
PARK AND RECREATION QUESTION 3%
INFORMATION ON TAXES 2%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 5%
It would appear that all of the major city departments are kept
busy by the citizenry.
Residents who reported contact with the City were then
asked:
Which department or official did you
contact first about this inquiry?
Surprisingly, most residents were able to recall the Department
to whom they were referred:
DON'T KNOW 3%
POLICE (NON- EMERGENCY) 2%
WATER DEPARTMENT 4%
BUILDING INSPECTOR 3%
PARK -AND RECREATION 1%
PUBLIC WORKS 2%
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 1%
COMMUNITY CENTER 1%
CITY ASSESSOR 3%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 6%
In most communities, residents just are not able to recall the
identity of the official of department they contacted. Given
this orientation, city employees face a residential population
that is quite capable of holding individual departments
accountable rather than generalizing to the entire city 110
56
•
bureaucracy.
They were then asked about their service provided:
In general, were you satisfied with
the way your inquiry was handled?
Eighty percent were satisfied with the service they received:
YES 24%
NO 6%
Dissatisfaction was higher in the case of contacts with the
Police Department and the Public Works Department.
The reason for dissatisfaction was established through the
query:
Why were you dissatisfied?
Process rather than interaction was the major source of
frustration:
NO SOLUTION FOUND 2%
NO RESPONSE 3%
PERSON WAS RUDE 1%
In general, because dissatisfaction was limited to only twenty
percent of the contacts with City Hall and stemmed from policy
rather than treatment, the populace must be judged as contented
with the level of service received.
Summary and Conclusions:
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
57
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.
58
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
59
SECTION FIVE
ISSUES AND POLICIES
60
•
•
ISSUES AND POLICIES
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a number of questions
about various issues facing their community. The issues raised
ran the gamut of taxes and spending to water quality and public
transportation. In very few instances were residents deeply
divided on these policy questions. The general consensus appears
to be that past policies have worked well, and that changes, when
needed, should be incremental and based upon the firm foundations
established in the past.
Maintaining Existing City Services:
A standard index of the tax climate in a municipality asks
residents to consider a tax increase to maintain current city
• services. Respondents were asked:
Would you favor or oppose an increase
in city property taxes if it were
needed to maintain city services at
their current level?
A large majority favored the tax increase:
FAVOR 55%
OPPOSE 35%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
Groups much more strongly in favor of the tax increase:
* 6 -10 year residents
* Professional /Technical households
* $37,500- $50,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 2 & 9 residents
Opposition was concentrated among:
* 55 -64 year olds
* Precincts 1 & 5 residents
These percentages reflect a prudent view toward taxes and
spending issues. City residents are not generally reflexively
61
"anti- tax," but they are discriminating about the purposes to
which the new taxes would be put. Part of the reason for the
support of a tax increase in this instance is the very high
regard in which city services are viewed by most residents.
Current Perception of Property Taxes:
Citizens were asked:
Do you consider property taxes in
Brooklyn Center to be excessively
high, relatively high, about average
or comparatively low?
A majority of residents rated taxes as "about average ":
EXCESSIVELY HIGH 7%
RELATIVELY HIGH 21%
ABOUT AVERAGE 54%
COMPARATIVELY LOW 6%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 11%
Groups rating property taxes higher included:
* Senior singles
* Under $12,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 4 & 8 residents
"Average" ratings were more frequently tallied among:
* Professional /Technical households
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 1 & 7 residents
* School District 286 residents
Only precinct six residents were more likely to see property
taxes lower than the norm.
Unlike many other communities, Brooklyn Center residents do
not possess a latent feeling that they are over - taxed.
Property Tax Share of the City:
There is a moderate level of misinformation among residents
about the property taxes they pay. In many communities, a
62
•
•
•
majority of residents overestimate the city share and
underestimate the portion taken by school districts. To test
this perception, Brooklyn Center respondents were asked:
As you may know, property taxes are
divided between the City of Brooklyn
Center, Hennepin County, and local
school districts.
For each dollar of property taxes
you pay, about what percentage do
you think goes to city government?
The median response among those answering the question was
nineteen percent:
UNDER TEN PERCENT 7%
10% TO 20% 22%
21% TO 30% 10%
31% TO 40% 5%
41% TO 50% 5%
51% TO 60% 1%
OVER SIXTY PERCENT 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 48%
Although somewhat overestimated by many residents, Brooklyn
Center has an added problem, in that almost one -half of the
respondents were unable to even guess at the share of city
property taxes. More information is critical on this subject
area as changes in the property tax structure take place.
Because of the widespread degree of ignorance on this issue,
the City may wish to publicize the actual percentages more
frequently in its communications.
Knowledge about City Government:
A trio of questions were asked about the Mayor and City
Council. As a first indicator of citizen awareness, respondents
were queried:
63
information:
Forty -one percent reported possessing more than minimal
Council:
How much do you feel you know about
the work of the Mayor and City Council
-- a great deal, a fair amount, or
very little?
GREAT DEAL 6%
FAIR AMOUNT 35%
VERY LITTLE 56%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
Groups having higher levels of information included:
* Over twenty year residents
* 55 -64 year olds
* Precinct 4 residents
Groups with very little information:
* Less than five year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* Precinct 8 residents
The overall information level of Brooklyn Center residents is
fifteen percent higher than the norm for suburban communities.
But, the City may wish to especially target newer residents and
renters with information about happenings at City Hall.
Next, residents were asked to evaluate City government:
From what you know, do you approve
or disapprove of the job the Mayor and
City Council are doing? And do you
feel strongly that way?
Seventy -six percent approved of the actions of the Mayor and
STRONGLY APPROVE 16%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 60%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 2%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 19%
Both the overall approval rating and the ratio of approval -to-
disapproval were exceptionally strong.
64
•
included:
Groups even more supportive of the Mayor and Council
* Over 65 year olds
* Precinct 7 residents
It should also be noted that greater knowledge of the work of the
Mayor and Council led to stronger positive evaluations.
Disapproval was scattered throughout the sample.
The rationale for these evaluations was gathered by the
query:
Why do you feel that way?
Citizens most likely awarded high ratings to the Mayor and
Council because they were perceived as doing a good job and had
created no real problems in their policy- making:
NO REASON 12%
HEARD - READ ABOUT THEM 7%
NO PROBLEMS WITH THEM 18%
CITY IS WELL RUN 15%
THEY DO A GOOD JOB 18%
THEY COMMUNICATE 2%
THEY COULD IMPROVE 5%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 3%
Critics thought that several improvements could be made,
including better communications with residents.
City government, then, is exceptionally well regarded by the
citizens of Brooklyn Center.
City Staff:
Residents were asked three questions about their dealings
with City Staff. First, the amount of actual personal
interaction was assessed:
How much first -hand contact have you
had with the Brooklyn Center City staff
-- quite a lot, some, very little, or
none at all?
65
Twenty -four percent of the sample reported high or moderate
levels of contact:
QUITE A LOT 6%
SOME 18%
VERY LITTLE 38%
NONE AT ALL 36%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
11 -20 year residents were more likely to indicate "quite a lot"
of contact with City Hall. Much lower levels of contact were
registered by:
* Less than five year residents
* Seniors
* Renters
* 18 -24 & over 65 year olds
* Clerical /Sales households
* $12,500 - $25,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 9 residents
* School District 281 residents
In comparison with other suburbs, Brooklyn Center residents had
only about three - fifths of the contacts reported in other
communities.
Next, respondents were asked:
From what you have seen or heard, how
would you rate the job performance of
the Brooklyn Center City staff -- excel-
lent, good, only fair, or poor?
The City Staff received an approval rating of sixty percent; this
figure is at the norm fore suburban communities:
EXCELLENT 11%
GOOD 49%
ONLY FAIR 8%
POOR 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 31%
Dissatisfaction, however, was lower than the norm. The fact that
almost one -third of the residents could not rate the staff tended
to deflate a remarkably positive showing.
66
•
•
•
•
Groups more complimentary in their ratings:
* Professional /Technical households
* Senior singles
* $5o,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 4 & 7 residents
Only Precinct 3 residents systematically rated the staff lower.
Similar to the evaluations of City government, staff ratings were
especially high among those reporting more personal contact.
Reasons for these evaluations were examined by the query:
Why did you rate city staff as ?
The helpfulness of the staff and the good service provided was
the basis for favorable judgments:
NO SPECIAL REASON 9%
HEARD - READ 5%
THEY ARE HELPFUL 16%
NO PROBLEMS WITH THEM 11%
THEY DO A GOOD JOB 19%
THEY COULD IMPROVE 1%
Nebulous concerns about improvement were the bases of reported
dissatisfaction.
The City Staff must be judged as a major influence on
impacting the generally positive orientation of residents toward
their City.
Run -Down Property:
Interviewees were asked if the City should forcefully move
to alleviate the problem of not rehabilitable property in the
community:
Would you favor or oppose the City
developing a systematic program for
acquiring run -down homes incapable of
rehabilitation and razing them?
Nearly seventy percent of the residents approved of the City
beginning a systematic program:
67
FAVOR 69%
OPPOSE 19%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 12%
Even higher support scores were registered by:
* Less than one year residents
* Precinct 8 residents
Opposition was stronger in Precincts 4 and 6. Given this strong
level of support, the City may wish to discuss possibles plans of
action to implement a more aggressive policy.
Community Standards on Property Appearance:
Citizens were queried about their support for more stringent
regulations on the maintenance of property appearance:
Should the City enact ordinances
requiring residents to maintain
property appearance to a stringent
community standard?
In line with the position taken on not rehabilitable property,
eighty percent of the sample favored more stringent standards:
YES 80%
NO 15%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5%
$50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households were overwhelmingly in
favor of this type of code change, while 3 -5 year residents were
more tepid in their feelings. But, like the previous response
pattern, the City certainly possesses a mandate to toughen
property appearance standards.
Housing Assistance for the Poor:
In many communities, residents oppose their Cities entry
into the social- services area. To test one aspect of this,
economic assistance for housing the poor, Brooklyn Center fa
residents were asked:
68
•
•
•
Would you favor or oppose the City
establishing a program to provide
economic assistance for housing the
poor? And do you feel strongly that
way?
By over two -to -one, respondents supported economic assistance for
housing the poor:
STRONGLY FAVOR 27%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 37%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 16%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
By a sixty -four percent to twenty -seven percent margin, citizens
were supportive of city action on this social problem.
Groups more favorable included:
* Less than one year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* Precinct 4 residents
Only Precinct 2 residents were much more strongly opposed to
the proposal.
The City may wish to investigate cost - effective approaches
to providing housing assistance to the economically
disadvantaged.
Senior Telephone Assurance Program:
The awareness and reaction to the Senior Citizen Telephone
Assurance Program was determined by the query:
Are you aware of the city- sponsored
Senior Citizen Telephone Assurance
Program? Do you have a favorable or
unfavorable perception of the program?
While most residents were unaware of the program, its intended
target audience was much better informed:
69
NOT AWARE 76%
AWARE /FAVORABLE 16%
AWARE /UNFAVORABLE 0%
AWARE /NO PERCEPTION 6%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
There is, however, some room for improvement even among the
senior citizens within the city; over one -half were unaware of
this service.
Among those familiar with the program, evaluations were
uniformly positive. The program provides excellent service to
its market clients.
Civil Defense Siren:
The impact of the Wednesday siren was gauged by the
question:
Almost three - quarters of the residents reported hearing the siren
on the appointed day:
In general, do you hear the Civil
Defense sirens on the first Wednesday
of each month at 1:OOPM?
YES 73%
NO 25%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
Awareness was higher among:
* Over twenty year residents
* Seniors
* Over 55 year olds
* Retirees
* Women working at home
* Precincts 4 & 7 residents
Fewer people were aware of the siren among:
* 6 -10 year residents
* 45 -54 year olds
* Professional /Technical households
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 8 & 9 residents
Usually, respondents working outside of the home during the day •
70
•
•
were much less likely to have heard the siren. This anomaly
should be expected.
Landscaping Residential Streets:
A city - sponsored program to line boulevards with trees was
tested through the query:
In a remarkable split, a six percent plurality favored the
proposal:
Should the City spend funds to develop
a full maintenance program for the
trees lining boulevards in Brooklyn
Center?
YES 46%
NO 40%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 14%
Groups registering majorities in favor of the program included:
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* $25,000- $37,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 1 & 8 residents
* School District 286 residents
Groups reporting majorities in opposition:
* 1 -2 year residents
* Precincts 5 & 6 residents
* School District 279 residents
With the citizenry split so evenly, the City may wish to more
fully discuss and publicize any concrete proposals before
proceeding further.
A second open -ended question was asked to follow -up:
Are there any further services which
the City of Brooklyn Center should pro-
vide to assist landscape improvements
on residential streets? What are they?
The vast majority of respondents could suggest nothing:
NONE 85%
MORE SIDEWALKS 4%
71
PLANT MORE TREES 2%
MAINTAIN WHAT IS THERE ALREADY 7%
PLANT FLOWERS 1%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 1%
Maintenance seemed to be one recurring answer, while a small
percentage favored the installation of more sidewalks.
At the present time, then, residential street landscaping is
not a priority for most residents.
Curbs and Gutters:
An historically divisive issue in many communities was
broached through the query:
Would you favor or oppose the institu-
tion of a program for installing curbs
and gutter on residential streets not
currently having them? And, do you
feel strongly that way?
By a thirty -six percent to fifty -four percent majority, residents
opposed completing the sidewalk system:
STRONGLY FAVOR 13%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 23%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 24%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 30%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
Strong opposition was over twice as high as strong support for
this type of construction.
Groups more in favor:
* 1 -2 & 6 -10 year residents
* Renters
* 25 -34 year olds
Groups much more opposed:
* $50,000- $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 1, 6 & 8 residents
In view of the large degree of opposition, the City may not wish
to proceed with any construction proposals at this time.
72
•
•
City Codes:
Interviewees were asked:
Do you feel the City is too tough,
about right, or not tough enough in
enforcing the City Code on such nuisan-
ces as animal control, garbage disposal,
junk cars, and noise?
Two - thirds of the sample felt that enforcement was "about right ":
TOO TOUGH 3%
ABOUT RIGHT 65%
NOT TOUGH ENOUGH 27%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
But, in contrast, over one - quarter of the residents rated
enforcement "not tough enough."
Groups which registered higher levels of concern that the
City was "not tough enough ":
* Seniors
* Precincts 6 & 8
Overall, however, citizens are pleased with the general level of
enforcement.
The source of any problems was ascertained by answers to the
query:
Why do you feel that way?
Loose animals and junk cars were the vexing problems in the minds
of many residents:
JUNK CARS 7%
LOOSE ANIMALS 9%
NOISE 3%
TRASH 3%
UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT 2%
JUNK CARS PLUS LOOSE ANIMALS 1%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 3%
Although not a major objection for most residents, the City may
wish to review and take further action on the animal control and
junk car problems.
73
Code Enforcement Personnel:
Residents were asked a two -part question about their
experiences with code enforcement officials:
During the past two years, have you
had contact with code enforcement
officials? Were you satisfied or
dissatisfied with their courtesy and
job performance?
Almost three - fourths of the sample reported no contact:
NO CONTACT 74%
CONTACT /SATISFIED 16%
CONTACT /DISSATISFIED 9%
CONTACT /NO OPINION 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
Contacts were much more frequent among households containing
children, 35 -44 year olds, and Owner /Manager households.
The satisfaction query, however, indicates a problem with
the courtesy and job performance of relevant personnel. By about
three -to -two, affected citizens were satisfied with their job;
but, this more marginal satisfaction level is far below the
average for Brooklyn Center. The City may, therefore, wish to
more fully examine the nature of the problem and take remedial
actions.
Residential Housing Inspection:
Newspaper accounts of "trash houses" and the dilapidation of
some older apartment complexes throughout the area have led many
people to support more affirmative action by cities to protect
the condition of its housing stock. To assess opinion in
Brooklyn Center, citizens were queried about mandatory periodic
inspection of housing within the community. Most residents were
supportive of the regular inspection of the outside of all owner-
74
•
•
•
occupied housing; but, a reversal of sentiment occurs on the
inspection of interiors. The inspection of rental dwellings,
though, received a major mandate of support.
Outside of Owner - Occupied Housing
First, interviewees were asked:
The inspection of housing in Brooklyn
Center for code violations is a func-
tion 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.
Regular inspections on the outside
of all owner - occupied housing?
Sixty -six percent of residents supported the outside inspection
of all owner - occupied units:
STRONGLY SUPPORT 19%
SUPPORT 47%
OPPOSE 20%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 9%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
Just under thirty percent were opposed.
Groups much more strongly in favor included:
* Less than one year residents
* Seniors
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 2 & 8 residents
Opposition was higher among:
* 1 -2 year residents
* 18 -24 & 55 -64 year olds
* Professional /Technical households
* Precinct 4 residents
Any action the City would wish to take on this aspect of the
problem would be warmly received.
75
Inside of Owner - Occupied Housing
Next, respondents were asked:
Regular inspections on the inside of
all owner occupied housing?
Nearly two - thirds of the sample opposed this proposal:
STRONGLY SUPPORT 9%
SUPPORT 31%
OPPOSE 25%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 30%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
However, forty percent of the residents indicated support.
Groups much more supportive:
Rental Units
* 3 -5 year residents
* Renters
* Under $12,500 yearly income households
* Precinct 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
Opposition was even more widespread among:
* Less than one year residents
* Owner /Manager households
* Precincts 4, 7, & 8 residents
The major concern about this proposal was the question of
privacy. There is clearly no consensus in favor of an inspection
program including the interior of owner - occupied housing.
Finally, residents were asked:
An overwhelming eighty -nine percent favored more rigorous
standards and enforcement:
Increased and rigorous enforcement
standards for rental dwelling units?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 53%
SUPPORT 36%
OPPOSE 3%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
76
•
•
Near unanimity was found among:
* 45 -54 year olds
* Women working in the home
* Precinct 4 residents
* School District 279 residents
Opposition was scattered.
With relative ease in terms of galvanizing majority support,
the City could implement a program that inspected the outside of
all owner - occupied homes and all rental units within Brooklyn
Center.
Level of Economic Development:
Respondents were asked their perception of the level of
retail and commercial opportunities in the City:
Do you think that the City of
Brooklyn Center has too much, too
little, or about the right amount of
commercial and retail development?
Nearly eighty percent felt that the current development was
"about right" for Brooklyn Center:
TOO MUCH 12%
ABOUT RIGHT 78%
TOO LITTLE 6%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
3 -5 year residents were particularly happy with the status quo.
These responses reflect a strong level of satisfaction for past
decisions by the City in building a full - service community.
Aggressive Economic Development Efforts:
Redevelopment is always a controversial topic in the inner
ring suburban areas. To initiate a discussion of future
policies, residents were told:
77
They were then asked about the aggressive pursuit and retention
of commercial and retail development:
Almost two - thirds of the sample supported the City taking an
assertive approach:
Residents more supportive of a directed and purposive approach
included:
Many cities are being squeezed finan-
cially to maintain their current service
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.
Would you support or oppose an aggres-
sive effort by the City of Brooklyn
Center to attract new and retain exis-
ting commercial and retail development?
And do you feel strongly that way?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 27%
SUPPORT 36%
OPPOSE 19%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8%
* Precincts 4 & 5 residents
Residents opposed to this type of an approach:
* Seniors
* Precincts 1 & 9 residents
The citizenry of Brooklyn Center, then, are supportive of a more
focused and targeted approach to economic development.
Use of Development Incentives:
A highly controversial aspect of development efforts is the
use of selective incentives, such as TIF and various other
devices, to obtain needed projects. In many cities, the use of •
78
•
•
•
•
tax breaks, for example, split the populace almost down the
middle. The opinions of Brooklyn Center residents were sought on
two aspects of this issue: first, a general predisposition
toward this development strategy; and, second, two more specific
possible uses of incentives in various parts of the community.
First, respondents were queried:
The citizenry split narrowly in support of development
incentives:
Would you favor or oppose providing
development incentives, such as tax
breaks, to attract new and retain exis-
ting retail and commercial developments?
And do you feel strongly that way?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 16%
SUPPORT 33%
OPPOSE 22%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 19%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
By an eight point margin, a plurality of residents supported the
use of economic incentives, in principle.
Groups registering majorities in favor:
* 1 -2 & 6 -10 year residents
* Precincts 4 & 5 residents
Only Clerical -Sales households reflected a majority in
opposition to its use.
These results suggest endorsement of a prudent approach to
providing tax breaks to developers. In fact, the responses to
specific situations greatly reflect the selectivity of most
residents.
Respondents were told:
Let's consider some actual locations
in the City where development incentives
could be used. Would you strongly favor,
somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or
79
strongly oppose offering development
incentives to potential retail and /or
commercial projects at:
The first location tested was:
69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard?
By a forty -eight percent to thirty -four percent margin, a
plurality supported the use of development incentives in this
part of the city:
STRONGLY FAVOR 12%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 36%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 19%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 15%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 17%
Groups more favorable included:
* 1 -2 and over five year residents
* 55 -64 year olds
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precinct 8 residents
Only 18 -24 year olds showed significantly stronger opposition.
Next, residents were queried about:
The Lynbrook Bowl Area at 65th and
Camden Avenues North?
A sixty percent majority endorsed the use of tax incentives to
redevelop this area:
STRONGLY FAVOR 19%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 41%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 14%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 19%
Opposition dropped to twenty -two percent.
Groups more strongly in favor:
* 1 -2 year residents
* 55 -64 year olds
* Precincts 2, 4, 5 & 8 residents
Opponents were more likely to be:
80
•
•
•
•
* Senior couples
* Precinct 1 residents
These findings suggest that the City should prioritize the
Lynbrook Bowl Area for any development incentive money and rely
upon other means, at present, in the 69th- Brooklyn Boulevard
Area. A successful rejuvenation of the former area might, in
fact, increase overall support for the more creative use of
development incentives, in general.
Oversized Vehicles:
Brooklyn Center interviewees were asked their opinions about
an ordinance and proposal dealing with oversized vehicles in
residential areas. The first centered on the problem of
commercial vehicles parked on residential streets; the second,
with recreational -type vehicles stored on private property. The
public perceives a great difference in these two situations.
First, it was explained and queried:
In the Summer of 1989, the City will
prohibit the parking of commercial
vehicles over 21 feet long in residen-
tial areas.
Do you support or oppose this new
ordinance? And do you feel strongly
that way?
A three -to -one majority favored the ordinance:
STRONGLY SUPPORT 38%
SUPPORT 33%
OPPOSE 10%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 14%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5%
Groups even stronger in their approval:
* Less than one year and 6 -10 year residents
* Seniors
* 18 -24 year olds
81
* Professional /Technical and Owner /Manager
households
* Under $12,500 & $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income
households
* Precinct 8 residents
Groups more strongly opposed:
* 45 -54 year olds
* Precincts 1, 5, 7 & 9 residents
Implementation of this ordinance will be greeted with a wave of
relief by the great majority of householders.
However, a different picture emerges on a related problem:
Would you support or oppose the prohi-
bition of the storage of large recrea-
tional vehicles, campers, and boats on
residential property in Brooklyn Center?
And do you feel strongly that way?
A two -to -one majority opposes this proposal:
STRONGLY SUPPORT 13%
SUPPORT 17%
OPPOSE 29%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 35%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
The voter intensity also is stronger on the opposition side of
the question.
Groups more in favor included:
* Professional /Technical households
* Precincts 4, 8 & 9 residents
Groups much more opposed:
* Less than one year residents
* Precincts 1, 5 & 7 residents
Until residents see this issue as a serious problem warranting
action, the City would be best advised to forego action on the
proper storage of recreational -type vehicles.
Group Homes:
The issue of group home siting is a highly explosive one in
82
•
most communities. Not only do many residents adopt a "Not- in -My-
Backyard" viewpoint, but many deeply resent outside authorities
mandating a facility in their midsts. In many areas, residents
reflexively oppose the siting of any group facility for any
purpose. To investigate the feelings of Brooklyn Center
citizens, respondents were asked a series of five questions. The
first set asked about their feelings toward group homes serving
various specific clientele; the second, the willingness to invest
in procedures to change the current law.
Residents were initially told:
They were then instructed:
At present, the State of Minnesota
requires all communities to accept
group homes serving unrelated people
for certain types of needs. Group
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, some-
what disapprove, or strongly disapprove
a group home of that type coming to the
city.
A list of four group home functions was then read; reactions
varied markedly from purpose to purpose. First:
83
A group home for retarded children or
adults?
Over eighty percent of the sample supported the siting of a group
home for this purpose; opposition was only thirteen percent:
STRONGLY APPROVE 40%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 43%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 8%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 5%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
Enthusiastic supporters tended to be:
* Less than two year residents
* Renters
* $25,000 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Clerical /Sales households
* Precinct 4 residents
Opponents were more likely:
* Seniors
* Over 55 year olds
* Retirees
* Precincts 7 & 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
Even though a vast majority of the populace would support the
creation of a group home for the mentally retarded in the
community, two groups will systematically evidence greater
opposition to any of the proposals in this section of the survey:
senior citizens and Precinct 8 residents. City policy- makers may
wish to keep this in mind, particularly for communications
efforts, during the siting process.
But, a group home for the mentally retarded scored very well
across the community.
A group home for recovering chemically
dependent individuals?
By a fifty -six percent to forty percent majority, residents
support the siting of a group home for recovering chemically
dependent individuals:
84
•
•
•
Supporters were more likely to be:
Opponents:
STRONGLY APPROVE 19%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 37%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 23%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 17%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5%
* Less than five year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* $25,000 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 4 residents
* 6 -10 year residents
* Seniors
* Over 65 year olds
* $12,500 - $25,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 7 & 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
Carefull communications should proceed the siting of this type of
facility.
A group home for non - violent mentally
ill people?
By a five -to -two margin, residents supported the siting of a
group home for the non - violent mentally ill:
Supporters included:
STRONGLY APPROVE 22%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 46%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 17%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
* Less than one year and 6 -10 year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
* Renters
* $25,000 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 1, 4 & 9 residents
Opponents were more likely to be:
* Seniors
* Over 65 year olds
* $12,500 - $25,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 8 residents
85
Residents do not appear as hostile to mentally impaired
individuals being housed in group facilities within the city.
A group home for recently released
ex- prisoners?
An overwhelming majority reject this type of group home in
Brooklyn Center:
STRONGLY APPROVE 5%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 14%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 24%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 52%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
Approval was higher among:
* Clerical /Sales households
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 5 residents
Residents of Precincts 4, 8 & 9 registered even higher levels of
opposition.
• The siting of a group home for recently released ex-
prisoners would be a terribly divisive issue in Brooklyn Center
and should be resisted through any available means.
Next, residents were asked about legislative lobbying to
change the current laws:
Once again, state law will not permit
the City of Brooklyn Center to refuse
the siting of a group home.
Would you favor or oppose the City
spending funds to lobby the legislature
for the ability to place some controls
on the siting of group homes? And do
you feel strongly that way?
Almost three - quarters of the community favored lobbying to change
the group home siting law; almost a majority strongly favored
these activities:
STRONGLY FAVOR 46%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 28%
86
•
•
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 10%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
In concept, residents strongly support a more assertive effort in
Saint Paul.
Groups even more strongly in favor:
* 6 -10 year residents
* Precincts 4, 8 & 9 residents
Groups more opposed:
* Clerical /Sales households
* $12,500- $25,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 7 residents
However, it is important to note that support is only solicited
for the concept.
To determine the depth of this support for lobbying
activities, supporters were then asked:
Would you still favor the lobbying
effort if a modest property tax increase
were required to cover the costs?
Seventy -three percent of the supporters did not change their
opinion:
FAVOR 55%
OPPOSE 14%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
An overall fifty -five percent of the residents of the community
would be willing to accept a modest property tax increase to
finance a lobbying effort.
Brooklyn Center citizens are willing to do their share to
aid the disadvantaged, particularly the mentally handicapped.
However, they rebel for the most part against the state's
authority in siting facilities without any recourse for the
community.
87
Water Restrictions:
The drought of 1988 required many municipalities to take
action to preserve their dwindling water supplies. Respondents
were asked two questions: first, their reaction to the
restrictions enacted in Brooklyn Center; and, second, their
willingness to incur charges to avoid restrictions in droughts of
the future.
First, their evaluation of the 1988 actions by the City:
Thinking back on the water use re-
striction imposed during the drought
of 1988, would you say they were:
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.
Seventy percent rated those restrictions as "about right ":
STATEMENT A 5%
STATEMENT B 70%
STATEMENT C 21%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
Only five percent felt they were "too tough," and a surprising
twenty -one percent would support even tougher restrictions, if
needed, in the future.
Groups feeling the restrictions were "about right ":
* Over twenty year residents
* Renters
* 45 -54 year olds
* Precinct 9 residents
Groups supporting even tougher future restrictions:
* Less than two year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
For the most part, respondents agreed with the past actions.
88
•
•
Residents were next asked if they would support increases in
their water rates to reduce the need for future restrictions:
Would you be willing to see your
water rates increased in order to
fund measures to reduce the need for
future use restrictions? How much
of an increase?
Almost two - thirds of the sample were opposed to increases in
water rates to meet future difficulties:
NO 63%
10% INCREASE 22%
25% INCREASE 4%
50% INCREASE 1%
75% INCREASE 0%
100% INCREASE 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9%
About one -third of the community would support a ten percent
increase to fund a water project.
Groups more adamantly against an increase:
* 1 -2 year residents
* Precincts 1, 5 & 9 residents
Groups more supportive of a ten percent increase:
* 3 -5 year residents
* Precinct 3 residents
* School District 11 residents
The City should not pursue any drought - planning efforts at this
point which would hike water rates in Brooklyn Center.
Water Quality:
Sample interviewees were asked a short series of questions
about the quality of their water. On the four dimensions tested,
only one, hardness, found more than twenty percent of the
community rating it as a "very serious problem." In each of the
other cases, two - thirds of the interviewees viewed the
characteristic as "not at all serious."
89
Residents were instructed:
Thinking about water quality now, how
serious a problem do you feel the fol-
lowing characteristics of water are
in Brooklyn Center -- very serious,
somewhat serious, or not at all serious?
They were then queried about:
Hard water?
One -third of the respondents viewed the problem as "very
serious;" an equal number viewed it as "not at all serious ":
VERY LIKELY 35%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 29%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 33%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
If cost effective ways to soften the water could be found, the
City may wish to proceed on this issue.
Red water from iron?
Only fourteen percent of the respondents viewed this as a
major problem:
VERY LIKELY 14%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 20%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 62%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
Residents of Precinct 6 were especially unhappy about red water.
Black specks from manganese?
Fifteen percent of the sample saw black specks as a major
problem:
VERY LIKELY 15%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 15%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 65%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
Seniors and renters were most likely to complain about specks.
Taste or odor?
Seventeen percent of the sample rated the taste or odor as
90
disturbing:
VERY LIKELY 17%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 18%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 63%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
Renters, new - comers, and Precinct 5 residents were particularly
critical of the water on this basis.
Residents, overall, except perhaps on the hardness of the
water, do not regard the problem as a serious community issue.
In light of this perspective, it should be expected that
most residents would evidence unwillingess to see increases in
their water rates to solve these "non- problems." To test this
assertion, respondents were asked:
Would you be willing to see your
water rates increased in order to
improve the quality of water in the
city? How much of an increase?
• Almost sixty percent of the sample would not be willing to see
their water rates rise to improve the water quality:
NO 58%
25% INCREASE 29%
50% INCREASE 4%
100% INCREASE 1%
150% INCREASE 1%
200% INCREASE 0%
300% INCREASE 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8%
About one -third of the sample would be willing to pay for a
twenty -five percent water rate increase to fund a program.
Adamant opposition was found among:
* Over twenty year residents
* 55 -64 year olds
* Precinct 1 residents
* School District 11 residents
Proponents of a twenty -five percent increase included:
91
* Less than one year and 6 -10 year residents
* Owner /Manager households
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 3 residents
Again, the data suggests that efforts to improve water quality
which would increase rates would be distinctly unpopular among
the citizenry.
Recycling Program:
Residents were queried about their interest in a city -
sponsored recycling program:
The City will be instituting a pick -up
system for the disposal of separated
recyclable materials. How likely will
you be to use it -- very likely, some-
what likely, or not at all likely?
Using standard marketing projection techniques, fifty -one percent
of the households in the community could be expected to
participate in a well - publicized program:
VERY LIKELY 65%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 23%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 10%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
The most likely participants included:
* Seniors
* Over 65 year olds
* Professional /Technical households
* Precinct 7 residents
Non - participants were scattered across the sample.
The recycling program will have a good reception among most
city residents. However, good publicity about the effort will be
essential to insure its full success.
Public Transportation:
While use of public transportation is somewhat higher than
92
usual among Brooklyn Center residents, expansion of the usage
rate will prove to be very difficult. Like most suburbanites,
Brooklyn Center drivers are wedded to their automobiles, and even
with more availability, marginal increases in usage will be
minimal.
Respondents were initially asked:
current service:
Do you currently use public transpor-
tation -- the bus service -- available
in Brooklyn Center?
Twenty -four percent of the residents indicated current usage:
YES 24%
NO 75%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
Groups with higher usage rates included:
* 1 -2 year residents
* Seniors
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* Clerical /Sales households
* Under $12,500 yearly income households
* Women working in the home
* Precinct 2 residents
Much lower ridership was reported by:
* $37,500- $50,000 yearly income households
* Males
* Precincts 8 & 9 residents
The pattern of use of public transportation in Brooklyn Center
follows closely suburban norms.
Users were then asked:
Are you generally satisfied or
dissatisfied with the service?
A uniquely high three out of four riders were satisfied with the
SATISFIED 19%
DISSATISFIED 5%
93
The bus service into and around the city appears to be doing a
good job in meeting the needs of most residential users.
Non - riders were then queried:
Are there any changes or improvements
that could be made which would increase
your likelihood of using it? What would
they be?
For the most part, the answer was "no ":
DON'T KNOW 21%
NONE 38%
BUSES RUN ON TIME 1%
ROUTES CLOSER TO MY HOME 1%
SPECIFIC ROUTES 2%
BUSES ARRIVING MORE OFTEN 1%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 1%
The potential changes suggested in scheduling and routing would
appeal to only very small numbers of residents.
While public transportation may be the wave of the future,
in Brooklyn Center, that wave will not reach the shore for a very
long time!
Summary and Conclusions:
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
94
•
•
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
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
95
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 a stringent 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 percent, and absolutely opposed to
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
96
•
•
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
97
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
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
property was critical 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
98
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
99
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.
100
•
•
SECTION SIX
CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
Brooklyn Center residents were asked their opinions about a
civic center expansion. First, they were queried about their
feelings toward the general project. Then, various components of
an expansion were examined in more detail. Finally, willingness
to support the project through a property tax increase was
assessed. The citizens were found to be generally supportive of
the proposal so long as certain key facilities were included.
General Support and Opposition:
CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
Residents were initially asked:
As you may know, the original build-
ings in the Civic Center were built in
1970. The City is currently considering
an expansion of the City Hall and
Community Center buildings there.
Would you favor or oppose the expan-
sion of the Brooklyn Center Civic
Center? And do you feel strongly that
way?
By a fifty -two percent to thirty percent majority, respondents
supported an expansion of the civic center:
STRONGLY FAVOR 17%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 35%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 18%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 12%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 19%
For election purposes, it is noteworthy that residents holding
strong opinions, likely voters in any bond referendum, favored
the proposal by a three -to -two margin.
Supporters were most often:
* 11 -20 year residents
* 18 -24 year olds
102
•
•
* Under $12,500 & $50,000 - $62,500 yearly
income households
* Precincts 3, 4, 6 & 11 residents
Opponents were more numerous among:
* Precincts 1, 3 & S.D. #11 residents
Precinct 3 was the most polarized on this issue: evidencing high
levels of both "strong support" and "strong opposition."
While these numbers indicate good support in the community
for an expansion project, they also indicate that timing of the
election and get- out -the -vote efforts will be critical to
success. The optimal scheduling of a special bond referendum
election on this question would be simultaneously with the
November, 1990 general election.
Reactions to Specific Project Components:
Respondents were next read a list of possible inclusions in
any expansion project. They were informed:
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.
Six items were tested. Two proposed features were strongly
endorsed by at least two - thirds of the citizenry; one received a
majority of support; the remaining three components either
garnered narrow pluralities or were rejected by a majority of
people.
Addition to the City Hall, providing
more space for police, fire, and general
offices.
Nearly two - thirds of the residents supported an addition to
the City Hall:
103
STRONGLY FAVOR 17%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 48%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 12%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 15%
The support was particularly tied to the perceived need for
larger space for increased police department activities.
Supporters were more likely to be:
* 6 -10 year residents
* 18 -24 & 45 -54 year olds
* $25,000 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precincts 3, 4, 6 & S.D. #11 residents
Opponents were scattered throughout the sample.
Any successful referendum drive should highlight this
component of the proposal.
Construction of a new gymnasium.
By a narrow forty -six percent to forty -one percent margin,
residents hesitantly supported the construction of a new
•
gymnasium:
STRONGLY FAVOR 13%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 33%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 25%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 16%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 13%
It should be noted that "strong support" was slightly
outdistanced by "strong opposition."
Groups more favorable toward a new gymnasium included:
* Less than five year residents
* 18 -34 year olds
* Renters
* Precincts 2, 6 & 8 residents
Opponents were concentrated in:
* Clerical /Sales households
* Over twenty year residents
* 55 -64 year olds
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 1 & 5 residents
104
•
•
A new gymnasium should not be considered a "cornerstone" feature
of any referendum package.
Construction of a Senior Citizens
Drop -In Center?
By far, the senior citizen center received the most
enthusiastic support of any component of the project:
STRONGLY FAVOR 35%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 37%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 13%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 7%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9%
With a seven -to -one advantage of "strong support" over "strong
opposition," this facility should be considered the "flagship" of
any campaign effort.
Groups more supportive:
* Renters
* 18 -24 & 35 -44 year olds
* 6 -10 year residents
* Clerical /Sales households
* Precincts 1, 4, 6 & 8 residents
* School District 281 residents
Opposition was concentrated among 55 -64 year olds.
The senior citizen drop -in center must be regarded as the
major component of any civic center expansion.
Handball courts?
A majority opposed the construction of handball courts in
the facility:
STRONGLY FAVOR 6%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 26%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 30%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 24%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 14%
The intensely impacted split four -to -one against the courts.
Groups more in favor included:
105
* Less than one year residents
* Under $12,500 yearly income households
* 18 -24 year olds
* Precinct 2 residents
Groups substantially more opposed:
* 6 -10 year residents
* $37,500- $50,000 yearly income households
The inclusion of this component would necessitate some voter
education on its merits to neutralize opposition. The downside
of its inclusion is that it could become a symbolic "rallying
point" against the entire project.
Expansion of the exercise and fitness
room?
By a forty -seven percent to thirty -seven percent margin,
Brooklyn Center residents approved of the expansion of the
exercise and fitness room:
STRONGLY FAVOR 12%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 35%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 21%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 16%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 16%
Intense feelings split four -to -three against this part of the
proposal.
Groups more strongly in favor:
* 1 -2 and 11 -20 year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* Blue Collar households
* $25,000 - $37,500 & $50,000 - $62,500 yearly
income households
Opposition was primarily centered in Precincts 5 and 8.
Definitely, more explanation of this part of the proposal
will be required in any successful campaign effort.
An indoor walking and jogging track?
By a fifty -four percent to thirty -seven percent majority,
106
•
•
respondents favored the construction of an indoor track:
STRONGLY FAVOR 23%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 31%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 19%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 18%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9%
Intense feelings also broke in favor of this proposal.
Groups more supportive included:
* 1 -2 year residents
* Renters
* $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income households
* Precinct 7 households
Groups opposed:
* 6 -10 year residents
* Precinct 4 residents
The track should be considered for inclusion in this project, if
funds are available.
In order of their preferences, the strongest possible
proposal will include the following three items:
(1) Senior Citizens Drop -In Center;
(2) Addition to City Hall;
(3) Indoor Walking and Jogging Track.
The inclusion of other facilities should be considered only if
funds are available and if a compelling economic or demographic
argument for their inclusion can be made.
Other Facilities:
To insure that all the major components of an expansion
project had been assessed, residents were asked:
Are there any other facilities you
would like to see in an expanded Civic
Center? What are they?
• Nearly ninety percent of the sample could add no further
suggestions:
107
DON'T KNOW 6%
NONE 80%
ICE RINK 1%
HEALTH SPA 1%
MORE YOUTH ACTIVITIES 2%
RACQUETBALL COURTS 1%
MORE MEETING ROOMS 1%
MORE SENIOR PROGRAMS 1%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 6%
The remaining residents scattered their wishes over a myriad of
possibilities.
It would appear that the package being currently considered
adequately meets the needs of residents at this time.
Willingness to Pay:
Support in the abstract can differ markedly from the
willingness to vote for a tax increase to cover the costs of a
project or program. In order to delineate between the two,
residents were first informed:
They were then asked:
The building of a Civic Center expan-
sion might require passage of a bond
referendum. Taxpayers could be asked
to pay for the expansion of the facil-
ity and to share in the cost of oper-
ating the center. User fees would also
underwrite its operation to some extent.
How much would you be willing to pay
in additional property taxes to support
the construction and partial operation
of an expanded Civic Center? Let's say,
would you be willing to pay $ per
year?
Although over one -third of the residents refused to pay anything,
a tax increase of $25.00 would be supported by a majority of
residents:
NOTHING 36%
$25 23%
108
•
$50 11%
$75 7%
$100 7%
$125 1%
$150 1%
$175 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 14%
Among those having an opinion, the level of acceptable property
tax increase would be about $30.00.
Groups unwilling to fund this proposal included:
* Owner /Manager households
* Clerical /Sales households
* Precinct 5 residents
Groups supportive of a $25.00 tax increase:
* Seniors
* 18 -24 year olds
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precinct 4 residents
Younger, Professional /Technical households were most likely
to endorse higher property tax increases to fund the expansion.
The thirty -six percent unwilling to pay anything indicates a
moderately strong level of opposition to the project. But, the
opposition has not reached levels of insurmountability. An
aggressive campaign concentrating on voter identification and
turnout would have a good chance of success.
Summary and Conclusions:
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
109
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.
110
•
SECTION SEVEN
COMMUNICATIONS
111
COMMUNICATIONS
Brooklyn Center residents were asked a series of questions
about the ways in which they obtain information about activities
in the city. The major finding is that the reach of existing
channels is extremely limited. Many people are unable to obtain
information, and the sources utilized by most residents are too
diffused to insure a coherent message. The most acute problem
seems to center around the receipt of the "City Manager's
Newsletter." To insure a continuing reservoir of goodwill among
its residents, the City may wish to undertake a re- evaluation and
expansion of its current communications efforts.
Primary Source of Recreational Information:
To ascertain the means by which citizens obtain information
about city recreational programs, respondents were asked:
What is your principal source of
information about the recreational
programs offered by the City of
Brooklyn Center?
City- sponsored channels were relied upon by over two - thirds of
the residents, while the local newspaper reached an additional
thirteen percent:
NONE 8%
LOCAL PAPER 6%
MAILINGS 34%
SCHOOLS 2%
POST 7%
PARK BROCHURE 28%
BULLETINS 4%
PEOPLE 9%
THROUGH USE OF COMMUNITY CENTER 2%
TELEVISION 1%
Only eight percent, a very low figure, reported they were
112
•
•
•
entirely out of this communications loop.
There was a clear segmentation in the reach of the various
communications devices:
Retirees and renters were most likely to report that they
had no means of garnering that information.
"Mailings" were the major communications vehicle relied upon
by Owner /Manager households, $37,500 - $50,000 yearly income
households, Precincts 5, 6 & 9 residents, and School District 279
residents.
The "park brochure" was a particular favorite of Precinct 1
residents.
The Park and Recreation Department is doing an outstanding
job in reaching residents with program news.
• Primary Source of City Government Information:
To measure the types of communications vehicles used by
residents in finding out about city government activities,
interviewees were asked:
The "local paper" or "the Post" was relied upon by almost half of
the respondents:
What is your primary source of
information about City government
and its activities?
NONE 16%
LOCAL PAPER 21%
MAILINGS 10%
CITY NEWSLETTER 8%
POST 28%
PEOPLE 9%
CABLE TELEVISION 4%
SCATTERED RESPONSES 2%
It is a dominant communications channel for local news, but not
as great as the local newspapers in many other suburban
113
communities. City mailings and newsletters were utilized by
eighteen percent of the residents. An unusually large sixteen
percent of the residents had no available communications channel.
Groups outside of the communications loop included:
* Less than two year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
The "newsletter" was relied upon by Precinct 1 residents.
The "local newspaper" was mentioned most frequently by:
* Over twenty year residents
* 45 -54 year olds
* Precincts 5, 7 & 8 residents
In terms of maximizing the effectiveness of current
communications channels, the City should endeavor to strengthen
its ties with the local newspaper. It also must increase both
the reach and impact of its city newsletter.
"The City Manager's Newsletter ":
To judge the effectiveness and reach of the city- sponsored
quarterly newsletter, residents were asked a series of three
questions. To measure the reach of the publication, interviewees
were asked:
Do you recall receiving "The City
Manager's Newsletter," the city's
information publication, during the
past year?
A very low thirty -seven percent of the sample reported receipt of
the publication:
YES 37%
NO 57%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
This is the lowest penetration rate that the researchers have •
114
•
•
encountered in the Metropolitan Area.
Groups indicating higher levels of receipt included:
* Over twenty year residents
* Seniors
* 55 -64 year olds
* $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households
* Precincts 1, 4 & 7 residents
Groups with even lower receipt rates:
* Less than five year residents
* Renters
* 18 -34 year olds
* Precincts 2 & 6 residents
The City should quickly re- evaluate its delivery system to insure
that all segments of the community are receiving the newsletter.
If they are, then changes in format may be needed to increase its
impact.
Readership was estimated at a low twenty -eight percent of
the citizenry. Respondents who recalled receiving the newsletter
were asked:
The fall -off between receipt and readership was a very high
twenty -five percent:
YES 28%
NO 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
Readers tended to be:
Do you or any members of your house-
hold regularly read it?
* Over twenty year residents
* Seniors
* Over 55 year olds
* Retirees
* Precincts 1 & 4
Non - readers were concentrated among the Professional /Technical
households in Brooklyn Center.
The newsletter's principle audience, then, are older, long-
115
time residents. With such a high fall -off, the content and style
of the publication needs to be reconsidered to maximize its
appeal. One perception may be that it is intended primarily for
seniors.
Finally, readers were asked:
How effective is the city newsletter
in keeping you informed about activities
in the City -- very effective, somewhat
effective, or not at all effective?
Thirty -five percent of the readership rated "The City Manager's
Newsletter" as "very effective," a proportion at the norm for
most suburban communities:
VERY EFFECTIVE 13%
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE 19%
NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
Seniors, over twenty year residents, over 65 year olds, retirees,
and Precincts 1 & 4 residents were most likely to rate the
publication highly.
In general, these results indicate a publication that is not
only not reaching its intended citywide audience, but is
perceived to be a communications device with only one segment of
the community.
The "Brooklyn Center Post ":
Local newspapers in suburban areas tend to be very effective
communications devices. The "Brooklyn Center Post" does not fall
into this category. Its reach is among the lowest encountered in
the suburban area.
Residents were asked:
Does your household receive the
' , Brooklyn Center Poste newspaper?
116
•
•
•
Do you generally read it?
Only sixty percent reported reading the newspaper, twenty percent
lower than the norm:
RECEIVE /READ 60%
RECEIVE /DON'T READ 4%
DON'T RECEIVE 35%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
In addition, over one -third of the city did not receive the
"Post."
Groups most likely to read and receive the paper:
* Over twenty year residents
* Seniors
* 55 -64 year olds
* Precincts 3 & 7 residents
Respondents not receiving the newspaper tended to be:
* 6 -10 year residents
* Renters
* 18 -24 year olds
* Clerical /Sales households
* Women working outside of the home
* Precincts 8 & 9 residents
A major problem facing city communications is that both the
newsletter and the local paper appeal to the same groups and miss
many of the same individuals. Younger and newer residents to the
community are generally excluded from any type of structure
information about city activities.
Summary and Conclusions:
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
117
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 quality of its newsletter.
118
•
QUESTIONNAIRE
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
have you lived in Brooklyn
Center?
2. In what city and /or state was your immediately prior
residence located?
BROOKLYN CENTER: 4% MINNEAPOLIS: 40% CRYSTAL: 4%
OUT OF STATE: 13% RAMSEY COUNTY: 6% RURAL MN: 6%
BROOKLYN PARK: 7% NORTH HENN. CO.: 9% SOUTH HENN. CO.: 5%
ANOKA CO.: 3% SCATTERED: 2%
3. As things now stand, how long
in the future do you expect to
live in Brooklyn Center?
4. How would you rate the quality of
life in Brooklyn Center -- excel-
lent, good, only fair, or poor?
6. What do you like LEAST about it?
1
LESS THAN ONE YEAR 6%
ONE OR TWO YEARS 10%
THREE TO FIVE YEARS 20%
SIX TO TEN YEARS 11%
ELEVEN - TWENTY YEARS 17%
OVER TWENTY YEARS 36%
LESS THAN ONE YEAR 8%
ONE TO TWO YEARS 7%
THREE TO FIVE YEARS...12%
SIX TO TEN YEARS 3%
OVER TEN YEARS 54%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 15%
EXCELLENT
GOOD
ONLY FAIR
POOR
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED
28%
64%
5%
2%
0
1%
0
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%
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%
•
•
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 potentia; 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....
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
7. In general, do you usually spend
your leisure time in outdoor
activities, weather permitting,
or indoor activities?
City playgrounds.
The golf course.
The swimming pool.
The community center.
Bicycle paths.
Pedestrian trails.
City parks.
15. Overall, would you rate the park
and recreational facilities in
Brooklyn Center as excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
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-
crease in city property taxes if
it were needed to maintain city
services at their current level?
2
OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES....52%
INDOOR ACTIVITIES 18%
BOTH 30%
VERY SMWT NOT D.K./
IMP IMP IMP REF.
78% 18% 3% 2%
26% 44% 25% 5%
55% 35% 8% 3%
69% 22% 5% 5%
62% 29% 7% 3%
66% 29% 2% 2%
80% 16% 2% 3%
EXCELLENT 42%
GOOD 44%
ONLY FAIR 8%
POOR 0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
FAVOR 55%
OPPOSE 35%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
18. Do you consider property taxes in
Brooklyn Center to be excessively
high, relatively high, about
average or comparatively low?
As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of
Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, and local school districts
19. For each dollar of property taxes
you pay, about what percentage do
you think goes to city govern-
ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEEDED)
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
20. Police protection? 27%
21. Fire protection? 31%
22. City street repair and
maintenance?
23. Water quality?
24. Sewers?
25. Snow plowing?
26. Animal control?
27. Park maintenance?
28. Why did you rate
29. How would you rate the general
appearance of your neighborhood
-- excellent, good, only fair,
or poor?
3
EXCESSIVELY HIGH 7%
RELATIVELY HIGH 21%
ABOUT AVERAGE 54%
COMPARATIVELY LOW 6%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....11%
UNDER TEN PERCENT • 7%
10% TO 20% 22%
21% TO 30% 10%
31% TO 40% 5%
41% TO 50% 5%
51% TO 60% 1%
OVER SIXTY PERCENT 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....48%
GOOD FAIR
POOR
60% 7% 3%
59% 1% 0%
19% 55% 20% 5% 2%
14% 50% 17% 16% 3%
11% 75% 5% 0% 8%
47% 43% 6% 2% 1%
12% 60% 12% 8% 8%
23% 63% 5% 1% 7%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #20 -27, ASK FOR EACH:
as (only fair /poor)?
BAD WATER: 17% UPKEEP: 6% POTHOLES: 5%
LOOSE ANIMALS: 8% ANIMALS + POTHOLES: 3%
WATER + POTHOLES: 5% MULTIPLES: 7%
POLICE: 3%
SLOW:
5%
EXCELLENT 28%
GOOD 61%
ONLY FAIR 8%
POOR 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
•
30. Other than voting, do you feel
that if you wanted to, you could
have a say about the way the City
of Brooklyn Center runs things?
31. How much do you feel you know
about the work of the Mayor and
City Council -- a great deal, a
fair amount, or very little?
32. From what you know, do you ap-
prove or disapprove of the job
the Mayor and City Council are
doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
And do you feel strongly that
way?
IF OPINION STATED IN QUESTION #32, ASK:
33. Why do you feel that way?
NO REASON: 12% HEARD - READ: 7% NO PROBLEMS: 18%
CITY WELL RUN: 15% GOOD JOB: 18% COMMUNICATE: 2%
COULD IMPROVE: 5% SCATTERED: 3%
34. How much first -hand contact have
you had with the Brooklyn Center
City staff -- quite a lot, some,
very little, or none at all?
35. From what you have seen or heard,
how would you rate the job per-
formance of the Brooklyn Center
City staff -- excellent, good,
only fair, or poor?
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% CENTER ACTIVITIES: 3% PLAYGROUND: 2%
MORE THAN TWO: 5% SCATTERED: 3%
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #37, ASK:
4
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED
71%
20%
9%
GREAT DEAL 6%
FAIR AMOUNT 35%
VERY LITTLE 56%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
STRONGLY APPROVE 16%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE 60%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE.... 2%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.... 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 19%
QUITE A LOT 6%
SOME 18%
VERY LITTLE 38%
NONE AT ALL 36%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 2%
EXCELLENT 11%
GOOD 49%
ONLY FAIR 8%
POOR 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED....31%
38. Were you generally satisfied SATISFIED 26%
or dissatisfied with the DISSATISFIED 0% 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: 2%
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
construction of a city -wide
off - street bikeway system?
(IF "FAVOR," ASK:) Would
you still favor it if a
property tax increase were
required to fund construction?
44. Would you support or oppose the
City spending funds to provide
for the winter -time maintenance
of trailways for walking, cross -
country skiing, and other purposes?
SUPPORT 58%
OPPOSE 34%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
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?
FAVOR /STILL FAVOR 41%
FAVOR /NO OPPOSE 13%
FAVOR /DON'T KNOW 11%
OPPOSE 24%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 11%
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?
5
•
•
47. Would you favor or oppose the
City establishing a program to
provide economic assistance for
housing the poor? (WAIT FOR
RESPONSE) And do you feel
strongly that way?
48. Are you aware of the city -spon-
sored Senior Citizen Telephone
Assurance Program? (IF "YES,"
ASK:) Do you have a favorable
or unfavorable perception of
the program?
Let's talk about public safety in
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)
Personal safety from violent crime
Burglary
Traffic and pedestrian safety
Drugs
Juvenile crimes and vandalism
Other
None are serious
Don't Know /Refused
51. How would you rate the amount of
patrolling the police department
does in your neighborhood --
would you say they do too much,
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 you feel that program
is very important, somewhat important, or not at all important
for the City to have.
52. The DARE Program, a "say
no" to drugs program for
grade school children.
6
STRONGLY FAVOR 27%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 37%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 16%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
NOT AWARE 76%
AWARE /FAVORABLE 16%
AWARE /UNFAVORABLE 0%
AWARE /NO PERCEPTION 6%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
Brooklyn Center....
FIRST SECOND
7%
0
24%
6%
0
27%
16%
2%
10%
8%
0
TOO MUCH 3%
ABOUT RIGHT 68%
NOT ENOUGH 23%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
VERY SMWT NOT D.K.
86% 12% 1% 1%
53. Neighborhood Watch, a
crime prevention program
for citizens of residential
areas.
54. Business Crime Prevention
Programs.
55. The Advocacy Program to
assist in child abuse
cases.
56. Expanded drug enforcement
efforts in the community.
58. Should the City spend funds to
develop a full maintenance
program for the trees lining
boulevards in Brooklyn Center?
60. Would you favor or oppose the
institution of a program for
installing curbs and gutter on
residential streets not currently
having them? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
And, do you feel strongly that
way?
Moving on....
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #61, ASK:
7
VERY SMWT NOT D.K.
78% 20% 2% 0%
37% 42% 7% 14%
85% 11% 1% 3%
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?
YES 46%
NO 40%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 14%
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%
STRONGLY FAVOR 13%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 23%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 24%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 30%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
61. During the past twelve months, YES
have you contacted anyone working NO
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?
30%
70%
•
•
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%
quiry was 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
about right, or not tough enough
in enforcing the City Code on
such nuisances as animal control,
garbage disposal, junk cars, and
noise?
67. Why do you feel that way?
68. During the past two years, have
you had contact with code enforce-
ment officials? (IF "YES," ASK:)
Were you satisfied or dissatisfied
with their courtesy and job per-
formance?
8
, TOO TOUGH 3%
ABOUT RIGHT 65%
NOT TOUGH ENOUGH 27%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
IF "TOO TOUGH" OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #66, ASK:
JUNK CARS: 7% LOOSE ANIMALS: 9% NOISE: 3% TRASH: 3%
UNEVEN ENFORCEMENT: 2% CARS + ANIMALS: 1% SCATTERED: 3%
NO CONTACT 74%
CONTACT /SATISFIED 16%
CONTACT /DISSATISFIED...9%
CONTACT /NO OPINION 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
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.
69. Regular inspections on the
outside of all owner occupied
housing? 19%
STR SMW SMW STR D.K.
SUP SUP OPP OPP REF.
47% 20% 9% 4%
70. Regular 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
aggressive effort by the City of
Brooklyn Center to attract new
and retain existing commercial
and retail development? (WAIT
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel
strongly that way?
74. Would you favor or oppose pro -
viding development incentives,
such as tax breaks, to attract
new and retain existing retail
and commercial developments?
(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:
75. 69th Avenue North and
Brooklyn Boulevard?
9
STRONGLY SUPPORT 16%
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 33%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 22%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 19%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 10%
ST F SM F SM O ST O D.K.
12% 36% 19% 15% 17%
•
STRONGLY SUPPORT 27% 110
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 36%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 19%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 11%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8%
•
•
76. The Lynbrook Bowl Area at
65th and Camden Avenues
North? 19% 41%
77. Does your current residence
generally meet the current needs
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?
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
is that you would find that
type of housing in Brooklyn
Center -- very likely, some-
what likely, or not at all
likely?
83. Would you favor or oppose the
expansion of the Brooklyn Center
Civic Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
And do you feel strongly that way?
10
ST F SM F SM O ST O D.K.
YES
NO
14% 8% 19%
93%
7%
VERY LIKELY 25%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 23%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 26%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 11%
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.
STRONGLY FAVOR 17%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 35%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 18%
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.
84. Addition to the City Hall,
providing more space for
police, fire, and general
offices.
85. Construction of a new
gymnasium.
86. Construction of a Senior
Citizens Drop -In Center?
87. Handball courts?
88. Expansion of the exercise
and fitness room?
89. An indoor walking and
jogging track?
ST F SM F SM O ST O D.K.
17% 48% 12% 8% 15%
13% 33% 25% 16% 13%
35% 37% 13% 7% 9%
6% 26% 30% 24% 14%
12% 35% 21% 16% 16%
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 411
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
new ordinance? (WAIT FOR
RESPONSE) And do you feel
strongly that way?
11
STRONGLY SUPPORT 38%
SUPPORT 33%
OPPOSE 10%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 14%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5%
•
•
93. Would you support or oppose the
prohibition of the storage of
large recreational vehicles,
campers, and boats on residential
property in Brooklyn Center?
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you
feel strongly that way?
STRONGLY SUPPORT 13%
SUPPORT 17%
OPPOSE 29%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 35%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6%
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.
94. A group home for' retarded
children or adults? 40%
95. A group home for recov-
ering chemically dependent
individuals? 19%
ST AP APPRP DISAP ST DP UND
43% 8% 5% 4%
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
City spending funds to lobby the
legislature for the ability to
place some controls on the
siting of group homes? (WAIT
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel
strongly that way?
STRONGLY FAVOR 46%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR 28%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 10%
STRONGLY OPPOSE 8%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7%
IF "STRONGLY" OR "SOMEWHAT FAVOR," IN QUESTION #98, 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% 0
required to cover the costs?
Let's talk about water....
100. Thinking back on the water use re-
striction imposed during the
drought of 1988, would you say
they were:
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
water rates increased in order
to fund measures to reduce the
need for future use restrictions?
(IF "YES," ASK:) How much of an
increase? (CHOOSE RANDOM START
POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN)
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
102. Hard water? 35% 29%
103. Red water from iron? 14% 20%
104. Black specks from
manganese? 15% 15%
105. Taste or odor? 17% 18%
106. Would you be willing to see your
water rates increased in order
to improve the quality of water
in the city? (IF "YES," ASK:)
How much of an increase? (CHOOSE
RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR
DOWN)
Changing focus....
13
STATEMENT A 5%
STATEMENT B 70%
STATEMENT C 21%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4%
NO 63%
10% INCREASE 22%
25% INCREASE 4%
50% INCREASE 1%
75% INCREASE 0%
100% INCREASE 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9%
NOT ALL
33%
62%
D.K.
3%
4%
0
65% 6%
63% 2%
NO 58%
25% INCREASE 29%
50% INCREASE 4%
100% INCREASE 1%
150% INCREASE 1%
200% INCREASE 0%
300% INCREASE 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8%
•
•
•
107. The City will be instituting a
pick -up system for the disposal
of separated recyclable materials.
How likely will you be to use it
-- very likely, somewhat likely,
or not at all likely?
108. Do you currently use public
transportation -- the bus
service -- available in Brooklyn
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:
VERY LIKELY 65%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY 23%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY 10%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3%
YES 24%
NO 75%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1%
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%
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?
NONE: 16% CITY NEWSLETTER: 8% MAILINGS: 10% POST: 28%
PAPER: 21% PEOPLE: 9% CABLE: 4% SCATTERED: 2%
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
115. How effective is the city
newsletter in keeping you
informed about activities
in the City -- very effec-
tive, somewhat effective,
or not at all effective?
116. Does your household receive the
"Brooklyn Center Post" news-
paper? (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you
generally read it?
VERY EFFECTIVE
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE...
NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED
RECEIVE /READ
RECEIVE /DON'T READ
DON'T RECEIVE
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED
60%
4%
0
35%
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?
118. Adults under 65? (including
yourself)?
119. School -aged children? (Grades
K - 12)
120. Pre - schoolers?
121. Do you own or rent your present
residence?
122. Which of the following best
describes your residence?
(READ CHOICES)
15
0: 81% 1: 10% 2: 9%
0: 12% 1: 21% 2: 55%
3: 12%
0: 74% 1: 12% 2: 9%
3: 5%
0: 86% 1: 9% 2: 5%
OWN 72%
RENT 28%
SINGLE FAMILY 70%
DUPLEX 1%
APARTMENT 22%
TOWNHOUSE /CONDOMINIUM..6%
123. What is your age, please? 18 -24 7%
(READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25 -34 26%
35 -44 18%
45 -54 13%
55 -64 22%
65 AND OVER ,15%
REFUSED 1%
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%
13%
.19% 40 ..2%
3%
•
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:
SCHOOL DISTRICT:
1: 14%
2: 15%
3': 15%
4: 10%
5: 8%
6: 14%
7: 10%
8: 11%
9: 4%
#286: 28%
#279: 36%
#281: 21%
# 11: 15%
16
•
i
RESOLUTIONS
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 24, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and
Jerry Pedlar. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of
Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and
Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, HRG Coordinator Tom
Bublitz, and Administrative Aide Patti Page.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Dwight Gunberg of the Brooklyn Center Prayer
Breakfast Committee
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open
forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished
to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda
items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from
the consent agenda. Councilmember Scott requested items 10c, 10d, and 10e be
removed. No other requests were made.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIT. 1Q, 1989 - REGULAR SESSION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve the minutes of the April 10, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -68
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS NO. 4 AND 5 TO CONTRACT 1988 -H FOR
IMPROVEMENTS ON LOGAN AVENUE, ON FRANCE AVENUE, ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND ON 50TH
AVENUE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
4/24/89 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -69
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS IN
ARBORETUM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -70
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) MECHANICAL
HOIST
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -71
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR NEW BIDS FOR PURCHASE
OF ONE TOW TYPE AUGER PAVER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -72,
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -73
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 11,000 GVW
TRUCK /CHASSIS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -74
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 3/4 -TON
PICKUP
4/24/89 -2-
•
•
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve the following list of licenses:
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Green Mill Inn, Inc.
Yen Ching Mandarin Restaurant
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brookdale Unocal
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept.
Builders Square
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Horwitz Mechanical, Inc.
Randy Lane & Sons
Marsh Heating & A/C
Midwestern Mechanical Corp.
Realistic Heating & Cooling Inc.
Thrane, Inc.
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
Donald Steen
Renewal:
James and Bobbie Simons
Thomas B. Egan
Henry W. Norton
Terry L. Hartmann
M. B. L. Investment Co.
Donald E. Sobania
Donald Wilson /Michael Boyle
L. H. Hanggi
James M. Krzesowiak
J. J. Barnett
J. J. Barnett
J. J. Barnett
J. J. Barnett
SIGN HANGER
Ace Signs of Albert Lea
Midway Sign Company
4/24/89 -3-
5540 Brooklyn Blvd.
5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
5710 Xerxes Avenue N.
6844 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
3600 63rd Avenue N.
5000 N. County Road 18
1501 West Broadway
6248 Lakeland Ave. N.
9103 Davenport St. NE
10604 Radisson Road NE
4921 Xerxes Ave. S.
6121 Brooklyn Blvd.
7025 Drew Ave. N.
6109 -11 -13 Beard Ave. N.
5239 -41 Drew Ave. N.
5240 Drew Ave. N.
6827 Fremont Place
3613 47th Ave. N.
3701 47th Ave. N.
3713 47th Ave. N.
3725 47th Ave. N.
3007 51st Ave. N.
2926 68th Lane
2930 68th Lane
2934 68th Lane
2938 68th Lane
RR #3, Box 1
444 North Prior Avenue
SWIMMING POOL
Days Inn
Garden City Court Apartments
The motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATION - CHARTER COMMISSION - CHARTER COMMISSION
Mayor Nyquist noted John Lescault is retiring from the Charter Commission but
could not be present this evening for the presentation.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -75
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF JOHN B. LESCAULT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget
and Accepting Proposal to Conduct Preliminary Design Study for Development of
Properties Adjoining the Twin Lakes Area for Park and Recreational Purposes. He
explained the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this report and did
recommend a more detailed study to evaluate the feasibility of this site for the
proposed uses. He stated staff did request Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
to submit a proposal for this feasibility study. He noted the proposal includes
a review of liability issues relating to the contamination problem at the site
and a review of shoreline and wetland issues. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if
it would be possible to exchange pieces of park land. The City Manager stated
it is possible unless the land was originally purchased with federal funding.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like the study to look into the issue of
deleting park land somewhere else in the City if this property is added as park
land.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -76
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES ADJOINING THE
TWIN LAKES AREA FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing a Capital Projects Fund
Appropriation, Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for
Phase 2 -B Plantings at Centerbrook Golf Course (Project No. 1988 -26).
Councilmember Scott inquired what type of guarantee is on the plantings. The
Director of Public Works stated we have a one -year guarantee on the plantings.
4/24/89 -4-
1501 Freeway Boulevard
3407 65th Avenue N.
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -77
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PHASE 2 -B PLANTINGS AT
CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1988 -26)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing a Golf Course Fund
Appropriation, Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for
Installation of Security Lights at Centerbrook Golf Course. Councilmember Scott
inquired who was responsible for completion of the soil borings to assure the
light poles will not sink in the soil. The Director of Public Works stated the
lights would be installed in areas which have relatively good soil conditions.
He noted staff will work closely with the contractors during installation.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -78
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GOLF COURSE FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL
AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTACT FOR INSTALLATION OF SECURITY LIGHTS AT
CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing a Capital Projects Fund
Appropriation, Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for
Installation of Lights along Trailway in Lions Park.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -79
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS
ALONG TRAILWAY IN LIONS PARK
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 -16
for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety, and
Welfare of the Residents of the Community and Regulating and Restricting the
Development of Adult Halfway Houses, Community Based Residential Facilities and
Similar Uses in the City. He noted this item is offered this evening for a
first reading, and there is a resolution which coincides with this ordinance.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated staff is recommending August 31,
1989, as the date for the extension. He noted this should allow enough time for
4/24/89 -5-
Resolution, Inc. to complete the group home study. The City Attorney noted an
agreement has been reached with Kelly Norton, and he distributed a copy of it.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated there is proposed legislation
which may affect the study and that is what is holding up completion of the
study. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if this extension will create problems
with the settlement or other areas of the issue. The City Attorney stated it is
possible that the adoption of this extension could create a few problems, but if
it is necessary the ordinance can be rescinded. He explained passage of this
extension could also make the Commissioner of Human Rights unhappy, but the City
would be in no worse position than it has been for the past 18 months. The City
Manager pointed out the City Attorney could speak with the Commissioner of Human
Rights before the second reading of the ordinance and report back to the
Council.
RESOLUTION 89 -80
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT HALFWAY COMMUNITY BASED
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR FACILITIES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar and the motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve for first reading An Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 -16
for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety, and
Welfare of the Residents of the Community and Regulating and Restricting the
Development of Adult Halfway Houses, Community Based Residential Facilities and
Similar Uses in the City and setting a public hearing date of May 22, 1989, at
7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist inquired how this extension and the settlement agreement affects
the public hearing which has been scheduled for May 3, 1989. He also inquired
if it was necessary to sign the settlement agreement this evening. The City
Attorney stated this agreement locks the applicant into the terms of the
settlement and requires them to drop the lawsuit. He noted the agreement could
be signed next Monday evening at the Board of Equalization meeting. The City
Manager noted the Council should pass a motion setting the public hearing date
so that notices can be sent to interested parties.
There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott
calling for a public hearing on May 3, 1989, pertaining to the Bill Kelly House
and directing staff to send notices immediately. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
ordinances Regarding Zoning Classification of Certain Land. He explained this
relates to the City initiated planning application for rezoning from R5 to Cl in
the southwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 1 -694. He added this item is
offered this evening for a first reading. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would
like to discuss this ordinance and the one immediately following on the agenda
at the same time. The City Manager stated from a staff perspective a
4/24/89 -6-
•
nonconforming use is a use which should eventually be phased out to allow a
conforming use of the property as a replacement. He noted an exception does
prolong the life of the nonconformity. Councilmember Lhotka stated he feels
quite strongly that it is not proper for the Council to deny these residents the
right to do something with their property. He stated he is personally opposed
to this, but if all the residents in the affected area said that it would not
create a hardship for them, it would be fine with him to adopt the ordinance.
He stated if there are residents who find this would be a hardship, then the
residents' rights need to be protected. He added he felt with some additional
effort staff could come up with a better solution. He inquired if it would be
possible to allow expansion in this area only. He noted he does have some
concerns with the other people in other areas who are not allowed expansion, but
they have lived with
y this restriction for a number of years anyway.
The City Manager stated this item is offered this evening for a first reading,
and it would be possible for staff to contact the affected property owners
between now and the second reading to find out their feelings on the issue. He
added it would also be possible to only rezone those properties which are now
vacant. Councilmember Pedlar stated he liked the suggestion of contacting those
affected residents.
•
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding Zoning Classification of Certain Land and setting a public
hearing date of May 22, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding
Expansion of Single Family Homes in the Cl Zoning Districts and setting a public
hearing date of May 22, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of -the Brooklyn
Center Code Relating to Collection of Recyclable Materials and Yard Waste,
Prohibiting Scavenging of Recyclable Materials and Authorizing Collection
Districts. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn
Center Code Relating to Collection of Recyclable Materials and Yard Waste,
Prohibiting Scavenging of Recyclable Materials and Authorizing Collection
Districts and setting a public hearing date for May 22, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. the
motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager stated we are planning to start the recycling program on June
1, 1989. He noted the containers would be distributed approximately two weeks
before this date.
PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE - MABLE RUSTAD, 5229 GREATVIEW AVENUE NORTH
The City Manager explained Ms. Rustad submitted an application for a private
kennel license for nine cats. He noted following two inspections by the Health
and Police Department, staff is recommending denial of this license. He stated
staff recommends allowing Ms. Rustad 30 days in which to remove the six excess
4/24/89 -7-
cats from the residence, and if they have not been removed after the 30 day
period, a citation would then be issued for noncompliance to the ordinance.
Mayor Nyquist inquired how old the cats were. Ms. Rustad stated they were all
around five years old.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a
private kennel license for 5229 Greatview Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist
recognized the applicant, Mable Rustad. Ms. Rustad stated she has lived in this
house for 12 years and had been told when she moved in there was no law against
keeping this many cats. She stated no matter what course of action the City
takes this evening, she plans to keep her animals until they die a natural
death. She added she plans to contact the TV stations if the City harasses her
in any way.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Tom Heenan, City Sanitarian. Mr. Heenan explained
the complaint originated from the Animal Humane Society. He noted when he and
the building official visited the residence last week, there was still a strong
odor of cat urine and feces. He noted seven of the cats were housed in hard to
clean cages and were in unsatisfactory health. He noted the Humane Society has
indicated they would assist in removal of the cats, if they are being kept in
inhumane conditions. Councilmember Pedlar inquired how the Humane Society
became involved. The City Sanitarian stated they had received a complaint and
then contacted the City.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to close the public hearing on a private kennel license for 5229 Greatview
Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he is not an expert on animal care, but if both the
Humane Society and the Health Department feel the animals are kept in unsanitary
conditions, something should be done. Ms. Rustad stated it was not true the
cats were being kept in unsanitary conditions. She stated she is in the process
of replacing the formica in the cages, but she has to do it one cage at a time.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to suggest allowing a period of time
to see if the corrections can be made. He noted he is not suggesting the
Council grant the license; merely allow a period of reasonable time in which to
make these corrections. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City Attorney if
he felt 30 days would be appropriate. The City Attorney stated he thought 30
days would be appropriate. There was some discussion of Councilmember Lhotka's
suggestion, and it was noted the Council could allow 30 days in which to remove
the excess cats or make changes as required to meet the health and Humane
Society standards.
Councilmember Scott inquired if Ms. Rustad understood what the Council was
discussing. Ms. Rustad responded affirmatively. Councilmember Scott inquired
if there are litter boxes in each cage and if so, how often are they changed.
Ms. Rustad stated there are litter boxes in each cage, and the litter is cleaned
every day.
Councilmember Pedlar stated he would want the Humane Society to outline the
standards which they felt should be met and monitor to make sure all standards
4/24/89
-8-
7
are met. The City Manager stated it is staff's belief if there had been an
interest in the best care for the animals, it would have been done at the
beginning.
Councilmember Lhotka made a motion directing staff to prepare a written notice
of requirements to Ms. Rustad and to allow 30 days for completion of these
requirements.
The City Attorney noted this course of action implies if the requirements are
completed a permit will be approved. He stated Council should be sure they are
willing to approve a private kennel license for this residence if the
requirements are completed.
The City Sanitarian stated the scope of requirements should be expanded to
protect the animals which are loose in the house. He noted the house could
become a public nuisance at some point. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the
house could be considered a public nuisance at this point. The City Sanitarian
stated at this point there is just a terrible odor which is permeating the house
but if the problem is left unattended, it could become a public nuisance.
There was some additional discussion on granting the permit and allowing time
for the appropriate improvements to take place. The City Attorney reminded the
Council it would be difficult to require the improvements and not grant the
permit. He stated the Council must take into account the past history of the
issue and decide if this is an appropriate case for a kennel license. Ms.
Rustad stated if the Council approves the license, the home must always be open
for inspection, therefore, the house would always be clean.
The City Manager stated originally this license was created as an interim step
to allow time for removal of excess animals. He noted Ms. Rustad has indicated
she will not remove any of the animals until they die naturally.
Councilmember Lhotka rescinded the previous motion.
There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to deny the private kennel license for 5229 Greatview Avenue North and directing
staff to prepare a resolution with findings which allows the owner 30 days in
which to remove the excess cats. The motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :26 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :41
p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89006 SUBMITTED BY E AND H PROPERTIES
REQUESTING REZONING OF A SLIVER OF LAND EAST OF 6550 WEST RIVER. ROAD FROM R5 TO
C2 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SERVICE STATION /CONVENIENCE STORE /CAR WASH AS A
DEVELOPMENT ON THE C2 LAND
The City Manager noted after review by the Planning Commission and the Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group a moratorium was recommended. He noted since that
time the City has received a letter from the applicant's attorney withdrawing
its application for rezoning. He explained the City Council should acknowledge
by motion the withdrawal of this application. He noted it would also be a good
4/24/89 -9-
time for the City Council to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding the adoption of an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium while
undertaking a land use study of this area. The Director of Planning and
Inspection briefly reviewed the site and the surrounding land around the site.
He noted the applicant's attorney does not believe it is proper for the Council
to be considering any further action since the application has been withdrawn.
He noted the City Attorney did advise staff that it would not be inappropriate
to acknowledge withdrawal and discuss the proposed moratorium.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated a six -month moratorium is
recommended on development or redevelopment in this area. He noted, however, it
is not recommended that all development of the property under consideration be
prohibited during the time of the moratorium. He stated staff feels that
service office development which can be comprehended under existing C2 or as a
special use under the R5 zoning should be allowed to be developed during the
study time, thus, leaving some development options open to the owner. A
discussion then ensued regarding possible rezoning of the surrounding areas, and
uses that would be allowed into the Cl or C2 zoning districts abutting the R1
and R5 districts. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the land use
study would be undertaken to help indicate what will be the best and most
appropriate uses in the area.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
acknowledging withdrawal of Planning Commission Application No. 89006 submitted
by E and H Properties. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Attorney pointed out by allowing certain uses to go forward, the City
would be avoiding some legal problems. The Director of Planning and Inspection
noted the service office district is allowed under both current zones of C2 and
R5. He added if the City had a study completed in the area, it would show the
rationale for why the City is rezoning the area.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar,
directing staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for an interim moratorium
in the area between Willow Lane and West River Road from I -694 North past 66th
Avenue North, and also directing staff to include everything but service office
development under the moratorium. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTMENT
The City Manager explained that City Attorney Charlie LeFevere would be leaving
the law firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien, and Drawz to join the law
firm of Holmes and Graven. He noted currently the LeFevere, Lefler law firm is
designated by City Council motion as the City Attorney and Prosecuting Attorney.
He explained the result of Charlie LeFevere leaving the LeFevere, Lefler law
firm requires the City of Brooklyn Center to react quickly to designate a
transition and /or permanent change in the legal representation area.
The City Manager stated it is staff's recommendation that the City Council pass
a motion appointing the law firm of Holmes and Graven as the City Attorney and
Charlie LeFevere as the Lead Counsel and representative of that firm for
4/24/89 -10-
•
•
•
•
•
Brooklyn Center. He noted a second motion should be made to appoint the law
firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien, and Drawz as the Prosecuting
Attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center and Steve Tallen as the Lead Counsel
and contact for prosecution purposes. He stated staff is recommending a third
motion which would authorize the City Manager to make the final decision on the
division of cases between the LeFevere, Lefler law firm and the Holmes and
Graven law firm during the transition period on a case -by -case basis.
A discussion then ensued regarding the staff's recommendations, and Mayor
Nyquist stated he would like to see these motions as a temporary solution. He
noted he would like staff to seek proposals for prosecution services and other
legal services.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to appoint the law firm of Holmes and Graven as the City Attorney and Charlie
LeFevere as Lead Counsel on a temporary basis. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to appoint the law firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien, and Drawz as City
Prosecutor and Steve Tallen as Lead Counsel on a temporary basis. The motion
passed with Councilmember Pedlar opposed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
authorizing the City Manager to make the final decision on the division of cases
between the LeFevere, Lefler law firm and the Holmes and Graven law firm during
the transition period on a case -by -case basis. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
giving the City Manager authority to seek specialized legal services when the
need arises. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
directing staff to prepare two RFPs, one for the prosecution services and one
for the civil services performed by law firms. The motion passed unanimously.
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY LEGISLATION
The City Manager stated there is a bill being considered in the Legislature
which would prevent overconcentration of residential treatment facilities. He
went on to explain in January, 1989, the City Council took action which would
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign a lobbying agreement with a
consortium of communities in the amount of up to $10,000. He noted this action
was subject to the agreement of at least two other communities to join in this
lobbying effort. He stated at this time no one else has chosen to join in this
lobbying effort. He explained he has received an inquiry from Hennepin County,
who is lobbying this legislation, and they have asked whether the City Council
would wish to join with them and use a portion of the $10,000 to assist them in
a lobbying effort with Boland and Associates for the remainder of the
legislative session. Councilmember Scott inquired if Hennepin County's goals
are the same as the City and whether the City would be paying for them to solve
its problem but would not be solving our own. The City Manager stated he
believes the City and the County have a common goal because we are both
basically in the same situation. He stated he would be able to monitor the
4/24/89 -11-
lobbying efforts through the Northern Mayor's Association and the Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign an agreement of up to $4,000 to
join Hennepin County in a lobbying effort at the end of this session to seek
legislation in this area, which would allow more local citizen input into the
licensing process for state residential treatment facilities. The motion passed
unanimously.
APPROVAL OF 1988 -89 POLICE CONTRACT
The City Manager explained last week the City received the arbitration award
from Joseph Bard relating to the 1988 -89 police contract. He stated staff is
recommending the Council pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
sign the attached 1988 -89 police contract and amend the 1989 pay plan for
increase to the employee contribution for the Local #49 bargaining unit and
nonorganized employees to a rate of $215 per month.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve the 1988 -89 police contract and to increase the 1989 employee
contribution for the Local #49 bargaining unit and all nonorganized employees to
a rate of $215 per month. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Nyquist stated, as the Council is aware, Councilmember Lhotka has
submitted his resignation effective April 30, 1989. He noted according to the
City Charter the Council has 30 days from the effective date to make an
appointment and if no appointment is made, then a special election must be
scheduled within 90 to 120 days. The City Manager explained the cost of a
special election would be between $8,000 and $10,000.
Councilmember Paulson stated if the Council is going to make an appointment, he
would like the process to be as open and public as possible. There was some
discussion as to the amount of experience Councilmember Lhotka has with the
Council and the possibility of filling his Council seat with another past
Councilmember who is interested in appointment.
Councilmember Paulson stated he feels there are people within the community who,
even though they have not been members of the City Council, are capable of
serving on the Council.
Councilmember Pedlar stated if the Council could not agree on an appointment, it
could accept letters of interest and resumes from residents of the City. He
added, however, that he would question how complete an interview process could
be made in 30 days. The City Manager stated that the majority of communities in
this position do appoint someone to fill the vacant Council seat. However, some
do go to special elections. He went on to explain the procedures involved for
both processes. Councilmember Lhotka stated the special election is very
expensive, and he feels the Council could easily come up with a list of names of
interested parties. The City Manager stated the Council should accept
Councilmember Lhotka's resignation at the May 1, 1989, Board of Equalization
meeting.
4/24/89 -12-
•
•
Councilmember Scott suggested each Councilmember contact the Mayor by May 1 to
inform him whether the Councilmember prefers to appoint a new Councilmember,
accept letters of interest and resumes from residents, or have a special
election. The Council all agreed to contact the Mayor by May 1 with their
decision.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like some information regarding the
placement of the stop sign on 57th Avenue North at Dupont Avenue North.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center
City Council adjourned at 10 :05 p.m.
4/24/89
City Clerk Mayor
-13-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Numb /
er cD (/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
1111 ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS FOR
FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF NEW LIGHTING SYSTEM IN CONSTITUTION HALL
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -05) - 1989 BUDGET ITEM
•
•
DEPT. APPROVAL:
****************** !PP R PUBLIC WORKS * "'
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
Exnlanation
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The existing lighting system in Constitution Hall does not provide effective
room illumination. That system was designed as a theatre lighting system but
is very ineffective for most of the current events which occur in that room.
Accordingly, the 1989 budget includes an appropriation of $22,000 for
lighting system improvements.
A plan for this improvement has been developed by Oftedahl, Locke and
Broadston (OL&B) our consulting engineers, in cooperation with CMA, our
architects. That plan calls for the installation of two concentric octagon
rings of fluorescent lighting fixtures, and the installation of track
lighting bars around the perimeter of the room - to allow accent lighting of
the bicentennial logo, the banners, etc. Since the design allows the
existing lighting system to remain in place, the completed installation will
provide an extremely versatile system which can provide the proper lighting
for all of the many uses of this room. With all systems functioning, the
lighting level will be between 50 and 60 foot candles - a level which should
be very adequate for any activity which now occurs in that room.
As shown in the attached resolution, separate proposals have been received
for furnishing the lighting fixtures and for installing the system. The
total cost of the two lowest proposals is $22,320. Although this cost
exceeds the budgeted amount by $320, we expect to have nn problem in keeping
our total expenditures in that department "within budget ". Accordingly no
budget amendments are recommended.
The specifications require the installation contractor to install the new
system between August 21 and September 8. To comply with the Recreation
Department's scheduling of activities for this room. To assure that the
installation contractor can meet this schedule, it is necessary to place our
order for the equipment as soon as possible so that the equipment is
available at the proper time.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
CONTRACTS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF NEW LIGHTING
SYSTEM IN CONSTITUTION HALL (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -05) -
1989 BUDGET ITEM
WHEREAS, an improved lighting system is required to serve the various
uses of Constitution Hall in the Community Center, and the 1989 General Fund
budget for Division 66 - Community Center includes a $22,000 appropriation for
the improvement of that lighting system; and
WHEREAS, the following proposals complying to specifications prepared
by Oftedahl, Locke and Broadston, consulting engineers for the City, have been
received:
For the furnishing of lighting fixtures as required:
United Electric Co.
Lappin Electric Co.
Barber Electric Supply Inc.
For the installation of the lighting system:
Collins Electric Co.
Killmer Electric Co.
Courture Electric Inc.
$14,505.00
17,417.00
18,644.00
7,815.00
10,575.00
13,500.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed project is designated as Improvement Project No.
1989 -05.
2 The proposal of United Electric Co. to furnish the required
lighting fixtures at a total cost of $14,505.00 is hereby accepted.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into
contract with said firm on the basis of that proposal.
3. The proposal of Collins Electric Co. to install the required
lighting fixture at a total cost of $7,815.00 is hereby accepted.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into
contract with said firm on the basis of that proposal.
4. All costs for the furnishing and installation of these lighting
system improvements shall be charged to the General Fund, Division
66 - Community Center.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTEST:
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO
FURNISH AND INSTALL AUTOMATIC WATERING SYSTEM FOR CENTRAL PARK PLAZA
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -10) - 1989 BUDGET ITEM
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda item Number •
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
q ��
SY KNAPP DiYRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
********* * �4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * *,,1 ** 1t 4*'k* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
City Council Action Required
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
V
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Explanation
During 1988 the turf areas in the Central Park Plaza were severely damaged as a
result of the drought, and our inability to water these areas, since no
automatic watering system exists.
The 1989 budget for the Parks Maintenance Division of the General Fund includes
a $12,000 appropriation for the installation of such a system.
Accordingly, we have requested and received 3 proposals for installation of such
a system (see attached resolution for a summary of the proposals received). We
recommend acceptance of the lowest -cost proposal in the amount of $12,000.00.
In discussing the installation and operation of the proposed watering system
with the installers, it has become apparent that the existing pump in the well
which supplies the water for Central Park Plaza is inadequate. A new larger
pump must be installed to provide the quantity of water needed to operate the
automatic watering system at the pressure required. Accordingly, we have
received a proposal from E.H. Renner and Sons to replace the existing pump with
a new 5 H.P. pump with a 68 gpm capacity at 65 psi, at a net price (after
trade -in allowance) of $2511.00. (Note: This is the company which installed
the original well and pump. Accordingly, they are best able to retrofit the
well with the new pump with equipment which is compatible with the controls for
the pump.) It is my opinion that this price is fair and reasonable.
Because the budgeted amount is inadequate to cover the cost of the well pump
retrofit, it is recommended that the budget be amended to appropriate the
additional costs from the Contingency Fund.
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO FURNISH AND INSTALL AUTOMATIC WATERING
SYSTEM FOR CENTRAL PARK PLAZA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1989 -10) - 1989 BUDGET ITEM
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is necessary and
desirable to install an automatic watering system to provide irrigation of the
Central Park Plaza area, and the 1989 budget for the General Fund, Division 69 -
Parks Maintenance provides an appropriation of $12,000 for this purpose; and
WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for installation of
an automatic sprinkler system for Central Park Plaza:
Contractor
Midwest Lawn Sprinklers
Custom Turf Irrigation Inc.
Greenkeeper Inc.
E. H. Renner and Sons $2511.00
Proposal
$12,000
13,500
13,980
AND WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council
that the capacity of the existing pump in the well which now serves the Central
Park Plaza is inadequate to supply the quantity and pressure required to operate
an automatic watering system and the following proposal has been received for
replacement of the existing deep well pump with a larger pump which is capable
of supplying the quantity of water needed by the proposed water system:
AND WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed project will be designated as Improvement Project No.
1989 -10.
2. The 1989 General Fund budget be amended as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items:
Park Maintenance - No. 69, Object No. 4530 $2511.00
Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items:
Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $2511.00
gb
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTEST:
3 The proposal of Midwest Lawn Sprinklers in the amount of $12,000
is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with said firm on the basis of that
proposal.
4. The proposal of E. H. Renner and Sons in the amount of $2511.00 is
hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with said firm on the basis of that
proposal.
5. All costs related to this proposed improvement shall be charged to
the 1989 budget for the General Fund, Division 69 - Parks
Maintenance.
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1 10 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO
CONDUCT A STUDY OF GENERAL CITY HALL OFFICE SPACE NEEDS
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 /8/ 89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
�7
SY KNAP`V DIRE OF PUBLIC WORKS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: � " _ `'= -°'
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
Explanation
On March 27, the City Council received and discussed the Civic Center Space
Needs Study as prepared by Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd. (CMA). At that time
City Council members suggested that consideration by given to optimizing the
existing space in City Hall before proceeding with major additions to the building.
In addition, it is noted that with the addition of one extra employee in the
Planning and Inspections Division in 1989, and with the requests to consider
some additional staffing in other departments in 1990, it has become extremely
difficult to find space for these additional staff members for the immediate future.
Accordingly, we have contacted the firm of Workplace Environments, Inc. and
obtained a proposal from them to survey and inventory existing conditions and to
develop optional plans and cost estimates for optimizing the use of the upper
floor of City Hall. A copy of their April 13, 1989 proposal and a copy of their
November 15, 1989 letter of introduction are attached. It is their belief that
the use of existing space can be optimized by the use of modular furniture,
modular partitions, etc.
It is our understanding that Workplace Environments Inc. conducted a similar
study for the City of Plymouth, and their City Manager reports that they have
been very well satisfied with their work.
It is recommended that the proposal of Workplace Environments Inc. at a
not -to- excced cost of $3000 be accepted. We believe it will provide some good
short -term solutions to our space needs, and hopefully, will be beneficial in
reducing long -term costs.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is necessary and
desirable to conduct a space needs use analysis of the second floor of the City
Hall building in order to optimize use of existing space; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Workplace Environments
Inc. to conduct the desired study and analysis at a cost not -to- exceed $3000.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF GENERAL CITY HALL
OFFICE SPACE NEEDS
1. That the 1989 General Fund budget be amended as follows:
Increase the Aooronriarigns for the following line items_:
Government Buildings - No. 19, Object No. 4310 $3000.00
Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items:
Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $3000.00
2. That the proposal submitted by Workplace Environments Inc. is
hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with said firm
to conduct the proposed study in accordance with the proposal.
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
April 13, 1989
WHB /es
Ms. Patty Page
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55455
Dear Ms. Page:
Thank you for requesting us to help you with your office space needs. After our
discussion, I believe we can be of benefit to you. When our plan is complete,
we will have maximized the office space in your building. As you know, we
estimate our services at $3,000.00 to include the following:
1. Survey of all existing thirty seven employees as to their working
requirements, space needs, storage needs, acoustic consideration, and
communications links.
2. Inventory all existing equipment for relocation or replacement.
3. Present space options on one to three plans as needed to show the
alternatives available for your needs.
4. Make recommendations as to what we believe is the best solution and provide
budgets for estimating completion of the best solutions
We can provide furniture and equipment budgets as well as construction budgets.
However, the construction budget should be prepared in cooperation with your own
engineers.
Please understand, the $3,000 is a not -to- exceed figure for preliminary
planning. We will charge you only for the time incurred.
Sincerely,
r /
William H. Bax er
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.
2830 VICKSBURG LANE • PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612- 559 -4155
Accepted and Approved by
Brooklyn Center City Council
on ,1989
Signed
G. G. Splinter, City Manager`
November 15, 1988
Mr. Jerry Splinter
City Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Splinter:
Thank you for the telephone conversation regarding office design.
We are an office consulting firm developing plans for the workplace to assist
clients through the process of making their office move or remodeling as
productive as possible. We review office issues such as:
The type of work to be accomplished
Traffic patterns and paper flow
Individual and group communication
Filing and storage
Electrification for new technologies
The productivity of the office culture
Square footage allocations and space allowances
Acoustics and lighting
Furniture and equipment specifications
Finish plans
Budgets
Installation plans
Equipment procurement
We also are available to assist on project management through a move and
installation process.
As you can see, our process begins with the early stages of understanding your
workplace and continues through the completion of the environment.
Perhaps we can be of assistance to you. I have enclosed a prospective on our
design philosophy for your reference.
Sincerely,,
HRN /sb
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.
2830 VICKSBURG LANE • PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612- 559 -4155
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.
2830 VICKSBURG LANE • PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612- 559 -4155
WE. BRING IT ALL
TOGETHER
TECHNICAL POLITICAL
CULTURAL
Harvey R. Newquist
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.
2830 VICKSBURG LANE • PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612 -559 -4155
•
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.
2830 VICKSBURG LANE • PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612- 559 -4155
OUR DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ON IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY IN THE WORKPLACE.
To increase productivity we must focus on individuals and work groups
and not on process or machinery.
People are adaptable, but over time a poor working environment will
take its toll in terms of employee health, morale and productivity.
Office layout says a lot about a company. It reflects its culture and
its organization. Solutions vary. Open plan is good for one company
and private offices better for another.
Har-ris..Survey 1986
Most serious comfort problems are:
Temperature, distractions, interruptions, noise, lack of privacy,
and lack of storage.
Bosti Study -1984
Facets most affecting job performance are:
The amount of enclosure.
Internal layout of the workspace must fit the tasks performed.
Other factors are:
Suitability and quality of the furnishings.
Suppression of unwanted noise.
Flexible space.
Floor area available.
Square footage can be reduced, without loss of productivity, if the
furnishings are "tuned" to the task.
Overhead of an office:
93% is for people.
5% is for structure, furniture and equipment.
2% is for building maintenance.
•
February 1988
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.
2830 VICKSBURG LANE • PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
612- 559 -4155
Philosophy:
Productivity in offices is more the result of how you design an office
rather than what products are purchased. The software of an office is its
design. You can achieve productivity gains.
Exhibit I. Factors affecting job attitudes, as reported in 12 investigations
Factors characterizing 1,844 events on the job that led to
extreme dissatisfaction
Percentage frequency
50% 40 30
elat onshr
Company policy and administration
S upervision IM
Kith supervisor''
ork conditions
Salary
Rc littons tp peers
P erSOtlallife
elation with subordinates
r
S tatus
S ecurity
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW
Factors characterizing 1,753 events on the job that led to
extreme satisfaction
Percentage frequency
10 0 10 20
�`�Aclie+�erA ent-
W oxk is kelif ^all l
o
� I
ldwac%e` t t
All factors
contributing to
job dissatisfaction
30
80% 60 40 20
Ratio and percent
All factors
contributing to
job satisfaction
1
atol"' 8
I
0 20 40 60 80%
The role of a consultant is to show a firm its options - help make the best
decision.
5
•
Our design philosophy is to bring a variety of talents together.
Skills in seeing space and optimal relationships.
Diverse background in furnishing options.
Ability to know filing and paper flow systems.
Background in construction and "build -out" options.
Experience in project management and process coordination.
A business sense for cost effective office design.
Skills in aesthetics, colors, and finishes.
Show choices and provide "what -if" scenarios.
Good design insures for todays office:
Inclusion of data cable into walls and partitions.
Multiple electrical sources in the proper locations.
Choices of lighting and controls.
Choices of ceiling material and styles.
Wallcoverings and woodwork choices.
Built -in considerations and appliances.
Carpeting choices and base cove choices.
Signage program.
"Build to the inch" to accommodate furniture.
Review leasehold costs versus capital purchases.
Precise use of square footages.
Flexibility for the future.
Electronics for conferencing.
Acoustics.
Proper traffic patterns.
Communication patterns.
Good design includes:
Employee participation and in -depth surveys.
Develops a picture of your company.
Provides a uniform value system on all purchases.
Combines with project management to make the space work.
" Todays office becomes an economic force and not an economic drain ".
Business.Equipment magazine,May 1987.
Resolution Amending the 1989 Pay Plan
Sigfiature - title
************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Personnel Coordinator
/lT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
No comments to supplement this report ,\ Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Staff is requesting the city council to amend the City's 1989 Pay Plan to make salary adjustments to
the public safety dispatcher and payroll /personnel technician positions. The adjustments reflect a
one -step increase equivalent to 2.5 percent. Following a re- evaluation of the Time Spent Profiles
(TSPs) for these positions, staff is recommending the increases. Both positions will fall close to the
100 percent line in the comparable worth analysis after the adjustments are made.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Pass a Resolution Amending the 1989 Pay Plan.
Member
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING 1989 PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 88 -214
sets wages and salaries for the calendar year 1989; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to adjust the
1989 pay ranges of the public safety dispatcher and
payroll /personnel technician as set forth in the 1989 Pay Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
the City of Brooklyn Center
Secretarial Plan of the City of
is hereby amended to include the
ATTEST:
1. Public safety dispatcher grade range is changed from
T19A - T23C to T20A - T24C and hourly wage range is
changed from $9.96 - $12.12 to $10.21 - $12.42.
2. Payroll /personnel technician grade range is changed from
T19A - T23C to T20A - T24C and hourly wage range is
changed from $9.96 - $12.12 to $10.21 - $12.42.
Date Mayor
Clerk
introduced the following
RESOLVED by the City Council of
that Schedule D, Technical -
Brooklyn Center's 1989 Pay Plan
following adjustments:
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Sd
• ITEM DESCRIPTION:
******************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
SOFTWARE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date .515
Agenda Item Number 5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Signature - title
************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
(supplemental sheets attached
In the 1987 and 1988 budgets, the City Manager recommended the City Council approve appropriations
of $6,000 for micro - computer software for the fire department program. In both of these years,
review and analysis of software resulted in disqualifying the available software as not meeting our
requirements. In the 1989 budget process, I informed the City Council that I was not budgeting for
the software in this department this year, but should they come up with software which would meet
their requirements I would seek an appropriation from contingency.
The Fire Chief has found software from Data Age Solutions, Inc. which meets the requirements of our
fire department, and should the department eventually need the capacity of the LOGIS main frame
computer, the data base will be readily transferable to the main frame.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is a recommendation of my office to pass the attached resolution approving the software proposal
of Data Age Solutions, Inc. and transferring appropriation of $5,485 from contingency to data
processing budget.
•
•
moved its adoption:
Member introduced the following resolution and
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING
PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE
DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in the 1987 and 1988 Budget the City Manager did recommend
appropriations for computer software for the Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, IN 1987 and 1988 software which met the City's requirements
was not available; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that Data Age Solutions, Inc. now has
software available that meets the City's requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
ATTEST:
1. That the 1989 General Fund Budget be amended as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items:
Data Processing No. 20 Object #4551 $5,485.00
Decrease the Aoprgoriations for the following line items:.
Unallocated Dept. Expense, No. 80, Object No. $5,485.00
2. That the software proposal submitted by Data Age Solutions, Inc.
is hereby accepted and approved.
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING
PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE
DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended in the 1987 and 1988 Budget
appropriations for computer software for the Fire Department and software
meeting our requirements was not available. Data Age Solutions, Inc. now has
software meeting our requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
ATTEST:
1. That the 1989 General Fund Budget be amended as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items:
Data Processing No. 20 Object #4551 $5,485.00
Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items:
Unallocated Dept. Expense, No. 80, Object No. $5,485.00
2. That the software proposal submitted by Data Age Solutions, Inc.
is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with said
firm to conduct the proposed study in accordance with the
proposal.
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
Agenda Item Number SF
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Phone System Consultant
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title 1 0
******************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
EDA Coordinator
* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The EDA will be required to consider a phone system for the Earle Brown Farm. A phone system is
necessary for the administrative offices to carry on the daily management of the farm. The inn on
the farm will also require a system with phone service in each room and billing capabilities for each
of the same. In the trade show area we need to provide phone service as well as data processing
capabilities to each of the booths. In addition, there are a number of pay phones on -site that also
need to be installed.
At City Hall, our phone system is at a critical stage. There is no longer a week that goes by that
some aspect of the system does not go down. The current service provider has raised the
maintenance fee from approximately $1,600 to $6,400 annually. In addition, they have indicated that
two (2) memory boards will have to be replaced in the near future at a cost of $4,200. Our current
system is over ten (10) years old and as I have indicated, we are experiencing increasing breakdowns.
This should be coupled with the fact that parts are getting harder to acquire and service providers
are limited. In short, it is time for a new phone system.
Staff has accepted proposals from four (4) consultants. Proposals ranged from $8,012 to $30,300.
After reviewing the proposals and talking with past clients, 1 concentrated on the proposals from C C
and I and Eastman, Morely and Krenik. Both Firms have good reputations and come highly
recommended. C C and 1 is a Wisconsin firm and the EMK firm is local. C C and 1 did such jobs as
the University of Minnesota (not associated with the problems at the U) and the City of LaCrosse,
Wisconsin. EMK just completed the Norwest Tower in Minneapolis.
C C and I has quoted a price of $9,530 while EMK is at $12,680. In my review of the bid specs,
EMK seems to provide a much more detailed spec that in fact serves as the contract with the
successful bidder. There also seems to be more involvement on their part through the entire process,
i.e., representing us with the vendor and phone company. If we select C C and 1, we will incur
additional legal costs for contact preparation.
While the two (2) firms are both capable of getting us a phone system to meet our needs, I believe
that overall we will be better served with EMK and, therefore, I would recommend that group. I will
be available Monday to discuss this matter in greater detail.
•
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL
TELEPHONE CONSULTING SERVICE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the current phone system within the City Hall
complex is experiencing excessive maintenance problems; and
WHEREAS, parts and service for the existing system are
getting harder to acquire; and
WHEREAS, the City has accepted proposals for
professional telephone consulting services; and
WHEREAS, the proposal of Eastman, Morley and Krenik
Ltd. in the amount of $6,213 is the best proposal suited to the
City's needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the proposal of Eastman, Morley
and Krenik Ltd. is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager
are authorized to sign and contract for services with the same.
ATTEST:
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
( ZgAULtaILak11 9
•
March 24, 1989
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Mr. Brad Hoffman
City of Brooklyn Center
5800 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
/Ytf1
riq & 4 P\ quilt I
1421I Abtuut
uur 1a , ut
534114
JAMES R. EASTMAN TELEPHONE:
JAMES P. KRENIK
(612) 333 -5575
The staff of Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. would like to express
their appreciation for the opportunity to present our consulting
credentials.
The intent of this document is:
o To provide a very thorough and indepth report of my firm,
with the intention of addressing all relative information
that you should have to complete an evaluation of my firm's
consulting credentials.
o To provide our interpretation of your project.
o To provide our estimated hours and associated fees to
fulfill the project requirements in a professional and
timely manner.
o To ask that you request the same thorough and indepth
report, covering each and every area from my competition.
(We will be happy and look forward to providing additional
information addressing any other issues my competition deems
relevant to consultant evaluation criteria.)
Page Two
March 24, 1988
Mr. Brad Hoffman
After receipt of the same thorough and indepth report from all
firms, I would ask for and suggest three (3) additional steps he
completed to put you in a position to select the "right" firm
based on a complete evaluation:
o Meet face -to -face with the actual people that will be
assigned to your project. This will allow you to assess
your project teams' individual knowledge and experience and
focus on the issue of interpersonal compatibility.
o Conduct an indepth review of the content of each firms'
Request For Proposal.
o Contact at least three (3) references from each firm. These
references should be provided by the other competing firms,
not the submitting firm.
We look forward to a close scrutiny of our firm and fully believe
that your conclusion will be that we offer more than any other
firm and thus have EARNED the right to become temporary members
of your organization.
Sincerely,
J. R. Eastman
Partner
JRE:kaa
•
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 1
This document contains a great deal of information about person-
nel, procedures, documentation and past project information asso-
ciated with Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. This information is
much more voluminous than most "corporate overviews ". Conse-
quently, we feel a need to cover the entire document with an um-
brella clause of confidentiality.
CONFIDENTIALITY
All information contained in this document, including attach-
ments, is to be treated and considered as proprietary and confi-
dential between Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. and City of
Brooklyn Center. This document, including attachments may not be
copied and /or disseminated outside of City of Brooklyn Center
without the written permission of Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd.
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to provide information that will
demonstrate the telecommunication and consulting credentials of
Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd.
As you review the document, you will become aware of one of the
unique characteristics of our firm:
"We do not just talk about how to design and install
Telecommunications Systems. Our consulting team mem-
bers have hands -on experience, as vendors, consultants,
and end users, in every facet of a project from the
start of needs identification to the final test. We
have done it all."
One of the particular benefits of working with Eastman, Morley &
Krenik Ltd. is that the owners themselves maintain an active role
in every large project. Much of this document, therefore, will
address the twenty (20) years of telecommunications experience
which Mr. Eastman and Mr. Krenik each bring to your project.
During those years, Mr. Eastman and Mr. Krenik have completed
over 700 telecommunications projects. Many of those experiences
are transferable to your project and will directly benefit
City of Brooklyn Center.
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center
QUESTION # (1)
What is the background, PRIOR TO BECOMING CONSULTANTS, of the
individuals who will be DIRECTLY assigned to our project?
RESPONSE
CONSULTANT SELECTION CRITERIA
Page 3
One of our corporate philosophies is that any person associated
with Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. must have a minimum of ten
(10) years experience in the discipline that they will be
consulting. Experience is defined as actually doing the work or
supervision of others who are doing the work. Both Mr. Eastman
and Mr. Krenik exceed this criteria with their individual
twenty -three (23) year backgrounds in the telecommunication
industry.
OWNERS AND OFFICERS
As owners and officers of Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd., Mr.
Eastman and Mr. Krenik maintain a high degree of involvement on
all consulting projects. As a result, City of Brooklyn Center
stands to benefit from the extensive experience and personal
commitment of these individuals.
FORMAL TRAINING
Both Mr. Eastman and Mr. Krenik have extensive FORMAL schooling
in Needs Analysis Process and Content, Technical System Design
and Enhancing Business Performance Through The Use of
Telecommunications Technology. This formal schooling was a
function of their individual twenty (20) year backgrounds at
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company (Eastman - 15 years Krenik -
5 years) and Collins Communications Systems Co. (Eastman - 5
years Krenik - 15 years).
RESPONSIBILITIES
Prior to becoming owners and officers of Eastman, Morley &
Krenik Ltd., Mr. Eastman and Mr. Krenik were owners, officers
(V.P. Sales and Marketing /V.P. Customer Service and Operations)
and managers at Collins Communications Systems Co.
As V.P. Sales and Marketing at Collins Communications Systems Co.
and while employed by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Mr.
Eastman was responsible for:
o Working with commercial clients with 100 to 10,000
telephones, to identify areas of business performance that
could be enhanced through the use of telecommunication
technology (Needs Analysis).
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 4
o Developing technical system designs of inter /intra building
cabling distribution, switching system hardware and software
and peripheral devices to fulfill the required enhancements.
o Negotiating and writing the appropriate contract agreements
between the client and vendor.
As V.P. Customer Service and Operations at Collins Communications
Systems Co. and while employed by Northwestern Bell Telephone
Company, Mr. Krenik was responsible for:
o Ordering each and every component required to complete the
installation and assuring that each and every component was
delivered in a timely manner.
o Final system design, including desktop instruments, with the
client.
o Designing, scheduling, writing and delivering customized
training to all employees of the client firm.
o The actual installation of the new system in a professional
and timely manner.
o Completion of all manufacturer required tests, vendor
required tests and client required tests prior to turning
the system over for client use.
o Providing the ongoing client interface for the life of the
system to address moves and changes, new hardware and /or
software that became available and negotiating maintenance
contracts.
CONCLUSION
During their careers, Mr. Eastman and Mr. Krenik have directly
participated in over 800 telecommunications projects. The
successful implementation of these projects and the
aforementioned responsibilities has provided a wealth of
knowledge and transferable "skills" that are crucial to your
upcoming project.
NOTE
Due to the personnel turmoil within the telecommunication
industry, there are a large number of consultants whose
background consists of:
100% sales with no experience in the other disciplines that
are required to design and implement a telecommunication
system.
•
•
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 5
o A moves and change coordinator from within an end user
organization with no experience in the other disciplines
that are required to design and implement a
telecommunication system.
a A trainer with no experience in the other disciplines that
are required to design and implement a telecommunication
system.
o Working with telco's in designing central offices versus
working with end users. There is a significant difference
in telco central office design versus end user telephone
system design in: technology, application of
features /hardware /software. Additionally, it is extremely
difficult to maintain neutrality when company revenues come
from both vendors and end users.
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 6
QUESTION # (2)
How much experience has each consultant had with projects involv-
ing telephones, data communications, video communications, either
separately or together?
RESPONSE
Mr. Eastman, as V.P. Sales and Marketing in the vendor community,
was responsible for the Needs Analysis, System Design (hardware,
software, intra/ interbuilding cabling distribution) and proper
feature application of over 100 systems in the Twin Cities area.
Mr. Krenik, as V.P. Customer Service and Operations in the vendor
community, was responsible for approval of final System Design
and the Implementation phase (defined as the time from start of
system installation through the life cycle of the installation)
of over 700 systems in the Twin Cities area.
These experiences have provided a wealth of knowledge and "trans-
ferable skills" that assure our clients of an error free and in-
terruption free installation.
We have highlighted six (6) projects that represent recent con-
sulting experience of Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. In addition,
certain projects which were the responsibilities of Eastman,
Morley & Krenik Ltd. team members prior to their consulting roles
are worthy of note.
Norwest Corporation
Norwest Corporation will move into nineteen (19) floors of the
new 57 story Norwest Center and reduce their total building loca-
tions from twenty -nine (29) to fifteen (15). This 7500- station
"needs- based" system design, vendor and product evaluation, se-
lection and implementation project included:
In -depth evaluation of the current and future development of
central office services (Centrex /Centron, both analog and
digital) and all major premise switches (AT &T System 85,
IBM /Rolm, Northern Telecom SL -1, Neax, InteCom).
In -depth evaluation of messaging systems, including voice
mail, electronic text mail, and centralized message centers.
Design and evaluation of cable transport technologies, .in-
cluding standard copper cabling, coax, and fiber optics
(intra / interbuilding).
City of Brooklyn Center Page 7
Evaluation of ISDN capabilities for voice and data transmis-
sion.
Design, evaluation, and selection of local area network
standards for internal data communication.
Evaluation of data processing offerings of IBM and Wang as
they relate to a communications environment.
Thorough examination of local vendor's service and support
capabilities.
Faegre & Benson
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
Faegre & Benson will move into eight (8) floors of the new 57
story Norwest Center. Our consulting contract is to design, de-
velop a Request For Proposal, evaluate vendor responses and over-
see the Implementation of:
An 800 station digital telecommunication system serving the
voice and data requirements of Faegre & Benson,
In -depth evaluation of the current and future development of
central office services (Centrex /Centron, both analog and
digital) and all major premise switches (AT &T System 85,
IBM /Rolm, Northern Telecom. SL -1, Neax, InteCom).
A message handling system utilizing a combination of dedi-
cated secretarial answering positions, voice mail and elec-
tronic text mail.
A coax and copper intrabuilding cabling distribution system
(voice and data),
Data communications requirements are comprised of Wang word
processing utilizing Fastlan.
Thorough examination of local vendor's service and support
capabilities.
Maun, Green, et al.
Maun, Green et. al. will move into two (2) floors of the World
Trade Center. Our consulting contract is to design, develop a
Request For Proposal, evaluate vendor responses and oversee the
Implementation of:
A 125 station digital telecommunication system serving the
voice and data requirements of Maun, Green, et al.,
In -depth evaluation of the current and future development of
central office services and premise switches (AT &T System 25
and System 75, IBM /Rolm, Neax).
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 8
A message handling system utilizing a combination of dedi-
cated secretarial answering positions and centralized
coverage. (Voice mail was evaluated as a future option.)
A universal cabling distribution system for voice and data,
Data communications requirements are comprised of Syntrex
word processing and IBM PC's.
Thorough examination of local vendor's service and support
capabilities.
Wilson Learning
Wilson Learning moved into five (5) floors of their new Corporate
Headquarters while retaining personnel in the material prepara-
tion facility. Our consulting contract was to relocate the ex-
isting System 85 and design, develop a Request For Proposal,
evaluate vendor responses and oversee the Implementation of:
A universal cabling distribution system including dedicated
cable installation and provision for future fiber optic
interbuilding connectivity (voice and data).
Data communications requirements are comprised of Prime,
Wang, Equinox Data Switching System and Appletalk LAN.
Gerald D. Hines Interests
Gerald D. Hines Interests is the majority owner in the new
Norwest Center. Our consulting contract is to design, develop a
Request For Proposal, evaluate vendor responses and oversee the
Implementation of:
A vertical cabling distribution system for distributing out-
side common carrier signalling to each of 57 floors, for use
by the individual tenants.
Rochester Public Utilities
Rochester Public Utilities will move into their new Corporate
Headquarters while retaining personnel in three (3) other sites.
This 125- station "needs based" system design, vendor and product
evaluation, selection and implementation project included:
In -depth evaluation of the current and future development of
central office services (Centrex /Centron) and premise
switches (AT &T System 75, IBM /Rolm).
In -depth evaluation of messaging systems, including voice
mail, electronic text mail, and centralized message centers.
Design and evaluation of cable transport technologies, in-
cluding standard copper cabling, coax, and fiber optics
(intra /inter building).
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 9
Design, evaluation, and selection of local area network
standards for internal data communication.
Evaluation of data processing offerings of IBM as they re-
late to a communications environment.
Thorough examination of local vendor's service and support
capabilities.
Design of an intrabuilding video distribution system.
Piper Jaffray & Hopwood Inc. (while in the vendor community)
Space planning for the future Communications Equipment Room and
the cabling distribution requirements for the new Piper Jaffray
Tower was started eighteen (18) months prior to the signing of
the telecommunications system contract. Investigation of and fi-
nal cabling distribution design was driven by office areas uti-
lizing raised floor construction, the vertical cabling distribu-
tion needing to address capacities through 1990, as well as, uti-
lize both vertical shafts for contingencies.
700 telephones were moved and totally refurbished in the process,
while another 300 telephones were added. The move and additions
were completed over a period of four (4) weekends. Additionally,
the entire Long Distance Network, served by six (6) separate car-
riers, was moved during one evening with no interruption of
calls.
Minneapolis Special School District #1 (while in the vendor com-
munity)
The project consisted of forty -nine (49) secondary and elementary
schools connected via leased Telephone Company circuitry to ten
(10) high schools, which acted as switching system nodes. These
ten (10) nodes were connected via high speed data circuitry to
the Main switching location at the Educational Service Center
Building.
The net result of the installation was 1900 telephones at sixty
(60) locations that operated as a single system handling the
voice and data requirements of the entire School District. Prior
to the conversion, the School District was served via Centrex.
Contact Information
The following persons may be contacted for more information about
the projects described above, and for reference conversations
about the technical competence, business expertise, objectivity,
and professionalism of Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. team mem-
bers.
Norwest Corporation
372 -9275 Mr. Dexter Sidney
•
•
•
City of Brooklyn Center Page 10
Faegre & Benson Mr. Henry Frisch
921 -2204 Mr. Bill Busch Jr.
Maun, Green et. al. Mr. Jim Brehl
224 -7300
Wilson Learning Ms. Susan Molenaar
944 -2880 Mr. Robert Brown
Gerald D. Hines Interests
338 -8250
Rochester Public Utilities
507- 285 -8959
Piper Jaffrey & Hopwood Inc.
475 -0555
Minneapolis Special School
District #1
627 -2050
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
Mr. Bruce Frey
Mr. Roger Friedt
Ms. Dorothy Bourgeois
Mr. Richard Julander
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 11
QUESTION # (3)
What kinds of equipment have the consultants installed? Is there
a broad range of background?
RESPONSE
The members of the Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. team have in-
stalled and maintained a wide range of equipment. While in the
vendor community, Mr. Eastman and Mr. Krenik worked with the en-
tire Dimension product line, the entire Northern Telecom product
line and the entire Mitel product line.
In a consulting role, the firm has participated in the evalua-
tion, selection, and implementation of systems from AT &T, Rolm
(including one of the first 9751 systems in Minnesota), InteCom,
Neax and Northern Telecom.
Of most benefit to City of Brooklyn Center, however, is the depth
of our recent evaluations of large systems (those which are most
likely to be candidates for City of Brooklyn Center). Because we
have been awarded two of the largest consulting assignments in
the State of Minnesota since 1986, we have spent a great deal of
time and effort in evaluation of the newest releases of most
major systems:
AT &T System 25, System 75 and System 85
InteCom IBX 8 /10 and S /80
NEC Neax 2400
Northern Telecom SL -1NT and SL -1XT
Northwestern Bell Digital Centron (ISDN)
Rolm /IBM IBM 9751 and Redwood
The evaluations of these systems have included meetings with ex-
ecutives of the manufacturer in non - disclosure environments to
discuss in detail the next several hardware and software enhance-
ments for each system. As a result, we are clearly positioned to
provide City of Brooklyn Center with the most current and accu-
rate assessment of candidate systems.
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center
QUESTION # (4)
Page 12
Given the fact we have multiple sites, what are the experiences
of the consultants with regard to these kinds of situations?
RESPONSE
Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. team members have worked with nu -•
merous multi -site installations, ranging from campus locations to
clustered buildings in a downtown locations to remote sites which
required interconnection.
During the course of those installations, team members have be-
come familiar with such issues as direct installation of
interbuilding cable (buried); use of private or public tunnels;
negotiation of right -of -way; utility conduit and duct rental; ne-
gotiation of roof rights for satellite or microwave connection;
and rental or lease of cable, tie lines, T -1 channels, high speed
data circuits, and fiber optic service.
Appropriate highlights of representative projects follow:
The communications system being installed at Norwest Corpo-
ration will support a total of 15 buildings in the downtown
Minneapolis area. These buildings are connected by a vari-
ety of means: dedicated fiber optic connections to support
voice, data, and video delivery; direct cable run through
public tunnels or skyways (involving right -of -way negotia-
tions), and off premise circuits or tie lines.
In addition to the downtown area, Norwest is interested in
interconnection of some or all of its 40 other banking
offices in the Twin Cities metro area. Eastman, Morley &
Krenik Ltd. staff members are currently developing design
alternatives for one phase of that interconnection. Addi-
tional work at Norwest included the installation of T -1 ser-
vice to support voice and data communications to remote cit-
ies.
While working with Minneapolis Special School District #1,
Mr. Krenik installed a voice and data communications system
including ten (10) nodes connected to the main switching lo-
cation at the Educational Service Center by high speed data
circuits. In addition, 49 other schools were connected to
the nodes by means of leased point -to -point circuits. This
design allowed over 1900 telephones at 60 locations to oper-
ate as a single, integrated voice and data communications
system.
The Wilson Learning project design included a fiber optic
connection between the corporate headquarters and the mate-
rial preparation facility nearly a mile away. The final de-
sign and installation included a dedicated cable connecting
those buildings, with a clear inner duct to accommodate fu-
ture fiber installation.
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 13
The interbuilding connectivity for Rochester Public
Utilities was designed by Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. as
part of its consulting assignment. The network includes
both T -1 service and leased lines.
Because of the wide variety in its client base, Eastman, Morley &
Krenik Ltd. team members have designed and installed many types
of networks to connect multiple sites. City of Brooklyn Center•
stands to benefit directly from the experiences of Eastman,
Morley & Krenik Ltd. personnel in their previous consulting and
project assignments.
•
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 14
QUESTION # (5)
What is the consulting process?
RESPONSE
The following information identifies the four (4) consulting
phases and includes an overview of the activities inherent in
each phase. One of the major strengths of working with Eastman,
Morley & Krenik Ltd. is our process adaptability and flexibility.
Our approach allows you to incorporate any of your staff, who
have the time and talent, into the process. This allows you to
define your involvement, keep consulting fees to a minimum while
assuring outside professional consulting assistance is available
where required.
Thus, you receive our professional expertise only in the areas
that your staff is unable to provide.
-- NEEDS ANALYSIS --
This is an extremely important procedure as it is during this
phase that we identify your telecommunications requirements.
These telecommunications requirements will be communicated to the
vendor community via the Request For Proposal, and will be
installed in your facilities during the Implementation phase.
The primary way we accomplish this phase, and identify all your
needs, is through a comprehensive set of meetings. Each meeting
lasts approximately one (1) to two (2) hours and has two
purposes.
o The first purpose is for a given group to explain their ar-
eas of responsibility, their day -to -day activities, with
whom they communicate, how they communicate, and what prob-
lems the existing telecommunication system causes them in
fulfilling their job responsibilities.
o The second purpose is for us to explain the features avail-
able in a state - of -the -art telecommunication system and get
the groups' input as to the value of each feature.
At the end of each meeting we have a clear definition of the fea-
ture requirements of each group. In addition to the aforemen-
tioned meetings, we will meet with senior management to review
the five (5) year plan. The purpose of these meetings is to in-
corporate the five (5) year telecommunication plan impacting ar-
eas into the system design.
•
1
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center
-- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL --
As a group, we have years of experience answering "Requests For
Proposals" (predominately from our competitors). Combined with
our industry /project experience, we are able to bring important
business issues to the project.
A Request For Proposal is the actual document issued to the ven-
dor community that defines your needs in a telecommunication sys-
tem. It defines the parameters the manufacturer, switching sys-
tem and vendor must meet to establish a business relationship
with your organization. This document is extremely important in
that it communicates in great detail what you want versus the
vendor telling you what you need.
A Request For Proposal properly issued will:
Page 15
o protect you during the installation and the life cycle of
the switching system,
o guarantee you that you are comparing apples -to- apples as you
make your final decision,
o eliminate any surprises during installation and the life
cycle of the switching system, surprises can cost major
dollars,
o allows the vendor community to present information that is
important to you as well as give them a fair, unbiased
opportunity to secure your business.
We feel our Request For Proposal is the most in -depth offered by
any firm in the area. It is for this reason that the in -depth
detail will be made available to you in a meeting environment,
and will be available to you as our client.
-- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION --
Evaluation of bids encompasses a number of activities at Eastman,
Morley & Krenik Ltd. In preparation for evaluation, all bids are
read completely, cover to cover. This provides a "big- picture"
framework for the evaluation.
Any ambiguities which are identified during the process are re-
ferred to the vendor for further clarification. The result is
that the final analysis is as close as possible to an
"apples - to- apples" comparison of systems and vendors.
Costs are examined carefully to identify all initial costs, ongo-
ing costs, financing arrangements, hourly labor rates and indi-
vidual material component pricing.
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 16
Narrative summaries are prepared to incorporate the findings of
all facets of evaluation. These findings would be presented to
the "Task Force" in a "working session" environment.
After a thorough evaluation, we narrow the vendors to two
(2) finalists. These two finalists will have best met your
needs, and will have acceptable pricing and references, pri-
or to contract negotiation.
Note:
We then accompany you to presentations at the finalist loca-
tion, in order to:
1) allow you to see and demonstrate the actual equipment
being proposed,
2) allow you to meet the vendor personnel who will be re-
sponsible for the installation, ongoing support, and
with whom you will interface over the next five (5) to
ten (10) years, and
3) allow you to meet the manufacturer's personnel in a
non - disclosure meeting environment to preview the pro-
jected enhancements to the switching system.
Following the finalist evaluation, Eastman, Morley & Krenik
Ltd. will be available as a resource to support City of
Brooklyn Center in making its selection of a system and ven-
dor.
-- IMPLEMENTATION --
The aforementioned Request For Proposal and the
associated vendor response become the contractual
agreement.
This phase starts with our participation in contract negotiation
on your behalf. Due to our experience in the industry, we know
what are the critical components that must be included in the
contractual agreement to offer you the most protection, during
the installation and the life cycle of the system. We treat the
Request For Proposal and the associated vendor response as the
actual contract agreement. Thus, all contract issues are written
in the original Request For Proposal and the associated vendor
position is contained in the vendor response. Normally, the only
areas of negotiation are those where conflicts exist, and these
conflicts are known by both parties, prior to coming to the con-
tract table.
The next step is the overseeing of the installation. In any ven-
dor organization a separate group is responsible for installing
the system versus selling the system. Thus, it is extremely im-
portant to keep continuity through the same project manager.
As part of installation oversight, we will meet the selected ven-
dor on a weekly basis to assure all installation activities are
being completed in a timely and professional manner.
•
EASTMAN, MORLEY & KRENIK LTD.
City of Brooklyn Center Page 17
Just prior to cutover and continuing for thirty (30) to sixty
(60) days following cutover, the vendor will be operating under
the umbrella of our acceptance and testing procedures. Upon suc-
cessful completion of our acceptance and testing procedures, you
will be able to authorize final payment.
Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. personnel will be in attendance on
the day of system cutover as well as the first business day after
system cutover. Most cutovers are done beginning Friday after-
noon as this gives the vendor the weekend to assure the system is
fully operational at the opening of business Monday morning.
-- QUARTERLY MEETING --
Our contract agreement is completed with a meeting of vendor per-
sonnel, your personnel, and Eastman, Morley & Krenik Ltd. person-
nel three (3) months after the final system cutover. The purpose
of this meeting is for each participant to be comfortable that
the relationship is off on a good foot and will remain that way.
This meeting gives you the opportunity to review the past quarter
events and voice your feelings as to how the past quarter events
were handled. Additionally, it allows the vendor to voice his
feelings as to how the past quarter events were handled as well
as introduce any new offerings that may have become available.
We recommend that this type of meeting be conducted each quarter
with your personnel and the vendor personnel with Eastman, Morley
& Krenik Ltd. personnel on call should the need arise.
•
•
-- PROJECT DEFINITION --
A. Existing Buildings
1. City Hall and Civic Center 90 Telephones
2. Street Department 5 Telephones
Same Building
Water and Sewer Department 1 Telephone
3. Fire Department 2 Telephones
Total telephones to be replaced AND
re- cabled for voice and data
connectivity
Interbuilding connectivity is assumed
to be "re- used" or "added to" by the
existing provider.
B. Additional Requirements as a result of Earle Brown Farm
1. Hippodrome
Administration
Elevator
Conference Center
Eight Coin Telephones
2. Stable
Administration
3. Bed and Breakfast
Administration
Hospitality
Miscellaneous (kitchen, etc.)
Total additional telephones to be
purchased AND cabled for voice and
data connectivity
Interbuilding connectivity between
City Hall and Civic Center and Earle
Brown Farm will be provided via the
local telco.
Interbuilding connectivity between
buildings on the Earle Brown Farm
is included.
98 Telephones
2 Telephones
2 Telephones
84 Telephones
10 Telephones
- 0 -
12 Telephones
3 Telephones
103 Telephones
•
C. Additional requirements as a result of Earle Brown Farm
(dial tone connectivity only)
1. Barn H
2. Blacksmith
3. Barn C
4. Barn D
5. Bunkhouse
-- ESTIMATED HOURS AND ASSOCIATED FEES --
Needs Analysis 53 Hours
R.F.P. Preparation 53 Hours
Response Evaluation 53 Hours
Implementation 52 Hours
211 Hours @ $90.00 per hour = $18,990.00
Clerical 50 Hours @ $20.00 per hour = $1,000.00
$19,990.00
3Entlitint,
May 3, 1989
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Mr. Brad Hoffman
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
elP\
1421 Teri Alltnut
nntq. rul15, jilinuturta 554114
JAMES R. EASTMAN TELEPHONE:
JAMES P. KRENIK
(612) 333 -5575
This document is in follow up to our meeting of Tuesday, May 2,
1989. As a result of our discussion, we are submitting a revised
proposal.
o The total HOUR REDUCTION, from 211 hours to 146 hours, is
due to clarifying the cable requirements of the eighty -four
(84) telephones in the Hippodrome Conference Center.
o The HOURLY FEE REDUCTION, from $90.00 per hour to $80.00 per
hour, is due to our enhanced perception of the future
business opportunities, from other municipalities, that
involvement with the Earle Brown project may offer.
Attached is a revised page from our previous proposal entitled
" -- ESTIMATED HOURS AND ASSOCIATED FEES - - ".
Additionally, we discussed our position on "not -to- exceed"
language. We would suggest the following language to address
this issue:
u iUuu nag? gent trtrirtn
Page Two
May 3, 1989
Mr. Brad Hoffman
"Additions or deletions to the services provided by Eastman,
Morley & Krenik Ltd., as outlined in correspondence dated March
24, 1989, April 3, 1989 and May 3, 1989, shall be mutually agreed
upon in writing."
Brad, I hope these revisions and our style of doing business will
prove to be compatible with meeting your goals and objectives.
Sincerely,
J. R. Eastman
Partner
JRE:kaa
•
-- ESTIMATED HOURS AND ASSOCIATED FEES --
Needs Analysis 36.5 Hours
R.F.P. Preparation 36.5 Hours
Response Evaluation 36.5 Hours
Implementation 36.5 Hours
146.0 hours @ $80.00 per hour = $11,680.00
Clerical 50.0 Hours @ $20.00 per hour = $1,000.00
$12,680.00
REV. 5/3/89
CC &I ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
AGREEMENT made as of , 1989, between
the City of Brooklyn Center (hereinafter called the "Owner ") and
CC &I Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter called the "Engineer ").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual understanding
herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
General
The Engineer shall render diligently and competently the engi-
neering services described in Article II, upon the terms and
conditions herein stated.
ARTICLE II
Services
41) The Engineer will perform the following services in an expedi-
tious manner:
It is agreed, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
that all drawings, designs, specifications and other incidental
engineering services or materials, furnished by the Engineer
hereunder shall be and remain the property of the Owner.
All services to be rendered hereunder shall be subject to the
direction and approval of the Owner.
1
•
ARTICLE III
Compensation
The Owner shall pay the Engineer for services performed hereunder
the fixed fees and /or hourly rates as indicated on the attached
forms "Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Payment shall be due and pay-
able ten (10) days after approval by the Owner of the services
performed hereunder and the invoice of the Engineer therefore,
including detailed breakdown of the cost by services performed.
The Engineer shall submit biweekly invoices to the Owner.
Interest. Interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18.0 %) per
annum shall be paid by the Owner to the Engineer on any unpaid
balance due the Engineer, commencing thirty (30) days after the
due date, provided that the delay in payment beyond the due date
shall not have been caused by any conditions within the control
of the Engineer. Such compensation shall be paid ten (10) days
after the amount of the interest has been determined by the
Engineer and the Owner.
ARTICLE IV
Miscellaneous
Section 1. Licenses: The Engineer shall comply with all ap-
plicable statutes pertaining to engineering and warrants that he
II possesses license Registration Number PE11545 issued to him by
the State of Minnesota on July 29, 1975.
Section 2. Insurance: The Engineer shall take out and maintain
workmen's compensation insurance, public liability insurance, and
automobile liability insurance as prescribed by the Owner.
Section 3. Qualified Personnel: The obligation and duties to be
performed by the Engineer under this Agreement shall be performed
by persons qualified to perform such duties efficiently. The
Engineer, if the Owner shall so direct, shall replace any engi-
neer or other persons employed by the Engineer in connection with
the engineering services.
Section 4. Terms of Agreement: This Agreement shall become
effective as of the date hereof and shall remain in effect until
terminated by either party giving thirty days written notice to
the other party of its intention to terminate.
2
•
•
Section 5. Assignment: The obligations of the Engineer under
the Agreement shall not be assigned without the approval in
writing of the Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be duly executed.
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Secretary
i }Ssi= tant Secretar
3
By
By
Owner
(Title)
CC &I ENGINEERING, INC.
Engineer
Robert W. Reft/
Vice - President
•
• CONSULTANT
FEE
Task 1
EXHIBIT A
Needs Analysis City Hall $ 2,000
Earle Brown Farm 1,500
This fee is based on one (1) visit to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
The engineering services begin after the execution of a telecom-
munications consulting services contract with the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Under Task 1 the Engineer will meet with the Owner's representa-
tives to assess the present and future telecommunications needs
of the City Hall project and the Earle Brown Farms project.
Jointly the Engineer and the Owner will develop the goals of each
project and develop project schedules. The Engineer will meet or
coordinate with affiliated architect, data processing center or
telephone company representatives to plan the integration of
systems as desired by the Owner.
The Task 1 services above will be performed for the fixed fee
amount specified above.
"Telecommunications needs" above include all telephone switching
and premise wiring requirements for voice and data transport. It
does not include the assessment of video system communication
needs, like closed- circuit television, two -way interactive video
or community antenna television (CATV). The Engineer will nego-
tiate additional consulting services for video needs as desired
by the Owner.
Additional services may be negotiated at the rates specified in
Exhibit B.
4
•
•
Task 2
RFB, Bid, Contract City Hall $ 4,000
Earle Brown Farm 500
This fee is based on two (2) trips to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
The engineering services begin with the Engineer's assembly of
the project data received at or after the Task 1 meeting.
The Engineer shall prepare a Request For Bid (RFB) that plans and
specifies a solution to the needs identified in Task 1. The RFB
shall specify a method of procurement and include a contract
document approved by the Owner. The design of the RFB shall
intend to create a competitive bid among qualified communication
system vendors. The RFB shall include the necessary drawings and
maps.
The Engineer shall review the first draft RFB with the Owner and
revise as required. Following the Owner's approval of the final
draft RFB, the Engineer shall provide the Owner ten (10) complete
copies of the final draft.
The Engineer shall assist in soliciting bids from qualified
vendors as desired by the Owner. The Engineer shall assist in
the receipt of the bids as desired by the Owner.
The Engineer shall review the bids and proposals submitted by all
vendors responding to the RFB. The Engineer shall present a
written recommendation to the Owner as to the acceptance or
rejection of bids received. The recommendation shall include a
life -cycle cost analysis supporting the recommended action.
The Engineer shall assist the Owner in finalizing the purchase
and contract of the City Hall and Earle Brown Farm telecommunica-
tions system with the chosen vendor.
The Task 2 services above will be performed for the fixed fee
amount specified above.
The Engineer will provide additional copies of the RFB at a nego-
tiated cost. Additional services may be negotiated at the rates
specified in Exhibit B.
5
•
Task 3
Construction, Acceptance City Hall $ 1,145
Earle Brown Farm 385
ill This fee is based on two (2) trips to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
The engineering services begin with the coordination of the
vendor's engineering and installation personnel and the Owner.
Upon completion of the project by the vendor, the Engineer shall
inspect the installation to verify the vendor has fulfilled the
contract. The Engineer shall notify the Owner in writing upon
the vendor's satisfactory completion of the City Hall project and
the Earle Brown Farm project.
The Task 2 services will be performed for the fixed fee amount
specified above.
Additional services may be negotiated at the rates specified in
Exhibit B.
6
•
Alternate Task A
Buried Outside Plant Cable City Hall $ 0
Earle Brown Farm 1,800
This fee is based on one (1) trip to Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Alternate Task A provides the engineering services required to
plan and specify buried cable facilities linking the City Hall
building premise wiring and the Earle Brown Farm campus wiring.
Due to the nature of the engineering services in Alternate Task
A, it is most desirable to bid portions of the engineering at a
negotiated cost, based on hourly estimates.
The services included in the fixed fee consist of all engineering
services leading up to construction and installation. All other
engineering and consulting services may be negotiated at the
rates specified in Exhibit B. Each portion of Alternate Task A
is defined below and identified as being included in the fixed
fee or as an additional cost to be negotiated.
The engineering services start with the Engineer staking a cable
route between City Hall and Earle Brown Farm. The Engineer will
coordinate the termination of the cable with the vendor providing
the premise wiring. These services are included in the fixed fee
above.
The Engineer will obtain the necessary easements and permits
required for the buried cable construction project. These ser-
vices will include the necessary easement maps and drawings.
These services are included in the fixed fee above.
The Engineer shall prepare the construction RFB and construction
plans and specifications documents for the buried cable project.
These documents shall include the necessary construction maps and
drawings. Following construction, the Engineer shall update all
maps to reflect the "as- built" system. The Engineer shall pro-
vide the Owner ten (10) complete copies of all construction and
"as- built" documents. These services are included in the fixed
fee above.
The Engineer will supervise construction of the buried cable,
inspect the contractor's work and perform acceptance testing as
directed by the Owner. The Engineer will instruct the Owner in
the performance of these tasks if desired. These services may be
negotiated.
On behalf of the Owner, the Engineer will consult with the archi-
tect regarding the campus wiring duct system for the Earle Brown
Farm project. These services may be negotiated.
The Engineer will design a duct and /or manhole system for the
Earle Brown Farm campus. These services may be negotiated.
7
Rates* by Classification RATE*
Principal Engineer $ 96.00
Senior Consultant $ 78.00
Engineer II $ 70.00
Engineer I $ 63.00
Engineering Tech II $ 52.00
Engineering Tech I $ 44.00
Tech Assistant $ 38.00
Clerical $ 25.00
* The rates listed above do not include subsistence
expense, if any, paid to (or on behalf of), employees, nor
reasonable transportation cost of employees, nor the cost of
prints, mailing and transportation expenses related to
printed and other materials and equipment, and telephone and
telegraph expenses. Nor do these rates include test equip-
ment and computer usage rates.
EXHIBIT B
HOURLY BILLING RATES
8
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Number cq
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION v
0 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Denying Private Kennel License for Mabel Rustad, 5229 Great View Avenue North
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. AP - ROVAL:
Administrative Aide
Signature - title
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * **4 * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION: 1,� �I,4
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Attached is a resolution denying the private kennel license for Mabel Rustad. A certified copy of the
resolution will be delivered to Ms. Rustad. She will be allowed 30 days to remove the excess animals
before any further action is taken. I recommend approval of this resolution.
•
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DENYING PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE FOR
MABEL RUSTAD. 5229 GREAT VIEW AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, upon information from the Hennepin County
Humane Society, inspections by City personnel revealed that Ms.
Mabel Rustad was maintaining 26 cats in her residence at 5229
Great View Road; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 1 -109 prohibits keeping four
or more cats exceeding six months in age in a family dwelling
unit without obtaining a private kennel license; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Rustad (the Applicant) has applied for a
private kennel license for nine cats; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a hearing on the
application on April 24, 1989, at which time it heard testimony
from all persons wishing to address the Council on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the Council makes the following
findings and determination:
FINDINGS
1. Upon complaint from the Hennepin County Humane
Society, an inspection was made of the premises at
5229 Great View Avenue North on March 9, 1989.
Twenty -six cats were found to be confined in cages
in the basement of the residence. No litter was
used or available in the house, and cats urinated
and defecated only on newspaper. There was an
overwhelming, foul odor of cat urine and feces.
The cat area was found to be generally an unkept
mess. Ms. Rustad claimed at the time of the
inspection that she had a kennel license for the
cats, which is not true.
2. The City was subsequently notified that the
Applicant had removed all but nine cats.
3. On March 28, 1989, a follow -up inspection was
conducted. One dog and two cats were found to be
loose on the main floor of the residence. Seven
cats were kept in the basement in cages.
Inspectors noted the same stench of cat urine and
feces which they had noted during the inspection on
March 9, 1989. Cats had available litter boxes;
however, the boxes had not been adequately cleaned
and were found to be overflowing with cat feces.
RESOLUTION NO.
Cages were made of wood with floors covered with a
worn laminate type of material which had been
damaged, revealing the underlying wood so that the
floors of the cages were not capable of being
adequately cleaned. Some cages were found to be
without food or water and several bowls contained
water that was not clear. The cages were small in
size and the cats paced back and forth. Several
cats had eye problems and one had a kidney problem.
Litter boxes upstairs were found to be overflowing
and cat feces were on the carpet of the residence.
4. On April 19, 1989, the Sanitarian and Building
Official conducted another inspection and found no
substantial changes within the residence.
5. The City Sanitarian and the Chief of Police have
both recommended against the issuance of a private
kennel license to the Applicant on the basis of
these inspections.
6. Due to inadequate kennel design and operation by
the Applicant, the cats are kept in unsanitary,
unhealthy and inhumane conditions which should not
be allowed to continue.
7. Conditions maintained by the Applicant are
malodorous and offensive and constitute a health
hazard, all of which jeopardize the public health,
safety and welfare.
8. At the hearing, the Applicant stated that it did
not matter whether the City issued a license,
because she intended to keep all of the cats in any
case until they died.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
1. The application for a private kennel license for
Ms. Mabel Rustad, 5229 Great View Avenue North, is
denied.
2. The Applicant is directed to remove all but three
cats being over the age of six months within 30
days of the date of this Order.
3. A certified copy of this resolution shall be served
on the Applicant forthwith.
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTEST:
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
•
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2100 AND OF THE PROJECT PLAN FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Brooklyn Center (HRA) has established a housing development project pursuant to
Minn. Stat. §469.001 et seq. and a housing tax increment financing district
pursuant to Minn. Stat. §469.174 et seq. for the project known as Brookwood; and
WHEREAS, administrative authority for said housing development project
and housing tax increment financing district has been assigned to the Brooklyn
Center Economic Development Authority (EDA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center (City Council)
believes it is in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center to modify the
housing development project plan to expand the boundaries of the project area and
to modify the housing tax increment financing plan to permit the expenditure of
funds not previously specified in the budget for the tax increment financing
district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center as follows:
1. The EDA is requested to cause to be prepared a modification of the
housing development project plan and housing tax increment
financing plan consistent with this resolution.
2. The planning commission is requested to review the modifications to
determine whether they are consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan.
3. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council on the 12th
day of June, 1989, after approval of the modifications by the EDA.
4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to cause of notice of the
public hearing to be published in the official newspaper 10 to 30
days prior to the public hearing.
S. City staff is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of the
modifications to Hennepin County and Independent School District
No. 286 at least 30 days prior to the public hearing to be held
before the City Council.
6. City staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take any
and all other actions reasonably necessary to carry out the intent
of this resolution.
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTEST:
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member
adoption:
12:Ficj HOLMES _. 0RH.:!EN NO. 003 oo7
introduced the following resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE MODIFICATION
OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. AND OF THE
PROJECT PLAN FOR MUSING DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO.
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Brooklyn Center (HRA) has established a housing development project pursuant to
Minn. Stat. SS 469.001 et seq. and a housing tax increment financing district
pursuant to Minn. Stat. SS 489.174 et seq. for the project known as
and
WHEREAS, administrative authority for said housing development project
and housing tax increment financing district has been assigned to the Brooklyn
Center Economic Development Authority (EDA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center (City Council)
believes it is in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center to modify the
housing development project plan to expand the boundaries of the project area and
to modify the housing tax increment financing plan to permit the expenditure of
funds not previously specified in the budget for the tax increment financing
district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center as follows:
1. The EDA. is requested to cause to be prepared a modification of the housing
development project plan and housing tax increment financing plan
consistent with this resolution.
2. The planning commission is requested to review the modifications to
determine whether they are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan.
•
U1 ( 7..)11J
l_15'L_1: '; 12:a; HOLME'= 2. GRNi.:!Ehl NO.003 007.
3. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council on the day of
, 1989, after approval of the modifications by the EDA.
4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to cause of notice of the public
hearing to be published in the official newspaper 10 to 30 days prior to the
public hearing.
5. City staff is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of the modifications
to Hennepin County and Independent School District No. at Least 30
days prior to the public hearing to be held before the City Council.
6. City staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take any and all
other actions reasonably necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.
Dated:
•
ATTEST:
Darlene Weeks, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
BC /Res:02
Dean Nyquist, Mayor
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Interin Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and
Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certai
Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and all Land South of 66th Avenue North
and North of I -694 Lying Between Willow Lane and Highway 252.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -3 -89
Agenda Item Number q G[�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
DEPARTMENT AP OVAL:
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspecti o . y ,
tic
**,-, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report lomments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X )
At the April 24, 1989 City Council meeting the Council directed the staff to prepare
the necessary ordinance amendment to establish a moratorium restricting some
development on certain property within the City. This was in relation to a proposed
rezoning application submitted by E and H Properties (Application No. 89006). This
application was withdrawn by the applicant, but the Planning Commission's
recommendation for a moratorium and a land use study was considered by the City
Council and the Planning Commission recommendation was accepted, thus the Council's
direction to prepare the necessary ordinance language.
The purpose of the moratorium and accompanying study would be to address concerns
and questions which have been raised regarding the best use of land, for all parties
concerned , of the property addressed as 6626 West River Road and all land lying south
of 66th Avenue North and north of I -694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252.
Currently the highway department owns the property addressed as 6626 West River Road
which is currently zoned R5 and contains a nonconforming single- family home. One
question which needs addressing in this situation is what is the best zoning
classification for this land given the current roadway configurations. Regarding
the property located south of 66th Avenue, the Northeast Advisory Group has
recommended that all of this property be rezoned to C1. The property currently has
a C2 zoning classification on the westerly portion and an R5 zoning classification
on the easterly portion. Existing structures, such as the Atkins Mechanical
Contractors office, the Brookdale Motel, and an 18 unit apartment building, as well
as some vacant C2 zoned and R5 zoned land, are located in this area. South of 65th to
I -694 is the Lyn River apartment complex on property zoned R5. Questions regarding
the desirability of a continued R5 use of this land have also been raised.
Questions regarding the best buffer for the single - family residentially zoned
property lying easterly of Willow Lane have also been raised. Any land use study
should address what would be the best use of land for all parties concerned which
would provide a good buffer for the single- family residential property in the area.
•
•
•
SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED
We are in the process now of preparing a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) . We hope
to have this draft available for presentation to the City Council on Monday evening.
The RFP would include various documents and information which would be provided to
consultants, an outline of the scope of the study and what the proposal content
should be. In addition the RFP would also indicate how proposals will be evaluated
and when a recommendation to the City Council for consulting services would be made.
It is recommended that the City Council have a first reading on the interim
ordinance. If the draft RFP is ready, we would also like comments from the City
Council and direction to submit the RFP to various consultants for response.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
1989 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning
Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and
Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property located at 662.6 West
River Road and all Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying Between Willow
Lane and Highway 252.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING
PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF
THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AT
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6626 WEST RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH
OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND
HIGHWAY 252
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Background
1.01. In connection with the consideration of an application for
rezoning of a portion of the property affected by this ordinance
(which application has been withdrawn by the applicant), City
staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group, and the City Council have reviewed
the existing and potential development in the area. As a result
of that review process the Council has determined that the current
land use controls do not adequately address various land use
concerns in the area. Among these concerns are inadequate or
inappropriate buffering of nearby re is dential uses,
nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which are not consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, insufficient or
hazardous traffic circulation, changes in land use and roadways
which have occurred since current zoning controls were adopted,
and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which are not
compatible.
1.02. There is a need for further studies to be conducted so that the
City can adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan
and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health,
safety and welfare The Council has directed that such studies
be undertaken.
1.03. There is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the
purpose of protecting the planning process and The health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure that the City
and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to
be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning
ordinances until such studies have been completed and any
modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and
land use regulations are accomplished.
ORDINANCE NO.
1.04. All of the zoning classifications which are reasonably likely to
be adopted for those parts of the area currently zoned R5 or C2
allow, ei r as permitted or special uses, cerfain
service /office uses. Therefore, an absolute prohibition on the
development of such uses is not warranted.
1.05. Minnesota Statues, Section 462.355, Subd. 4 (Act) permits the
adoption of interim zoning ordinances during the planning
process.
Section 2. Determination.
2.01. This interim ordinance shall apply to the property at 6626 West
River Road and all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I - 694
between Willow Lane and Highway 252(the subject area T.
2.02. During the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no property
within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall
any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than
renewals , plattings or replattings, land divisions or
consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued
by the City for any uses other than those expressly allowed in
paragraph 2.03 of this ordinance.
2.03. The provisions of paragraph 2.02, shall not apply in C2 zones to
permitted uses which are also permitted uses in C1 zones of the
City and shall not apply in R5 zones to special uses which are also
permitted uses in C2 zones of the City.
2.0
This ordinance shall remain in effect for period of six months
after its effective date or such earlier date as may be adopted by
the City Council, provided that if the study and planning process
have not been completed within such period this ordinance may be
extended for such additional periods as are deemed necessary by
the City Council not to exceed an additional eighteen months as
permitted by the Aet
Section 3. Applicability.
3.01. This ordinance applies to any application for site plan
approvals, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land
divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building
permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City
Council before the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date.
4.01. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
ORDINANCE P.O.
Adopted this
day of , 1989.
Mayor
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Number /0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation for a Feasibility Study for and Ice Arena
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Sigf ature - title i i
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: * ie" *
Personnel Coordinator
No comments to supplement this report /` Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
a
At its April 18, 1989, meeting, the Brooklyn Center park and recreation commission recommended to
the city council that the City pursue a feasibility study for an ice arena, not to exceed $2,500 in
cost, and to include the elements of site analysis, needs analysis, concept plan, cost estimate, and
operation pro forma. Attached is a draft copy of the minutes from the commission's April meeting.
City staff feels $2,500 is not sufficient funding to cover the scope of the feasibility study
recommended by the park and recreation commission. Further, staff feels initially the study should
be directed at achieving an understanding and agreement with the school district regarding the use of
its property plus conducting a revenue analysis of such a project before any architectural, siting, or
other considerations are analyzed. Staff feels this could be appropriately handled by including the
ice arena in the process of studying expansion and additions to city hall, the community center, Twin
Lake, and Kylawn Preserve.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Pass a motion to include a feasibility analysis of an ice arena in the City's study of expanding City
facilities.
•
•
P
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
MARCH 28,1989
ON SATURDAY FEBRUARY 4, 1989 * SPECIAL INTEREST COMMITTEE
WAS FORMED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ICE ARENA IN BROOKLYN
CENTER, MINNESOTA. SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE CONTACTED THE
BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL AND WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS THEY
ARE WILLING TO DONATE THE LAND FOR SUCH A FACILIlTY TO BE
ERECTED. WE NEED YOUR HELP. THE FACILITY THAT WE HAVE CHOSEN
CANNOT BE BUILT WITHOUT PUBLIC 3UPPORT, WE CAN RAISE
SUBSTANTIAL MONIES TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE AN ANNUAL
BUDGET.HOWEVER, THE INITIAL OUTLAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE FACILITY NEEDS TO BE A COMMUNITY ENDEAVOR TO BE
SUCCESSFUL.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMlSSION ABOUT THIS MATTER
AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
COMMUNITY PROJECT.
Ne. CAN
^i/I a, c_r°^v'So,\ .
Ai
C sp_3n
SINCERELY
NOAH BRIDGES
���'
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 18, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sorenson called the meeting to order at 8 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Mead, Pollock, and Skeels. Also
present were Councilmember Jerry Pedlar, Director of Recreation
Arnie Mavis, and Recording Secretary Tom Bublitz.
Chairman Sorenson noted Commissioners Propst and Peterson were
absent and excused from this evening's meeting. Chairman
Sorenson also noted Commissioner Burnes was absent from this
evening's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 28. 1989
There was a motion by Commissioner Pollock and seconded by
Commissioner Mead to approve the minutes of the March 28, 1989,
park and recreation commission meeting as submitted. The motion
passed.
PRESENTATION BY BROOKLYN CENTER, SKATING COMMITTEE
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Noah Bridges, chairperson of the
Brooklyn Center skating committee. Mr. Bridges introduced
several people representing the Youth Hockey Association and
other persons involved in skating programs in the city. Those
present at the meeting included Tom King, George Larson, Dave
Ralph, Larry Kasuki, Wayne Finley, and Russ Lewis.
Mr. Bridges addressed the commission and explained from the view
of the Brooklyn Center skating committee, an ice arena is a
definite need in the city of Brooklyn Center. He explained
District No. 286 is willing to donate the land for the facility,
but financial assistance is needed to construct the ice arena.
Mr. Bridges requested the park and recreation commission include
the ice arena in the items it is considering in its present plan
of action.
Mr. Bridges proceeded to review existing skating programs in
Brooklyn Center and noted the Brooklyn Center PeeWee Hockey
Program captured the regional championship this year.
Mr. Bridges explained he believed an ice arena would benefit the
City in several ways including a basic asset for people in the
community who skate and it would also draw people into the City.
He cited examples of types of events that would draw people into
4 -18 -89 -1-
the City including hockey tournaments and figure skating events.
He explained he believed the ice arena would help provide active
programs that would draw families to Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Bridges concluded his remarks by stating he believes it is
time for an ice arena in Brooklyn Center and asked that the
skating committee's proposal be considered along with other
programs considered by the commission.
Commissioner Pollock inquired how the arena would be used by
schools in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Bridges explained it is becoming
harder and harder to find ice for practice time for hockey teams.
In addition to hockey, he would also want the facility to
accommodate the changing needs and interests of skaters in the
City including figure skating events, skating for seniors, and
long blades. Mr. Bridges commented he sees the facility as a
multiuse facility.
Commissioner Mead asked what rinks are currently being used by
skaters in the Brooklyn Center area. Mr. Bridges explained the
Brooklyn Park arena and Osseo arena are two arenas that are
currently being used and the demand on both of these arenas is
tremendous. He explained District No. 281 uses the New Hope
arena and in general, Brooklyn Center is the "last -in- line" for
ice time.
Commissioner Mead requested Mr. Bridges to expand on the
management needs of an ice arena facility. Mr. Bridges explained
his group has people able to manage the arena including
representatives from the. Brooklyn Center Youth Hockey
Association. He suggested perhaps these volunteers could work
with park and recreation to manage the facility. He stated he
believes his group can run a program for nine months out of the
year.
Commissioner Pollock inquired as to the current costs related to
ice time for the skating groups. Mr. Larson replied currently,
the hockey teams pay approximately $3,500 per year for ice time
and another $5,000 for busing to various arenas.
Commissioner Mead inquired who runs Columbia Arena. Mr. Larson
explained the Columbia Arena is run by Anoka County and
additionally, the City of New Hope operates the New Hope ice
arena.
Commissioner Pollock stated she
more central location for ice
groups. It was also noted for
time is approximately $30 to $40
PARK AND RECREATIN COMMISSION MINUTES
sees the possible benefit of a
to be used by various skating
figure skating the cost of ice
an hour.
Commissioner Skeels inquired whether there was any allocation of
funds by the City which continued the initial $85,000 allocation
4 -18 -89 -2-
•
•
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
made several years ago for an ice facility. The director of
recreation reviewed the history of the initial allocation and
explained in the early 1970s, $85,000 was allocated by the City
for a prototype ice arena developed by a company in Minneapolis.
He explained the arena was never built in Brooklyn Center, and
the company went to Minnetonka to build the facility. He
explained the $85,000 was ultimately put in the Central Park
Improvement Fund during the 1981 Park Bond Improvements Program.
Chairman Sorenson asked how conditions had changed since 1974
with regard to the need for an ice arena. Mr. Bridges explained
he believes it is time and there is a need for an ice arena in
Brooklyn Center. Chairman Sorenson commented attendance at all
City skating rinks had been down for the past several years. Mr.
Finley, an Earle Brown instructor, explained enrollment has also
been down for the past few years, but the kindergarten through
fourth grade enrollment in the Brooklyn Center School District is
currently growing.
Councilmember Pedlar expressed a concern over the fact that it is
his understanding a number of ice arenas in the area are actually
losing money and added he would like to find out why facilities
of this type are not succeeding. Mr. Bridges explained the ice
arenas need community involvement and the use of volunteers to
control the cost of management of the facilities. He explained
the money generated by ice rental and the use of the ice by the
school district would make it successful. He also added the VMI
Arena and the Osseo Arena are both successful and profitable
operations.
The Director of Recreation asked what the cost of the proposed
facility would be. Mr. Bridges explained the estimated cost is
$1.4 million which would provide a good sheet of ice and adequate
locker facilities. He explained the cost translates into
approximately $10 per year for the average homeowner. He added
the operating expense would be obtained from the sale of ice time
and development of skating programs. He added he would ask for
letters of commitment for ice time from all groups needing ice in
the area including hockey, figure skating, school districts, long
blades, etc.
Mr. Bridges stated he and the Brooklyn Center skating committee
would like to serve as a resource to the commission, and he sees
the ice arena as a viable program in Brooklyn Center.
Chairman Sorenson inquired as to the success of the Brooklyn Park
arena facility. The Director of Recreation explained in his
discussions with Brooklyn Park staff members the ice arena
generally loses money but the community center building as a
whole is profitable because of the rental of the community
center.
4 -18 -89
3 12
Mr. Bridges explained his group is proposing a feasibility study
to clarify the skating needs and how they might be met by
construction of an ice arena facility. The commission discussed
the issue of a feasibility study for an ice arena. Mr. Bridges
explained the Brooklyn Center skating committee had been working
with a specific architectural firm and had received a quote for
doing a feasibility study which would not exceed $2,500.
There was a motion by Commissioner Pollock and seconded. by
Commissioner Mead to recommend to the City Council that the City
pursue a feasibility study for an ice arena, not to exceed $2,500
in cost, and to include the elements of site analysis, needs
analysis, concept plan, cost estimate, and operation pro forma.
In discussion of the motion, Commissioner Skeels stated he
believes the commission needs more financial data to determine
the total cost to the taxpayers. Commissioner Pollock expressed
an interest in the multipurpose features of the building and that
this element should be pursued in any feasibility study.
Commissioner Skeels commented the motion for approval of the
feasibility study does not include naming the firm used by the
Brooklyn Center skating committee group to conduct the study. He
explained, however, the motion supports the elements of the
feasibility study outlined by the skating committee's
architectural firm.
Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the motion passed.
Commissioner Mead left the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Skeels and seconded by
Chairman Sorenson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.
The Brooklyn Center park and recreation commission adjourned at
9:30 p.m.
Chairman
4 -18 -89 -4-
FIT
DEPT. APPROVAL:
City Council Action Reouired
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Number /
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CITY ENGINEERS FEASIBILITY REPORT REGARDING PROPOSED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION ON NORTH
LILAC DRIVE FROM CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE TO CSAH 57 (57TH AVENUE NORTH) -
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -19
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * *NlAPP * DI * R* *TOR * O* PUBLIC k* WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
Explanation
Attached is a preliminary feasibility report regarding the proposed construction
of a pedestrian/bicycle trailway along North Lilac Drive from the Centerbrook
Golf Course to CSAH 57 (57th Avenue North). Three alternate alignments are
submitted for consideration by the City Council.
After review and discussion of the alternates, the City Council is requested to
adopt a motion tentatively approving one of the alternates. City staff will
then attempt to obtain the required permit from MNDOT, and, if that permit is
obtained, will prepare construction plans and specifications for formal approval
by the City Council at a subsequent date.
Proiect Description
Engineer's Report
Improvement Project 1988 -19
North Lilac Drive Trail
Construction of off - street bikeway and pedestrian trail from the Lions Park
Trail at the Centerbrook Clubhouse to 57th Avenue North.
Discussion
The construction of this trailway was originally included in Contract 1988 -H.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation would not approve the proposed slope
paving along the steep bank at North Lilac Drive and 57th Avenue North. Quotes
were received from Thomas & Sons to construct retaining walls in lieu of slope
paving but the costs greatly exceeded the Engineer's estimated cost.
Consequently it was recommended that the entire trail be deleted from Contract
1988 -H.
Supplemental Agreement No. 2 was approved by the City Council per Resolution No.
88 -165 dated October 10, 1988, deleting the trail from Contract 1988 -H in the
amount of $37,637.80.
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions were reevaluated by Brooklyn Center engineering staff and
Brauer & Associates during the winter of 1988 -89. The following conditions were
addressed.
1. Location of trail as it would relate to the existing slopes between TH 100
and North Lilac Drive.
2. Existing pavement grades and drainage on North Lilac Drive.
3. Trail routing and slope treatment at the northerly end of North Lilac Drive
and the off ramp from TH 100 to 57th Avenue North.
Recommended Improvements
Three alternatives for construction are provided for discussion.
Alternate No. 1
This alternate provides for construction of a trail from the existing trail at
the Centerbrook Clubhouse and lying westerly of the existing parking lot to
Ericon Drive where it would be built adjacent and parallel to North Lilac Drive.
The driving surface of North Lilac Drive is presently 24 feet wide. It is
proposed to widen North Lilac Drive to 28 feet and install B -618 concrete curb
and gutter along the westerly side of North Lilac Drive from the Centerbrook
entrance to the existing concrete curb north of Hillsview Road.
•
•
•
At approximately Hillsview Road the trail would separate from being adjacent to
the curb and proceed to 57th Avenue at nearly the same rate of ascent to the
signalized intersection of the ramp and 57th Avenue North.
The trail in this Alternate No. 1 would be 12 feet wide and abut the concrete
curb. Landscaping would be placed in a 10 foot green strip between the trail and
the relocated MNDOT chain link fence, or behind the fence if MNDOT will not
allow the City to move the fence far enough into their right -of -way to allow
planting the trees between the trail and the fence. (Typical sections of
Alternate No. 1 are shown on Exhibit A)
Alternate No. 2
This alternate follows the same criteria as Alternate No. 1, except that the
trail as it parallels North Lilac Drive would be constructed to a width of 14
feet. The 4 feet immediately adjacent to the curb would be for tree plantings
within cast iron tree grates. The trail would proceed as in Alternate No. 1 to
its connection to the existing sidewalk at the signalized intersection of the
off -ramp and 57th Avenue North. (Typical sections of Alternate No. 2 are shown
on Exhibit B)
Alternate No. 3
Alternate No. 3 alignment from the connection at the existing trail near the
Centerbrook Clubhouse to Ericon Drive is identical to Alternates 1 and 2.
It is proposed to make no width changes to the exiting 24 foot surface of North
Lilac Drive at this time.
Minimal construction shall be required on North Lilac Drive near Hillsview Road
to provide positive drainage from the existing paved surface.
The proposed trail would be 10.5 feet in width and constructed 8 feet west of
the westerly edge of the existing pavement. This will provide an adequate
boulevard to increase the pavement width to 28 feet, install concrete curb and
gutter and tree grates in the future.
The alignment of the northerly end of this alternate would remain adjacent to
North Lilac Drive as it proceeds around the curve and taper to intersect the
existing 10 foot sidewalk midway between the off -ramp from TH 100 and the
connection of North Lilac Drive with 57th Avenue North (Typical sections of
Alternate No. 3 are shown on Exhibit C)
Estimated Costs
The following estimated costs include all retaining walls based on the use of
Keystone retaining wall systems. (Exhibit D)
All costs include construction costs, 25% contingencies and 10% engineering
costs.
Alternate No. 1
Alternate No. 2
Alternate No. 3
Trail Construction
including Retaining Walls
and Appurtenances Landscaping* Total
$107,500 $16,900 $124,400
110,100 33,900 144,000
95,050 21,250 116,300
*Note: Each alternate includes the same number of trees (i.e. 31 each).
Alternate No. 2 landscaping costs are highest because tree grates are very
expensive (estimate cost $630.00 each). Other variables in landscaping costs
include the amount of topsoil and sod used in each alternate.
Recommendation
City staff recommends the selection of "Alternate No. 1" on the basis that we
believe it provides a safe trailway, at a reasonable cost, with the lowest annual
maintenance cost of any of the three alternates.
Regardless of which alternate is selected, the City must submit an application
for an amendment to our existing permit from MNDOT for construction of the
trail, and receive their approval of that amendment before proceeding with final
design and construction of the improvement.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council review and discuss this
report and tentatively select a design alternate. If approval is then received
from MNDOT, City staff will then finalize the construction plans and
specifications and submit them to the City Council for final approval.
Funding
Funding for this project is available from the local Municipal State Aid Fund,
i.e. - Fund 26, Account No. 2611.
Certification
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I
am a registered professional engineer in accordance with the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Reg. No. 6242
Sylvester P. Knapp Date: May 4, 1989
•
•
2 SHOULDER
12 PAVEMENT
750M15515. Ifl
sax
CONSOLIDATEO
NEAD54G 545T.
0
Q - \
1 1.
NEW CURB
ADD SHRUB AND TREE PLANTING.
5 SHOULDER DITCH ` / 10. PA)rEMENT
2 SHOULDER
FENCING
MASS SHRUB PLANTING
ON STEEP SLOPE.-
'0
MN o c/r
9FMq/
FENCING
FENCING
co N
s7
NT
ALTERNATE 1 ALIGNMENT
10 PAVEMENT
2 SHOULDER
(
2' SHOULDER
WIDEN EXISTING WALE TO ID.
CURB ANO GUTTER
EXISTING 24'
PROPOSED 28'
CURB ANO GUT TER SNOW STORAGE
LILAC DRIVE 1 --- 1
12
(IF MNDOT WILL NOT APPROVE PREFERRED LOCATION)
0
FENCE
2'
ALTERNATE FENCE LOCATION
12
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
L
ALTERNATE 1
36
2
PREFERRED
FENCE LOCATION
0
0
4 - FENCE
8.
T.H. 100
EXIT RAMP FROM
TH 100 TO 57TH AVE.
EXHIBIT A
•
•
PAVEMENT
7711.114( HWY ,N)
5410
CONS"Me°
READING .ST
NEW CURB
4' SHOULDER DITCH
MASS SHRUB PLAN"'
ON STEEP SLOPE.
BOULEVARD TREES IN TREE GRATES.
0
r„-> 0 r)
ADDED TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING.
■
FENCING
ock 444 /04/4/474?F/11.4
CO N
2' SHOULDER
•
ALTERNATE 2 ALIGNMENT
5 0 PAVEMENT
0 0
2
0
VIDEN EXISTING WALK T
sHots-DEP
EXISTING 24'
CURD ANO GUTTER
LILAC DRIVE
PROPOSED 28' L
TREE GRATE
CURB AND GUTTER \ \
•
0
FENCE —4
SNOW STORAGE
2'
12
ALTERNATE 2
2.6
•M•11•o 11•11 11111111 1 1 111 1•••■..
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
' i FENCE
8'
0
4- FENCE
SCALE 1 = 1' -0"
TH 100
EXHIBIT B
EXIT RAMP FROM
TH 100 TO 57TH AVE
5'"
NEW FENCE
TAR MwV. ,•
L 4 BOULEVARD
—50 PAVEMENT
1 - 2 SHOULDER
r
SICN
•
5450
CONSOL05ATE0
REAOWG W ST.
EXTEND PER C UR B TO G RADE
AND
TA
RETAINING WALL
MAX. HEIGHT
10.5' PAVEMENT
R = 5201
33%1
/O40 \I
O
�q4
�FN
/0 N
r RF
/11 q/
NS
0 \ 5 _
a 1 r
1
1 1
1 1
7 ,
\ 1 1
\ i ,
\ , I R = S.3o
0'1
i � = a•a
F 1 1
• =500
_ = 3340
1 f q
cO N
sr
r
ALTERNATE 3 ALIGNMENT
55
7:12 SLOPE
4 DROP
4t' RUN
AWING L
NO'GUARO RAILS
AND A
HEIG
•
•
FUTURE 28'
EXISTING 24'
LILAC DRIVE
r
Nv4
0'
65 FT. 2 FTi_
F JTURE 4' BOULEVARD
INTERIM 8'
BOULEVARD
H
co
• ALTERNATE 3
FENCE
TH 100
3.2
1
EXIT RAMP
FROM TH 100 TO 57TH AVE.
10.5 FT.
1�
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
EXHIBIT C
•
4The Ultimate in
:Retaining Wall
Systems...
The need in the landscape business
to have' a product that was stable.
rvattainable off the shelf, quick and
/ .easy to install was the impetus that
created just such a
:product.
;;,The broadly patented Keystone
units have distinctive curved faces
and the appearance of natural
quarried stone. They are
architecturally engineered to provide
$:the most functional, aesthetically
;:appealing and cost effective retaining
wall system which will be the focal
4 point to any landscape or masonry
=design. _ _
This off the shelf retaining wail _
;;system provides the design flexibility
;every architect and landscaper =
''demands. The design features of the
Keystone interlocking module allow
not only for the construction of
- simple straight walls. but also�walis
that can gracefully adapt to the
:.natural contours of any building site
e _unique KeyStone interlocking
m provides a new level
chiral versatility without'
mpromising strength or integ
7ue to this design you need na .>
lei tools, equipment, mortars, #_
- cutting or;preservative tredb i ient;fo
• ur`KeyStone:Retaining Wait
A KeyStone Retaining Wall makes
- "fig statement of Quality. Desi
and Constructio
L
EXHIBIT D
X1988 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS
•
KF,1ONE
TYPICAL INSTALLATIONS
Distribution throughout Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin.
Call our office for your local dealer.
Keystone is
designed to
function
beautifully for a
lifetime.
No cumbersome
tools, mortars,
cutting or
preservative
treatments are
required with
Keystone, and the
wall goes up in
half the time of
old methods.
• Individual
concrete units
lock together with
hi- strength
fiberglass dowels.
• Available in 8'
high standard
units or 4" high
mini - units.
• Choice of face,
texture and color.
• Strong,
permanent and
maintenance free.
11a1: .n'17' -. •- - 'ikR -- y�
7600 France Ave. South
Suite 110, Edina, MN 55435
• Phone: 612 - 897 -1040
EXHIBIT D PAGE 2
R- 8608 90° SQUARE
Assembled as a four piece unit. Support at section joints is
required and is to be furnished by installer. Non - expandable.
Weight per set -300 pounds.
N
TYPICAL TREE GRATE INSTALLATIOW:
MANY GRATE STYLES ARE AVAILABLE
1 R -8610 90° SQUARE
1111
11- Z1 i� y
ILLUSTRATING QUARTER SEGMENT
Heavy duty design requires four sections for completed unit.
Support at section joints is required and is to be furnished by
installer. Designed for use with sub -grade lighting. Light
opening grates are bolted down to prevent unauthorized
removal. Tree opening is expandable.
Weight per set— 1575 pounds.
C lif•1iC i?
l 7 z 1 r 6, 313r
HALF PLAN AND SECTION
R -8609 90° SQUARE
Assembled as a four piece unit. Support at section joints is
required and is to be furnished by installer. Non - expandable.
Weight per set -510 pounds.
2.30 Ne
�.o
295
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Number / 2
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
. *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND COST ESTIMATE REGARDING PAVING OF FOUR UNPAVED ALLEYS
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP t6IRECTOROF PUBLIC WORKS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: k74wf
No comments to supplement this report
** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
Explanation
Attached hereto is a detailed report regarding considerations relating to the
four unimproved alleys which remain in the City.
City Council Action Required
Discussion of the report. Direction to City staff regarding possible changes
in policies and procedures, as itemized in the report.
TO: G. G. Splinter
City Manager
CITY
OF
BROOKLYN
CENTER
FROM: Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
DATE: May 4, 1989
RE: Status of Public Alleys
History
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
911
During the early stages of the development of the City, 19 "City blocks" were
platted which included dedicated public alleys. Following is a status summary
of those 19 alleys:
1 - alley has been officially vacated.
3 - dedicated alleys have never been opened for public travel.
2 - dedicated alleys have never been opened for public travel but short
portions of these alleys are used as joint driveways by property owners
near the ends of those blocks.
9 - alleys have been opened for public travel and have been surfaced with
bituminous paving. Of these:
6 - were completed after initiation by petitions of property
owners between 1975 and 1978.
2 - were completed in 1978 after initiation of these projects
by the City Council and receipt of substantial public
support at the improvement hearings.
1 - was completed in 1982 after initiation by petition of a
majority of property owners.
4 - alleys have been opened to public travel but remain as unimproved,
gravel surfaced alleys.
Page Two
• May 4, 1989
Existing Policies
•
The City's existing policies regarding alley improvements are shown on the
following documents (copies attached).
Resolution 75 -89 - which establishes the basic policy regarding design of
the alley, driveway provisions and assessment policies.
(Exhibit A)
The "Uniform Alley Improvement Policy" dated 4/10/75 - which complements
Resolution 75 -89, and provides additional details.
(Exhibit B)
Resolution No. 82 -208 which provides that alley improvement proceedings
may be initiated by a petition of 30 percent of the
property owners or by a petition signed by less
than 30 percent of the property owners, "when the
City Engineer reports to the City Council that
existing conditions within the alley are such that
significant safety or health hazards exist, or that
the existing conditions endanger private or public
properties or improvements." (Exhibit C)
Previous Proceedings Regarding the Four Unimproved Alleys
Regarding the four established alleys which remain unimproved, it is noted that
in 1978 the City Council initiated proceedings and conducted improvement
hearings on a staff proposal to improve all unimproved alleys then remaining.
Following those hearings the City Council terminated proceedings on these
projects primarily because of objections to the proposed assessments by a
majority of the property owners. In addition to the objections to special
assessments, the following issues were raised during those proceedings:
- questions regarding proper drainage of the alleys;
- property owners who did not use the alley as an access route to their
garage or driveway objected to paying special assessments at the same
rate as those property owners who do use the alley for such access;
- property owners with large lots and /or large frontage on the alley
objected to the policy of "front footage" assessments, noting that they
receive no more benefit than owners with smaller lots and narrower
frontages;
- a few property owners questioned the use of bituminous paving and stated
that they would prefer the use of concrete paving; and
•
•
Page Three
40 May 4, 1989
- a number of property owners expressed concern that if the alley(s) were
paved, drivers would drive faster, thereby accentuating safety problems
which already exist.
Since 1978 periodic inquiries have been made by property owners in each of the
four alleys in question, with some expression of interest in having their alley
paved. However, when advised of the existing policies and of the estimated
costs, none of these owners have circulated and returned a petition asking for
the improvement.
Current Evaluation of the Four Unimproved Alleys
Following is a location description and discussion of each of the four remaining
unimproved alleys:
Alley Location Description Discussion
1 Between Fremont and
Emerson Avenues from
55th to 57th Avenues
2 Between Fremont and
Girard Avenues from
54th to 55th Avenues
This is a 2 -block long alley which abuts 30
individual lots. Of these, 19 have garages
which access to the alley while 11 do not
use the alley for access at this time.
This alley has a low point in the middle of
the block with no outlet. As a result, the
alley, several adjacent properties and some
garages abutting the alley get flooded
frequently, and it is impossible to
maintain this alley in good condition - or
even in fair condition. Installation of a
storm sewer is mandatory if this alley is
to be improved.
This is a 1 -block alley which abuts 19 lots.
Of these, 15 have garages which access to
the alley while 4 do not use the alley for
access at this time.
While the alley does not have a low point,
the grades are so flat that installation of
a storm sewer is required to assure proper
drainage. Even with a storm sewer, control
of grades is critical in matching grades to
existing driveways and garages.
Page Four
May 4, 1989
Alley Location Description
3
4
Type of
Paving
Bituminous
Between Fremont and
Emerson Avenues from
53rd to 54th Avenues
Between Lakeview
Avenue and Twin
Lake Avenue from
Lakeside Avenue to
Lakebreeze Avenue
Advantages
o Less Expensive - works
well when centerline
grades of 1.0% or
greater can be
developed.
Discussion
This is a 1 -block alley which abuts 23 lots.
Of these, 19 have garages which access the
alley while 4 do not use the alley for
access at this time.
This alley also does not have a low point,
but the grades are so flat that
installation of a storm sewer is required
to assure proper drainage. Even with a
storm sewer, control of grades is critical
in matching grades to existing driveways
and garages.
This is a dead -end alley which extends
south approximately 400 feet from Lakebreeze
Avenue. There are 14 lots which abut the
alley. Of these, 7 have garages which
access the alley while 7 do not use the
alley for access at this time.
About the southerly one -third of this alley
is undeveloped and unused at this time. If
the entire alley is to be improved, it will
require substantial grading so that
grades can be developed in a way which
makes the alley accessible to all
properties.
Regarding the type of paving to be used if any of the alleys are to be improved,
the following comments are offered:
Disadvantages
o It is not possible to
accurately control grades so
as to meet existing driveways
and garages while also
developing a good centerline grade.
o Has a short (10 -15 year) life
expectancy.
o Because grades are always critical,
future overlay of a bituminous
alley will cause new drainage
problems.
Page Five
May 4, 1989
Type of
Paving Advantages Disadvantages
Concrete o Provides maximum o Substantially more expensive.
ability to control
grades, so as to o Does not comply to existing
match existing driveways policy.
and garages, and to
assure positive drainage.
Cost Estimates
o Has a 25 -30 year life
expectancy.
Following are preliminary cost estimates for improvement of the four alleys in
question. Alternate cost estimates are provided for bituminous and concrete
paving.
Estimated Total Costs*
Portion
Of Total
Costs Which
Relate To
Alley Using Bituminous Using Concrete Storm Sewer
No. Location Paving Paving Installation
1 Fremont /Emerson $79,400 Alt 1 ** $105,500 Alt 1 ** 31,300
55th to 57th 91,200 Alt 2 ** 117,300 Alt 2 ** 43,100
2 Fremont /Girard $32,100 Alt 1 * ** $ 48,700 Alt 1 * ** 17,300
54th to 55th 35,200 Alt 2 * ** 51,800 Alt 2 * ** 20,400
3 Fremont /Emerson $33,100 $ 39,950 16,300
53rd to 54th
4 Lakeview /Twin Lake $19,000 $ 30,000 -0-
Ave. South of Lakebreeze
* Estimated total costs include all grading and subgrade preparation costs,
paving of the alley, reconstruction of driveway approaches as necessary to
match the new alley grade, landscaping (i.e. topsoil and sodding), storm
sewer costs, engineering, legal and administrative costs, and a 25%
contingency. Note: All costs are calculated on the assumption of each alley
Page Six
0 May 4, 1989
as a single project. If 3 or 4 of these projects are completed under a
single contract, costs would be reduced by 10 to 25 %.
•
** In alley no. 1, Alternate No. 1 is based on the ability to obtain an easement
across private property in mid - block, so as to allow the storm sewer to be
connected to the existing storm sewer on Fremont Avenue. Alternate No. 2 is
based on installation of a longer storm sewer following the alley to 55th
Avenue.
* * *In alley no. 2, Alternate No. 1 is based on the availability of an easement
across private property while Alternate No. 1 is based on the assumption that
no easement would be available.
Survey of Other Cities
Attached to this report is a summary of a survey which we recently completed of
10 suburban communities regarding their alley paving programs and policies.
Of the 10 cities surveyed, only 5 have constructed alley paving inprovements
during the past 5 years. Among those 5, the design standards for alleys varies
substantially and the policies regarding funding and special assessment varies
greatly.
One special explanation is needed regarding the difference in special assessment
rates for concrete alleys constructed by Robbinsdale ($14.50 and $15.03 per
foot) vs. the assessment rates charged by St. Louis Park ($23.96 and $29.81 per
foot). Following discussions with these cities provides the following
additional information:
o St. Louis Park's design standards for the alley pavement are somewhat
higher than Robbinsdale's.
o St. Louis Park includes the cost for storm drainage improvements into their
special assessments, while Robbinsdale pays these costs from its Storm
Sewer Utility fund.
o St. Louis Park's projects includes all costs relating to rebuilding
driveways to meet the new alley grades, and landscaping (i.e. regrading,
topsoil and sodding) along the sides of the alley (this is similar to
Brooklyn Center's policies and procedures) while Robbinsdale assigns that
responsibility to the property owners.
Recommendations
Because the continuation of existing policies and existing procedures has failed
to resolve the conditions which exist in these four alleys, I recommend that the
City Council consider amending the City's existing policies. Following is a
series of questions for which decisions should be made in an attempt to resolve
this issue and my recommendations.
Page Seven
May 4, 1989
•
Question
Should policy be amended
to provide for concrete
paving of alleys under
certain conditions?
Should the existing policy
be amended to provide
City participation in the
costs of alley paving?
Should the policy be
amended to provide two
rates of assessment, i.e.
direct assessments to
those properties who use
the alley for access, and
indirect assessments to
those who do not?
Should assessments
continue to be levied
on a "front foot of
abutting property"
basis, or on some
other basis?
Recommendation
Despite the higher costs for concrete
paving, it is recommended that concrete paving be
considered as the only proper solution in alley
no. 1, and that it be strongly preferred in alleys
no. 2 and no. 3. While concrete paving would also
be preferred in alley no. 4, I believe this alley
could be successfully improved using bituminous
paving.
I recommend that the City consider paying all or a
substantial portion of the cost of storm sewer
construction as necessary to provide drainage
for the alley.
The Council may also wish to consider another
basis for City participation in the costs.
Note: City participation in the cost of alley
improvements can be supported, at least in part,
by the reduced costs of maintenance (estimated at
$800 /year for each of alleys no. 2, 3 and 4 and at
$2000 /year for alley no. 1).
I suggest adoption of a policy similar to St.
Louis Park's policy wherein a portion of the costs
are defined as "indirect benefits" and levied
uniformly to all properties while the remaining
costs are defined as "direct benefits" which are
levied only against those properties who use the
alley for access. While St. Louis Park has split
these costs on a 30 %/70% basis, I suggest a
40 %/60% or 50 %/50% split.
Because it is difficult to prove more benefit to a
property with one garage on a 100 foot lot than to
a property with a similar garage on a 60 foot lot,
I suggest that the policy be changed to levy
assessments on a "per buildable parcel" basis.
(Note: This policy is currently used by Brooklyn
Center for street improvements and for utility
improvements.)
Page Eight
III May 4, 1989
Should the City continue
the policy that these
projects must be
initiated by petition
of property owners unless
the City Engineer finds
that safety or health
hazards exist (as per
Resolution 82 -208,
Exhibit C)?
Under the existing policy I believe it would be
proper for me to recommend the improvement of
alley no. 1 because I believe that significant
safety and health hazards exist, and that private
and public properties and improvements are
endangered to the extent of serious deterioration,
increased maintenance costs and reduced life
expectancies. Obviously, I do not recommend
discouraging the use of petitions. However, I do
suggest that the Council consider initiating
proceedings on all four of these alleys - after
revising the policies as described above. This
recommendation is based on the following
considerations.
o Substantial cost savings (10% to 25 %) can be
realized if all are completed under a single
contract instead of one -at -a -time.
o Regardless of whether the project is initiated
by petition or by City Council action, the
procedures of MS 429 must be followed. These
include preparation of a feasibility report,
notices to property owners, conduction of an
improvement hearing, and a vote by the City
Council.
The major structural difference is that if an
improvement is initiated by a petition of 35%
or more of the property owners (in interest),
the project can be approved by a single
majority vote of the City Council, while if the
project is initiated by Council action (or by a
petition of less than 35% of the property
owners), a 4 /5ths vote of the City Council
would be required to approve the project.
o Completion of all four alleys would eliminate
the City's "No Win" position which currently
prevails in these four alleys, by eliminating
the need to maintain an "unimproved alley
maintenance program."
Page Nine
May 4, 1989
What steps can the City
take to assure that the
installation of alley
paving doesn't accentuate
safety problems?
Conclusion
While this question is difficult to answer, it is
my opinion that:
o While the speed of vehicles traveling the alley
may increase immediately after the alley is
improved, the speed of vehicles 6 -12 months
after construction would be very similar to
those which now exist.
o If an alley is improved, the City should pay
special attention to reducing sight
obstructions as a part of that improvement. In
the alleys in question many blind spots exist
because of shrubs, hedges, fences and other
intrusions within the alley right -of -way. By
eliminating as many of these as possible, the
safety of the alleys can be significantly
improved.
o State laws have recently been changed to allow
the City to post and enforce 10 mile - per -hour
speed limit signs in public alleys. I do not
recommend installing such signs unless a clear
problem exists. However, if a clear problem is
documented, the installation and enforcement of
this speed limit should be considered - whether
the alley is improved or unimproved.
I recommend that this matter be discussed and considered by the City Council at
its May 8, 1989 meeting. If the Council provides tentative direction at that
time, we will then follow -up with a detailed analysis of the financial /funding
impacts of those tentative decisions. That analysis, a revised policy
resolution, and more detailed feasibility reports on the proposed improvements
could be provided for formal consideration by Council at its next meeting.
Following is a tentative schedule of proceedings which would allow initiation
and completion of some or all of these projects this year:
o This report reviewed by City Council 5/8/89
o Detailed cost analyses, formal policy
revisions, and feasibility report
submitted to Council on
5/22/89
•
Page Ten
0 May 4, 1989
o Improvement hearing set to be held on
(Note: individual notices of this
hearing would be sent to all property
owners, and published in Brooklyn
Center Post)
6/12/89
o Council approves (or disapproves) projects on 6/12/89
o If project(s) are approved, plans and
specs submitted to City Council for
approval on 6/26/89
7/20/89
o Open bids on
o Award contract on
o Completion date
Respectfully submitted,
Sy Knapp
4110 Director of Public Works
7/24/89
9/30/89
LA*((M( Av(
49TH
APIA
CSAH
•
TEX 70444
—40.)1
it ST AVE. N
7
OTN AVE. N.
•
f f
J L�
2 N0 AVE.N 1 1 I 1
r 1(
< / i 1
1 ; �i,r I
4
a
, 1
— TWIN 1'
, \', LAKE I 1
IU � (MIDDLE) I
\
\� , ,
i
E NO
LIONS PAgK
10
Eiji
yJ
Fl Wile
� �•
d
Id am.
47 'ow
1CON ,,,,
U1afER!IEIL w
1
P
•
Erna
A�
i
•
W
i
i
as
/me
Aim
Nom
Neme
C
—
a
- W
`34TH
i
1=
i i �—
I= =1
s
Ili MEW
i
RIM
W
W WI
MIN
•
•
_
.0
.3
L .
AVE.
MEM
NMI
NO NM •
M - -�
- I 4 —
— 9ii:..au N s .4_
Ir 1.o -o
I
Z
0
N
CC
W
z
_ W
—>
4
Z
_ 0
0.
—
i
'AVE
4.31
z
- Q
ff:%1 -W
sit
I -0
I -2
cri
1
1
A
BELLVUE
PARK
wen.
V' am
YYX
11111ll1111
II
1
94
1■
%, \ ee
,I TWIN
I LAKE;'(
q t ( AVE I J
I� •
48TH
j3A0
}
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
0
CITY
BROO
GE
OF
KLYN
NTER
RYAN LAKE„)
ROB E /NSDAL E
ALLEY
LOCATION MAP
4
- BASE -YAP ORAWW
ENGINEERING GEP►
\ : I
Member Tony Kuefler
and moved its adoption:
introduced the following resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 75 -89
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM ALLEY IMPROVEMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center are becoming
interested in improving the alleys abutting their property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to adopt a uniform
alley improvement policy which establishes certain policies for the
construction of and the assessing of the costs for alley improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center that the following uniform alley improvement policy
be adopted relative to construction standards and cost assessment
factors:
1. Work items to be included in the total project cost and
assessed uniformly over each project in proportion to the
dimensions of the property abutting the alley (front footage)
shall consist of the following:
a) Installation of a 10 -foot wide alley pavement consisting
of hot mixed bituminous asphalt.
b) Installation of sod in the area between the edge of the
alley pavement and the property line or disturbed 1Fiwn
areas with the costs associated therewith being in
relation to the distance between the alley pavement
and the property line.
c) Restoration of existing permanent driving surfaces
requiring removal during alley construction.
d) Installation of necessary storm drainage facilities.
2. Driveway provisions:
a) All existing gravel, crushed rock, or other driveways
that are not hard surfaced shall be replaced with hot
mixed bituminous asphalt surfacing between the alley
pavement and the property line.
b) The cost of an installed bituminous driveway minus the
cost of sod restoration for an area equivalent to the
driveway shall be added to the uniform assessment rate
for respective properties.
c) The property owner shall have the prerogative of
recommending a driveway width to suit his garage
situation and /or parking needs.
3. The special assessment period for alley projects shall be
ten (10) years.
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 75 -89
May 5, 1975
Date
ATTEST: �,rcC� -,� ✓�
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Maurice Britts , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen,
Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler and Robert Jensen;
and the following voted against the same: none, absent: Bill Fignar;
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
UNIFORM ALLEY IMPROVEMENT POLICY
,T?E OF CONSTRUCTION
The Uniform Alley Improvement Policy comprehends constructing a ten (10 foot wide, 2"
4111 thick, hot mixed bituminous asphalt alley. The bituminous will be placed on four (4)
inches of Class 5 aggregate base material, which is placed on a properly graded and
compacted sub - grade.
The inverted crown principle of sloping the pavement toward the center of the alley .
to form a gutter line will be incorporated into the design. The water will flow along
the inverted crown gutter line to storm sewer catch basins or to the street gutters
at the ends of the alley. When the alley cannot be sloped to drain adequately,
additional storm sewer will be installed.
RESTORATION
The area between the edge of the paved alley and the property line or disturbed yard
areas shall be replaced with four (4) inches of black dirt and sodded.
DRIVEWAYS
Any existing permanent driveway surface that does not match the proposed paved alley
grade will be cut back a sufficient distance to adequately adjust the existing surface
to match the proposed alley. The driveway surface that is removed will be replaced
with hot mixed bituminous asphalt.
All gravel, crushed rock, or other driveways that are not hard surfaced shall be replaced
with hot mixed bituminous asphalt pavement to the property line. The residents shall
have the prerogative of recommending a driveway width to suit their garage situation
and /or parking needs.
• ASSESSMENT
Uniform Rate
The following work shall be included in the total cost and assessed uniformly over
each project in proportion to the dimensions of the property abutting the alley (front
footage).
1) The cost of installing the ten (10) foot wide paved alley.
2) The cost of sodding the disturbed area between the edge of the paved alley
and the property line or undisturbed area.
3) The cost of restoring existing permanent driveways that require adjustment
during construction.
4) The cost of installing new or modifying existing storm sewer facilities-.
associated with the alley paving projects.
Driveways
The cost of constructing a hot mixed bituminous asphalt driveway between the paved
portion of the alley and the property line where gravel, crushed rock, or other non -
hard surfaced driveways exist (minus the cost of sod restoration for an equivalent
area) shall be individually computed and added to the uniform assessment for the specific
property involved.
All new bituminous pavement construction beyond the alley property limits will be the
responsibility of the individual property owner.
Assessment Period and Interest
The assessment period for the alley pavement projects shall be ten (10) years and the
interest shall be charged at the current rate as determined by the City Council. The
unpaid balance may be paid off at any time the property owner desires.
d/ln/7q EXHIBIT B
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption: -
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -208
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR INITIATION OF ALLEY
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish uniform
procedures for the initiation of proceedings regarding drainage and surfacing
improvements to alleys within the City of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Council will consider requests or
recommendations for drainage and /or surfacing improvements to alleys within the
City when:
1. A petition for the improvement is submitted which bears the signatures
of at least 30 percent of the number of owners whose properties
abut the proposed improvement; or
2. when:
a. a petition for the improvement is submitted which bears the
signatures of less than 30 percent of the number of owners
whose properties abut the proposed improvement; and
b. the City Engineer reports to the City Council that existing
conditions within the alley are such that significant safety
or health hazards exist, or that existing conditions within
the alley endanger private or public properties or improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all proceedings regarding proposed alley
improvements will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429,
and that the construction standards and cost assessment policy shall be in
accordance with Resolution No. 75 -89.
ATTEST:
October 25, 1982
Clerk
The motion for th- .doption of the foregoing, resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following_
voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich.Theis;
and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
EXHIBIT C
•
1. Have you constructed alley paving improvements in residential areas of your
City during the past 5 years? If so, what type of paving was installed?
Brooklyn Park N
Crystal YES
Edina YES
Fridley N
Golden Valley N
Minnetonka N
Robbinsdale YES
Roseville YES
St. Louis Park YES
White Bear Lake N
X
X
2b. What are your design standards?
Crystal: See attached detail.
1989 SURVEY
RE: ALLEY PAVING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Bituminous Concrete
X
X
X
Edina: Bituminous - 6" Cl. II Gravel 2" MNDOT 2341 Wear, FA3 Trap Rock Seal
Coat, Depress Crown 2" Depression, Concrete 6" Cl. II Gravel
Robbinsdale: 6" concrete, non - reinforced - see attached.
Roseville: 7 ton 6" Class V, 2" bit.
St. Louis Park: See attached typical section.
3. Was it necessary to install storm sewers into the alley, to provide
drainage, at the same time that the alley was paved? If yes, describe:
Crystal: Yes - copy of plan enclosed (example 1).
Edina: Now paid out of storm drainage utility fund. Prior to fund assessed as
part of paving project.
Robbinsdale: Yes. Prior to adopting our storm drainage utility storm sewers
were assessed 100 %. Subsequent to adopting the utility the storm sewers were
funded 100% from the storm drainage fund.
EXHIBIT D
•
•
St Louis Park: In some cases it does require storm sewer. This cost is 100%
assessed to the entire project.
4. Please describe your policy for special assessment levies to cover a
portion or all of the costs of your two most recent improvements:
A. For bituminous surfacine of alleys.
Crystal:
1. Access: 1987: $8.99 /abutting foot; 1985: $11.12 /abutting foot.
2. Abutting: Same as above
3. Storm sewer: 1987: $.076 /sq ft of lot area; 1985 $.057 /sq ft
Roseville:
1. Access: 1981: $2.68/?
2. Abutting: Same as above
3. Storm sewer: 25% of cost when built
4. In general, what percentage of total project costs are recovered by special
assessments?
Crystal: 100%
Edina: 80%
Roseville: 25%
5. If the City pays a portion of project costs, please describe the
rationale for this.
Roseville: Other people use the road and the city wants to upgrade all 3 ton
roadways. At 25% assessed most property owners don't fight it.
6. If you have a written policy covering sppcial assessments for alley
paving, please send a copy.
Roseville: Used the street policy
7. If you have made any major changes to your policy in the past 5
years, please describe why.
St. Louis Park: Previous policy left gaps in what procedure was to be followed
when when access and garages were not in place but could be constructed in the
•
•
future.
B. For Concrete Paving of Alleys
St Louis Park:
Edina:
1. Access: 1987: $29.81/ff; 1987: 23.96/ff
2. Abutting: 1987: $8.28 /ff; 1987: 7.19 /ff
3. Storm sewer; N/A
Note: Example 1: 70% direct benefit = 21.52
30% indirect s 8.28
1. Access: 1988: $877/lot; 1984: $1,002 /lot
2. Abutting: Same as above
3. Storm sewer: None
Robbinsdale:
Total $29.81
1. Access: 1988: $14.50/lf; 1987: 15.03/1f
2. Abutting: Same as above
3. Storm sewer: 1988: from storm sewer fund; 1987: N/A
Note: Example #1 for 5 alleys; example #2 for 1 alley
Only 2 -4 properties are typically found abutting the
alley. Assessment is justified by telling the owners that
they have the option to abut the alley.
4. In general, what percentage of total project costs are recovered by special
assessments to property owners?
Edina: 80%
Robbinsdale: 100%
St Louis Park: 100%
5. If the City pays a portion of project costs, please describe the rationale
for this.
Edina: City pays for 20% of all concrete paving. Policy set in early 60s on
premise concrete costs less to maintain.
•
Robbinsdale: The city has not as of this date. We are, however, considering
paying for a portion of the costs for upcoming projects (e.g., alley adjacent to
MnDOT, BNRR property, etc.)
8. Other comments
Robbinsdale: I would not even consider using bituminous for paving alleys.
•
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8
Agenda Item Number /oC�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Annual Planning Process Update
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
*************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *c * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ���j' / / .Z.
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )Ci )
Attached please find a copy of a proposal from Mapping Strategies, Inc. to assist the City of
Brooklyn Center in its annual goal setting process.
This year 1 am proposing to use a different facilitator, Jim Brimeyer and Deborah Bennett-Leet of
Mapping Strategies, Inc. This combination of Brimeyer and Bennett-Leet will allow us to take
advantage of computer technology which can be used, I believe, very effectively in this goal setting
process. In the attached materials there is a description of the use of the computer in this process.
The total cost of approximately $4,000 parallels the previous cost of our process. A major portion of
the cost of this project is the use of the computer and it represents a change from our previous
process but, I believe, one that will improve the process noticeably.
We have tentatively picked June 1 as the date for the annual planning session, and if the Council
approves, I will be sending out notices and materials to the same list of participants as last year
FS
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
PROPOSAL
for
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ANNUAL GOAL SETTING PROCESS
June,1989
Submitted by:
Deborah Bennett -Leet
President, MAPPING STRATEGIES
and
Jim Brimeyer
Strategic Planning Facilitator
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
TRPP
SIR
1
FR
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
PROPOSAL INCLUDES:
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
II. ABOUT THE CONSULTANTS...
III. PROJECT PRICING
IV. APPENDIX
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
PROCESS:
PROPOSAL
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ANNUAL GOAL SETTING PROCESS
June,1989
OVERVIEW
GOAL: To identify, review and prioritize the City of
Brooklyn Center's targeted goals for the next one to
two years.
It is important that this process be as participatory
as possible and include as many city staff, council
members, community leaders and citizens as possible.
Phase #1 City of Brooklyn Center will send out a survey to all
Survey selected, potential session participants. The
surveyed participants will be asked to:
1) Review last year's TOP, HIGH and MEDIUM targeted
goals.
2) Add any new issues /goals to the list, and /or
3) Delete those goals which have dropped off the
targeted list.
These responses will be mailed back to the city,
along with their indication of attendance for the
June GOAL SETTING SESSION.
Phase #2 Following dinner, the session participants will meet
General
Goal to review and prioritize the updated list of targeted
goals.
Setting
Session Suggested process:
1) The updated list will be reviewed and discussed so
that the participants have a COMMON UNDERSTANDING of
the MEANING OF THE GOAL. Evaluation of the goals will
come later.
2) Using the computer assisted technology (George),
the participants will register their opinion as to
their relevant ranking of the goals - TOP,HIGH,MEDIUM
and DROP.
3) Results of the "preference polling" will be
displayed and discussed. (See DISPLAY GRAPHS for
optional ways to display and discuss feedback.) At
this time, participants will have the opportunity to
share their ideas and exchange information regarding
the various goals. Having the ability to display the
feedback gives the participants a quick "snapshot" of
the group's opinions - which then allows the
participants to focus their discussions - and thus,
save time.
4) The highest ranking goals (approximately 12 -15)
will then be prioritized. The method is called a
forced paired comparison vote, which compares every
goal to each other goal.
5) Results again, will be displayed and discussed.
Degree of consensus among the participants will be
checked as well as any differences between the
subgroups. (City staff, Council, Community leaders,
City Commissioners)
6) Session summary.
2.
GROUP FACILITATOR: Jim Brimeyer
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT: Deborah Bennett -Leet
Phase #3
Final Council will meet with Jim Brimeyer to review the
Priority general session's results. If areas of wide
Ranking differences between the council's preferences and
of Goals the general groups' results exist, those will be
discussed.
The top priorities will again be discussed in terms
of relative ranking. Potential blocks to achieving
those goals will also be brainstormed and discussed.
The comments will be recorded and communicated to the
city staff to help give them direction within their
goal implementation planning process.
FACILITATOR: Jim Brimeyer
RECORDER: Deborah Bennett -Leet
TRPPI7J
J±tIFR
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
ABOUT THE CONSULTANTS. .
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
H STP" 1 P SI�S
MAPPING STRATEGIES is a consulting firm working the areas of
collaborative planning and assessment research.
Workshops include:
Challenging Change! Attitudes, Skills, & Structure
Developing Strategic Vision for the 90's
Goal Setting for the 90's
MAPPING STRATEGIES, specializes in the use of a computer - assisted
"GROUPWARE" TECHNOLOGY, an interactive communication tool used
to help focus discussions, prioritize issues and communicate
the meetings' decisions.
MAPPING STRATEGIES clients include:
State of Minnesota
• Focus groups /planning
MN Department of Transportation
. Strategic Planning
Minnetonka Community Services
•
Res earch/Planning
BRW Planning/Architecture.
Strategic, Planning
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
DEBORAH BENNETT -LEET
PRESIDENT, MAPPING STRATEGIES
* * *
United Way of St. Paul
. Capital Allocations
City of Robbinsdale
. Construction decision
Benson Optical
. Strategic Planning
E.Metro AIDS Conference
• County recommendations
DEBORAH`BEpTT -LEET is founder and President of Ma
Strategies. For the past 20 Mapping
She tiglds' years, Deborah has been working in
of education, group facilitation and corporate
training._ Before forming MAPPING STRATEGIES in 1987, Deborah
served as an Account Manager and Performance Consultant for
Wilson Learning /Corporate Learning Center specializing in the
areas of strategic planning and "groupware" technology.
FORMAL EDUCATION:
B .A. in Education
University of Illinois
Post graduate work in Behavioral Psychology
Un iversity` of Minnesota
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
TAPPI\
ST�<� I L!FS
,,
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
JIM BRIMEYER
STRATEGIC PLANNING FACILITATOR
WJIM BRIMEYER, will be the lead facilitator during the general and
council: planning sessions.
JIM'S BACKGROUND INCLUDES:
SEARCH CONSULTANT and GROUP FACILITATOR
AS A RECRUITER for an executive search firm, Sathe & Associates,
Jim works in both the public and private sectors.
AS A GROUP FACILITATOR, Jim focuses in the areas of strategic
planning and goal setting. Jim's unique combination of
practical
experience and facilitation style assists organizations through
their own process of defining and setting directions for the
future.
JIM'S PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE INCLUDES:
• 20 years management experience in the
including manager public sector;
city mana
inclug: g positions in Worthington,OH;
li
St. Louis Park, MN.
. 10 years experience as group facilitator.
. Articles published:
Side - by -side Goal Setting in
St. Louis Park ",1984
"Productivity Measurement and
Improvement - A Participative
Approach ", 1978
RE CD' GOAL SEi PING SESSIONS FACILITATED BY JIM INCLUDE.
• Cit of St. Louis Park
. LOGIS; Local Government Information Systems Association
• City of Falcon Heights
. BRW Architecture /planning
• Westwood Professional Services
FORMAL EDUCATION -
H. A. Public Administration
Northern Illinois University
B.A. Political Science
Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
PROJECT PRICING
AND
INCLUSIONS
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
I. PROJECT PLANNING
PROJECT PRICING
and
INCLUSIONS
ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING
FACILITATION PLANNING
II. TECHNOLOGY
SUPPLY ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT
TECHNOLOGY SET -Up AND OPERATION
III. FACILITATION
GENERAL GOAL SETTING SESSION (50 voting participants)
FOLLOW -UP COUNCIL GOAL SETTING MEETING (Council members)
IV. FINAL REPORT
PRINT -OUTS OF SELECTED "MAPS" FROM GROUP FEEDBACK
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS FROM BOTH SESSIQNS
GOALS PRIORITIY RANKING AND QUALITATIVE STATISTICS:
- General group's average rankings
- City Council's average rankings
- City Staff's average rankings
- City Commissioners' average rankings
- Community representatives' average rankings
TOTAL PRICING•
$3,800. (Plus rental of 30 additional keypads at $300.)
TIMETABLE: One third of the total fee ($1,260) would be
invoiced upon signing this Agreement and the remaining two
thirds (plus $300 rental fee) would be invoiced when the
final report is submitted.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ACCEPTED BY,
DEBORAH BENNETT -LEET
P RESIDENT JERRY SPLINTER
ZAPPING STRATEGIES CITY MANAGER
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING • RESEARCH • TRAINING
APPENDIX
2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 55113 • (612) 636 -1354
GROUP DECISION SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY
The OptionFinder
GRAPHIC DISPLAY
COMPUTER KEYPAD
OptionFinder Is a computer- based, portable group
decision support tool for the collection, analysis, and
feedback display of confidential judgments and
preferences during meetings and group discussions.
Feedback is entered via individual computer keypads -
then instantly displayed and recorded for discussion
and clarification.
OPTIONF /NDER
HARDWARE SYSTEM
�G`0 StLEc "lrt
1
OptlonFlnder Applications
Strategic Planning
High impact DecIslon- Making
Interactive Learning
Team Building
Research Tool
1•3•1 low
ti
M rti.w•• nil ..rw V • M
V• nA LVwN.
A n organization which wants to ACT together, must first learn to THINK together.
MAPPING STRATEGIES
(612) 636.1354
1
M
P
A
c
T
M
P
A
c
T
100
75
50
xx
25 X X
0
100
0
100
75
50
25
0
Entire Group — MAIN MAP
(Test Run Title)
100
A
75 C
50 G
25
0 E
M 75
P
A S0 1
c
T 25
X >
X
1
} X
X
4
1
B
Group Scatterplot
(Item A ... n )
Subgroup Comparison
(Item A... n)
3
F
1 2.5 4 5.5 7
LIKELIHOOD
1 2.5 4 5.5 7
LIKELIHOOD
1 2.5 4 5.5 7
LIKELIHOOQ
DATA DISPLAYS
H
COMBINE TWO PREFERENCE VOTES
"GROUP MAP"
BAR CHART
GROUP SCATTER MAP
(Individual Votes on One Item)
SUBGROUP COMPARISON MAP
1. Teachers
2. Students
3. Parents
4. Staff
1
COLLABORATION. Others are using
the computer specifically to break
through those frustrating in-
terpersonal brick walls that block exec-
utive communication — otherwise
called ego, politics, or game playing.
"I've always been amazed at how you
could get a very good collection of
minds together and produce such ag-
ony," says Bernard DeKoven, a consul-
tant on group computing and meet-
ings.
While technology has changed the
way people do their jobs all over the
company, "meetings are being con-
ducted in a fashion similar to a hun-
dred years ago, with the only addition
being the electric light," quips Doug
Vogel, assistant professor in the de-
partment of management- information
systems at the University of Arizona,
Tucson.
In comes the computer to remedy
these interpersonal holdups as well —
software programs designed to help
people share, vote, and prioritize
ideas. Using what, is called a "group -
decision support system" (GDSS), con-
sultant Mr. DeKoven thinks "you can
turn the boardroom into a real group
productivity center."
Not only can executives use the com-
puter to quickly locate critical numbers
and make intelligible presentations
with an EIS, but with a GDSS they can
reach a collaborative output. "They can
document and record their decisions,
and leave that room with a hard copy
in their hands, which everybody has
approved as 'Yes, that's how I want to
go on record, "' he says.
Mr. Vogel calls the very sophis-
ticated, million- dollar GDSS facilities
operating at the University of Arizona
"human parallel processing," because
members are able to key in ideas and
see those of others on the screen si-
multaneously—in the ultimate brain-
storming session. For a base user fee of
$2,000 a day, it's as if "everyone in the
meeting can stand up and talk at once
and still be understood," he says.
Much more rudimentary, portable sys-
tems can be purchased for under
51 0,000.
The following is an excerpt from the November 21 issue of Industry Week.
• THE INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT MAGAZINE •
TOOLS AT THE TOP
Computers are entering the last corporate frontier:
the executive world.
A group.decls/on support system
displays the breakdown of
anonymous votes on o char' for
members of a strategy planning
meeting.
STRATEGY PLANNING. Particularly
in large meetings, there can be a lack of
productivity, Mr. Vogel says. Vern
Heath, chairman of Minneapolis -
based Rosemount Inc., thought about
this as well before he gathered a new
group of 24 senior executives from
around the world for their first strat-
egy planning meeting in May.
A typical meeting such as this one
can last several days. Perhaps the sen-
ior managers use different planning
techniques, leaving them without a
common format. Perhaps the quieter
members of the group suffer through
political tirades by one or two more
boisterous members of the group. And
perhaps even a well- meaning manager
sidetracks the general interests of the
whole company for local concerns.
The team does come up with a plan.
But it certainly would take much
longer than the one day it took Mr.
Heath's group, using a smaller, PC-
based GDSS called "OptionFinder."
With it, they anonymously voted, via a
numeric keypad, on the key issues fac-
ing the company.
Using this approach, complete with
X -Y graphs and bar charts, they
quickly and clearly saw the results —
the items that were most important to
the majority of the members and
needed more attention.
TIME, NOT TRUTH. Despite satisfied
accounts such as this one, at least one
observer suggests caution about GDSS.
Corporations are not democracies,
points out David Gibson, an assistant
professor of information systems at the
University of Texas at Austin. At the
Eighth International Conference on
Decision Support Systems in June he
discussed a large, now- dismantled
GDSS developed and used by Exe-
cucom Systems in the late '70s and
early '80s.
Called the Planning Lab, it was cre-
ated with the hope of promoting open
and honest communication among a
team of managers that might otherwise
be given to political motivations.
However, "there are functional uses
for strategic ambiguity. At executive -
level decision - making, power and pol-
itics and hidden agendas come into
play," says Mr. Gibson. GDSS can cer-
tainly give you information more
quickly, he concedes, but "to say that
it's going to cause managers to be more
truthful or rational is expecting too
much of the technology."
Perhaps the most appealing trait of
both a GDSS and an EIS is the time they
save. To executives, time is a scarce
resource. In addition, a GDSS "gives
people a much better feeling for the
big picture in a decision - making ses-
sion," thinks Arizona University's Mr.
Vogel, "and a much better sense of the
individual contributions that go into
that." •
•• 34`t , „
•
T
gAt:
7.1
-
4
, , •
with a population of 14,429;ob-
tained a computer-software package
that made the bond-issue process run
faster and more efficiently/
"We were considering/eight dif-
ferent facilities," says Ryan Schroe-
der, assistant city manager, "every-
thing from a police station to a new
community center. While we could
illustrate a need for all of the facili-
ties, we knew that taxpayers couldn't
carry the load for all the improve-
ments at once. We had to establish a
building priority and demonstrate
our reasoning behind the choice."
Schroeder and the rest of the city
>1-
K;
*
double sword in set-
ting priorities for municipal
bond-issue bids. As more people re-
locate from rural to urban areas, the
growing need for new public facili-
ties clashes with taxpayers' growing
reluctance to approve bond issues.
The problem is compounded when
more than one facility is needed. De-
ciding which facilities merit taxpayer
consideration can lead to compli
cated internal battles for city man
agers who try to balance hidden
agendas, personality conflicts and
cl *
Minnesota City Adds Focus
To Selection of Bond Issues
ity managers today face a manager's staff found the standard
process produced no conclusive re-
sults. "We were floundering for a
way to evaluate our options," he
says. "Unfortunately, we had too
many choices to consider and too
great a need for the new facilities to
have the process bogged down."
Using a software program called
OptionFinder from Option Traziol.--,
ogies, Mendota Heights, Minn., the
city was able to prioritizr the eight —
facilities,. 'rank-each facility's likeli-
hood of being passed, and explore
thr p‘ssibility of sharing the cost and
grcemen5 over priority needs.
- use of certain facilities with nearby
With this challenge in mind, city/ cities.
managers in Robbinsdale, Minn.,,t The portable system includes elec.
northwestern suburb of Minneapolis
•
ronic keypads for each group mem-
ber, and enables them to provide
candid and anonymous input. Using
a combination of paired compari-
sons and a series of rating scales, in-
dividual responses are merged in-
stantly with input from others in the
group to create a collective response
viewed almost instantly on a master
grid.
"We were able to include more
key people in the decision-making
process," Schroeder says. "Because
they were involved and felt their
views were clearly incorporated,
those key people support our
recommendation."
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/8/89
Agenda Item Number /f. e____
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
0 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Establishment of a Cadet Program in the Police Department
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
Attached please find a copy of a document labeled Cadet Program dated April 25, 1989. This
document describes a proposed cadet program in the police department which will assist the
department in recruiting protected class and minorities in to our police department.
The program is based on a theory, which we believe is valid, that if you can attract police
candidates, minority or otherwise, from your locality, chances of your recruiting and holding qualified
candidates improve. Our experience in the past has been that we have been able to qualify the
protected class employee recruits and get them into the probationary period, but we have not been
able to keep them for an extended period of time. Many of them move on to "better opportunities,"
or, once they have been hired in the police department, an opening occurs in their own hometown
and they return to the hometown as a police officer.
With this in mind, this program will allow us to become a "hometown" and we will use the cadet
program and the code enforcement position to build a pool of what we believe would be qualified
"protected class" candidates. This program will serve a number of very important functions. It will
give us what we believe will be a good solid look at potential police officer candidates; allow
interested young people to get a feel for what police work is about; and present an opportunity to
meet our equal opportunity employment guidelines.
The program will cost approximately $5,500 annually, and we believe, absent a major budget problem,
the police department can fund the program for the remainder of 1989 out of current appropriations.
However, the Council should understand if they approve the program, there will be additional costs to
the budget of approximately $5,500 in 1990 and after.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends the City Council pass a motion approving the program as described in the
attached April 25, 1989, Cadet Program description and authorize the police department to implement
the program in 1989.
CADET PROGRAM
April 25, 1989
The department has not been able to attract minority candidates for
uniform positions. The Minnesota Police Recruiting System (MPRS),
which supplies our candidates, has experienced the same problem.
Sergeant Sollars has proposed a program that has merit. His
suggestion centers around the department's old cadet program. The
cadet program preceded the Code Enforcement program. Sollars has
suggested using the cadet program concept to hire and train
minorities.
The cadet program would hire college students in their first year
of college. In most Law Enforcement degree programs, the first
year of college is general subjects. This first year then would
expose a student to law enforcement before taking a lot of credits
that would not transfer to another degree program.
The cadet would be exposed to all aspects of the department. The
cadet would work with officers on the street, in the dispatch
center, the jail, among others. As openings occur in the Code
Enforcement Officer positions, cadets would be elevated to the CEO
positions. Students successful in these positions would be
elevated to the uniform sworn officer positions. The
attractiveness of this program is the recruitment of minorities.
The cadet is exposed to police work at a slow pace. They acquire
a complete working knowledge of the department before advancing to
the next step. As CEO's they experience writing citations and
appearing in court on minor cases. By the time the person is ready
to assume the duties of a sworn officer, they are comfortable with
what they are doing.
The candidate knows radio procedures, knows the city, is familiar
with booking people, has administered first aid to injured
citizens, worked nights, days, weekends, et cetera. There should
be few surprises for the individual or the police department.
Candidates who do not have a potential of becoming a sworn officer
would not be retained. The program has considerable merit.
The program would utilize twenty (20) hours a week split between
two ten - hour -a -week positions. Cadets would wear a uniform
different from either the sworn officers or a code enforcement
officer (CEO). The cadets would be eligible to participate in the
city's training reimbursement program. The pay would be $5.00 per
hour. At 1,040 hours of labor, it would cost approximately
$5,200.00 per year. With uniforms, a total of $5,500.00 would fund
the program for 1990.
• CADET PROGRAM
PAGE 2
April 25, 1989
An ad hoc committee has been formed to advise the department on the
recruitment of minorities. The following have agreed to serve on
the committee:
Mr. Douglas Rossi, Superintendent of Schools
Ind. School District 286, Brooklyn Center
Mr. Michael Miller, Sr Employment Affirm. Action Consultant
Northern States Power
Mr. Morgan Smith, Production Manager
Ault, Incorporated
Sergeant Donald Sollars
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Because of the merit of this program, I propose its activation at
this time. One cadet could be hired this spring and the second
hired sometime this fall. I believe the current budget would cover
the costs for 1989. Only an unexpected event could cause a use of
monies.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
411, *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS ON MAXIMUM CONTAMINATION LEVELS FOR
LEAD AND COPPER
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVA: y�
SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
****************** 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** *4* *r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: iffv7
)�
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes )
Explanation
Attached hereto is a May 25, 1989 memorandum and supporting materials, from the
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) relating to regulations being developed by the
USEPA relating to lead and copper contaminants in drinking water. Also attached
is information from the AWWA relating to this subject.
As noted in the LMC information, there is universal support for the goals of the
Safe Drinking Water program. However, evaluation of the proposed regulations by
experts in the subject indicates that the proposed regulations are very
unrealistic, that compliance would be very expensive, and that compliance with
the proposed regulation would not accomplish the goals of the program.
I have discussed this matter with our staff and with Black and Veatch, the
consultants for our current Water Supply Study, and we substantially agree with
the LMC position. However, the following comments are offered:
o The USEPA has recently indicated that it will modify its proposal regarding
pH requirements (hopefully to a more realistic level).
o The formulas for calculating costs which the LMC has suggested are
applicable only to smaller water supply systems.
Based on our experience during the past several years, it is our opinion
that the only way to achieve compliance with the proposed regulations would
be to construct a water treatment plant (i.e. - compliance could not be
achieved by adding chemical feeding equipment at the wellhouses). At this
time we are unable to say what that cost would be, but it would be very
expensive.
o Our major objection to the proposed regulations is that they assign
responsibility for water quality at the tap (i.e. - inside the home or
•
•
business establishment) to the cities. This is dramatic departure from the
established policy that cities are responsible for water quality in the
water mains - but property owners assume the responsibility for water
service lines and in -house plumbing systems.
Adoption of regulations which assign that responsibility to the city creates
the following problems:
1. it invades the privacy of private properties,
2. it creates severe perception problems, and
3. it opens a Pandora's box on liability issues.
We will develop and submit a recommended resolution to the City Council at the
5/8/89 meeting.
City Council Action Required
o Review and discuss this matter
o Consider adoption of the resolution which we will present at the Council
meeting.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED NEW USEPA RULE FOR NATIONAL
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota has a population (1980)
of 31,230; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Municipal water system meets all federal
and state standards for potable water; and
WHEREAS, proposed USEPA rules would require cities to assume the
responsibility for maintaining water quality not only in the cities'
distribution systems but also in the privately -owned water service lines to
homes and structures and "to the tap" of those homes and structures; and
WHEREAS, proposed USEPA rules mandate certain testing and pH
requirements in municipal water systems; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Council that adoption of the proposed
rules will place cities into the position of responsibility for maintenance of
water quality on private properties and in private homes and buildings, and to
assume liabilities for the maintenance of water quality in privately -owned
systems; and that such responsibilities and liabilities are untenable and
unacceptable; and
WHEREAS, it is also the opinion of this Council that the adoption of
the proposed rules will result in major public expenditures with little or no
health benefits and will place unnecessary financial burden on the users of the
system by requiring the installation and adoption of costly treatment systems
and complex testing procedures, all of which have questionable benefits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1 This Council respectfully requests that the Congress of the United
States amend the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations so as
to limit the Cities' responsibility for water quality maintenance
to the public distribution system, in accordance with the
historically established division of responsibility and liability.
2 This Council respectfully requests that the Congress of the United
States amend the proposed rules regarding the pH factor and the
proposed rules regarding testing for lead and copper so as to
provide for less complex, more achievable and more cost - effective
standards and methods.
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTEST:
Date Mayor
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
League of Minnesota Cities
April 25, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks
Water Utility Supervisors
183 University Ave. East
St. Paul, MN 55101 -2526
(612) 227 -5600 (FAX: 221 -0986)
FROM: Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison
SUBJECT: Calculating local cost of compliance with National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations on Maximum Contamination
Levels for Lead (and Copper)
What the concern is about
Last fall, the League first signaled concern regarding the preliminary
federal drinking water regulations on lead contamination proposed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The League's concern stemmed
from realization that nearly all city operated water systems would
be required to install treatment facilities or take other steps to
comply with the new rules. LMC published an article on the proposed
NPDW lead contamination standards in the November, 1988 issue of
Minnesota Cities (see page 33) and issued an Action Alert to member
cities (October 17).
What is needed now
Letters of concern from Minnesota cities to members of the Minnesota
Congressional Delegation with information on the results of analysis
of the costs of the proposed monitoring, testing and treatment are
important in underlining the need for EPA to redesign and modify the
regulations before they become final.
What are the issues
Provisions of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act ban the use of lead
in public water supplies and in residences connected to those systems
Enforcement of the ban took effect last June (1988).
City officials are concerned about the extent and complexity of local
responsibility for stepped up testing and treatment procedures. The
following information is provided to assist you in determining costs
the city will be required to cover and the resulting impact on local
water utility rates for local businesses and residents.
Please read the Action Alert published in the April 21 edition of
Minnesota Cities Bulletin. There you will learn the major issues
surrounding the pending regulations and the prospect for further
congressional action on this matter.
Concern about the proposed regulations is widespread. Your help is
needed to convince members of congress to re- examine and modify the
NPDW regulations for lead and pH corrosion levels. Efforts must be
made to focus attention on the need to eliminate the most serious
threats to public health. Cities must have flexibility to comply
with federal drinking water lead contamination standards without
being forced to increase local water user rates sharply in order to
pay for stringent compliance procedures not reasonably related to
the extent of the threat to health of local residents.
HOW TO CALCULATE THE COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
The regulations require that treatment be applied to control
corrosion in pipes and household plumbing if any "no action"
lead levels are not achieved. The city must demonstrate that
the water system provides drinking water with
* lead levels are less than 10 ppb (parts per billion);
* no more than 5 percent of the testing samples contain more
than 1300 ppb of copper;
* no more than 5 percent of the samples have a pH of less than 8.
If the local water system fails to meet any of the "no action"
levels, the city must submit a treatment plan within one year
outlining the steps the water utility will take and a schedule to
provide corrosion - control treatment. (Systems that serve 3,300 or
fewer persons may have the state provide them with a treatment plan.)
Systems serving 500 to 3,300 persons have an extra year to begin
monitoring and required treatment once the EPA drinking water
rules for lead contamination are final. Systems serving less than
500 people will be given two extra years before monitoring and
treatment must begin. (But in each case, sampling and testing must
go forward as required of all systems.)
Use the following information to calculate the cost of additional
treatment for pH adjustment or corrosion inhibitors.
1. Use the figure of $20 - $50 per million gallons of water treated
to determine the annual cost of applying corrosion inhibitor or
chemicals required to make necessary pH adjustments.
2. Determine the cost of installation of equipment to feed chemicals
to the city water system. If there is a well house available for
each well in your system and there is sufficient space in the
facility to install the chemical feed equipment, the capital costs
for installation could be as low as $2,000 per installation.
•
•
•
If there is no well house with sufficient space, the cost of
providing the necessary structure and equipment could total
$14,000 or more per installation.
3. Calculate the additional cost of labor the city will need to
obtain required numbers of first -draw testing samples.
City utility operators would be required to obtain samples from
residences near the ends of the distribution system and from those
that contain lead solder less than 5 years old
For water systems that serve less than 500 service connections,
the proposed regulations require the city to obtain 10 samples the
first year, with new samples required every 5 years thereafter once
compliance has been established.
Cities serving 500 -3,000 customers would have to conduct sampling
every two years (of 10 samples). The number of samples required
increases with the number of water utility service connections:
System Size
3,300 - 10,000
10,000 - 100,000
over 100,000
The occurrence of lead in city drinking water
According to the December, 1986 EPA benefit analysis on reducing lead
in drinking water, lead occurs as a corrosion by- product that is most
often found in new housing or older housing with new plumbing where
the use of lead solder is evident. Newly installed solder is
particularly dangerous because it dissolves easily and places those
using the plumbing at risk. EPA acknowledges, however, that "...lead
concentrations in fully flushed water typical of distribution system
water, even under corrosion conditions and with new solder,(my
underlining) are generally below the currently permitted lead levels
(50 parts per billion) and usually below 20 ppb."
EPA has determined that lead occurs as a corrosion by- product and
exposure occurs from tap water that can contain significant amounts
of lead. Data collected and anlyzed from Culligan water - softening
company tests formed the basis for EPA's estimates of occurrence.
Highest lead contamination levels occur with exposure to the newest
solder. EPA also states thta the risk to inhabitants of older
housing indicates that 16 percent of such residents are at risk of
exposure to high lead levels. EPA has acknowledged uncertainty
about patterns of drinking water use and the extent of installation
of plastic piping in new construction that would reduce these estimates
Number of samples required
20 per quarter /80 per year
30 per quarter /120 per year
50 per quarter /200 per year
EPA has claimed that their studies indicate that benefits that
could result from reducing exposure to lead in public water systems
go beyond the actual health factors attributable to reducing the
risk of lead contaminination to the reduction in corrosion in servic
pipes and materials. A key point of the analysis, however, is the
emphasis that the benefit EPA attributes to reduction of lead levels
also assumes that EPA will reduce lead levels in tap water as well
as monitor lead levels in the operation of water utilities.
EPA has acknowledged that water distributed from water treatment
facilities is usually not contaminated by high lead levels, but
lead levels at the user tap can be much greater due to pipe and
solder corrosion. Use of lead service pipes and mains is not
generally a practice for most water systems, but the use of solder
and related materials is more common generally, according to EPA.
In fact, EPA has stated that "...lead concentrations in fully
flushed water...even under corrosive conditions and with new
solder, are generally below 50 ppb and usually below 20 ppb."
In the same report, the agency declared that "...levels in fully
flushed water (in community water supplies) and in distribution
water are typically low." Further, EPA acknowledged that while
corrosive waters have the highest levels of lead contamination,
non - corrosive conditions can also have significant amounts of
leaching of lead into the water supplies. The key factor in that
phenomenon appears to the presence of new solder. After 5 years,
the levels decline and "...are generally not elevated beyond 5
years... ", according to studies cited by EPA.
Another problem with the data that concerns numbers of people
trying to understand the nature of the threat from lead in drinking
water is the relationship between water lead levels and blood lead
levels. Studies used by EPA assume that there is a direct
relationship; other studies have even suggested a higher probability
of damage from exposure than a simple linear relationship.
Since lead is not believed to have any beneficial effect on human
health, elevated blood lead levels are viewed with particular
concern. Even so, EPA acknowledged that there is still much
uncertainty and lack of knowledge about lead health effects and
agreed that other analyses of benefits of reducing lead levels in
drinking water would be helpful in judging the reasonableness of
the estimates developed by EPA.
In the meantime, however, the costs of implementing standards mandated
by regulations such as those proposed by EPA for lead, copper and pH
levels in drinking water must be of concern to every responsible
city official.
Attachments
Attached please find a sample letter and council resolution regarding
the proposed EPA rules on lead and copper. Alter the sample wording
to illustrate your city's particular circumstances.
•
•
•
The Honorable
(Your representative's
name and address)
Dear Congressmen
DRAFT
The USEPA has proposed new regulations for lead and copper in drinking water
which are of great concern to our community. These rules provide for a monitoring
scheme, "no- action" levels and public education requirements that are unworkable,
unrealistic and are clearly an example of over - regulation. We believe the regula-
tion of lead and copper must be focused so that the protection of public health is
maximized without frittering away dollars for irrelevant and time - consuming tasks
with little or no public health benefit. Also, the rules do not target limited
resources to the protection of sensitive populations such as children.
We strongly recommend the following changes to the proposed EPA rules on lead
and copper:
1. Eliminate the pH "no- action" level entirely. A pH reading by itself
tells you virtually nothing about the water's corrosivity. Approximately
98% of the community water systems in Minnesota have a pH below 8.0
(the "no- action" level) and would be required to make a pH adjustment
with virtually no possibility of reducing the lead concentrations within
the residences served.
We estimate our community will be required to spend approximately $
annually to meet the proposed regulations. Not only is this treatment
unnecessary and costly but will likely result in scaling and deposits in
our water system, problems we don't need!
DRAFT
Note: (See the attached information on calculating this cost. It is important
to let your Congressman know the financial impact on your community.)
2. Monitoring Program
The selection process for sampling sites is overly complicated and will only
frustrate cities like ourselves who attempt to follow the requirements.
We recommend this part of the regulation be simplified by listing the
factors that make properties at higher risk to lead contamination and then
let the community water system use the factors to select their own sampling
sites. Also, sampling sites should not be restricted to single family
residences but should include multiple family dwellings, schools, day -care
centers and other buildings serving sensitive populations.
The proposed monitoring frequency is excessive and involves too many sites.
The collection of "first flush" samples from private residences will be
very difficult if not impossible, and there will be no way of determining
if in fact the water has remained in the plumbing system for the required
8 -18 hours.
We recommend the EPA review the monitoring requirements, recognize the
difficulties and allow the primacy entity, in this case our State Health
Department, the discretion to establish sampling criteria needed to get
the job done efficiently and effectively.
•
3. Public Education Program
DRAFT
The requirements of this section are completely unrealistic and
unachievable by a community like ours. If the EPA believes extensive
public education is needed and would be productive, it should be carried
out by the state or federal government, not by us. Our city is in the
business of providing safe drinking water but is not qualified to be
public education experts nor should we be. This section of the rule
should be removed completely.
We are all in favor of and totally support the goals of the Safe Drinking Water
program; however, the proposed new regulations for lead and copper are unworkable,
unrealistic, and provide little if any public health benefit.
These proposed rules must be changed and we ask your help in getting this
accomplished! It is our understanding that EPA is considering revisions to the proposed
rules. We strongly request that any revisions to the proposed rules be again submitted
for public comment before they are adopted.
Sincerely,
-3-
SAMPLE DRAFT OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING
PROPOSED NEW EPA RULES FOR LEAD AND COPPER
WHEREAS, The City of , Mn. has a population of
WHEREAS, The municipal water system is supplied by wells from the
acquifer
WHEREAS, The municipal water system meets all federal and state standards
for potable water,
WHEREAS, Proposed EPA rules mandate certain testing and pH requirements
in muncipal water systems,
WHEREAS, The proposed rules will place an unnecessary financial burden
on the users of the system by requiring costly installation of a
treatment system,
WHEREAS, The chemical supply and maintenance of the required treatment
system will be a continuing financial burden,
WHEREAS, The required testing procedures are too complex,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of
respectfully requests that the Congress of the United States ammend
the proposed rules requiring a pH factor of 8 or over and further
requests the sampling methods as required be changed to allow for
a less complex and simplified method of testing for lead in the
water system.
'6l? j 227 -5600
183 University Ave. :t E.,
,r1Yp w�G
•
•
October 17, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks
FROM: Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison
SUBJECT: Proposed Rule for National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
City officials have serious concerns about the workability and steep
cost increases that are likely to affect water utility operating costs
if new proposed federal drinking water regulations are implemented as
now proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
regulations call for the elimination of lead contamination of drinking
water supplies. EPA published the proposed new regulations on August 18.
Some 53,000 water utilities throughout the nation will be affected.
It is expected that nearly all systems in Minnesota will be required to
install treatment equipment and /or to take other measures to comply with
new standards for maximum contamination levels.
The official comment period on the proposed regulations has ended. It is
nevertheless, very important for city officials to make your concerns
known directly to members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation.
Comments and examples of the impact on local water utility operations
and potential impact on utility rates for city residents should also be
brought to the attention of Representative Gerry Sikorski (6CD -MN) who
serves on the House Environment and Commerce Committee. He authored
legislation (H.R. 4939) during the '88 Congress. As originally
drafted, the bill would have imposed far - reaching mandates on cities to
regulate the level of lead in drinking water. While the bill was amended
to remove features in conflict with the current EPA regulatory process,
concerns over the threat of lead contamination in the environment may
cause the effort to be renewed in 1989. (Addresses for Representative
Sikorski's local and D.C. offices are listed on the next page.)
Since members of Congress are out of session for the November elections,
make it a priority to contact them while they are in the state. Senator
Durenberger also serves on a committee of jurisdiction on this issue:
the Senate Environment Committee. It is important to communicate your
concerns to him as well. Pay particular attention to the impact of
the proposed increased regulation of lead and pH levels on the local
water utility operation and let lawmakers know the potential for cost
increases to the city and for residents who must pay increased rates
to cover the costs for new treatment and corrosion control measures
that may be imposed if regulations are adopted as originally proposed.
For drinking water systems serving less than 500, the new regulations
would require water utility operators to take 10 samples for testing an
to submit an annual report on maximum lead and copper contaminants and
pH levels in the first year; in the following years, water utilities
serving populations of less than 500 would submit additional reports
every 5 years in order to comply with the new regulations. Cities
serving 500 -3,300 would be required to obtain 10 samples for testing
ta,ohtain 1 sam p l es f tom -- and submit an annual report the first
year and then repeat the sampling every 2 years. Cities serving 3,300-
10,000 would be required to sample 20 units each quarter. Cities
serving 10,000 - 100,000 would have to have 30 samples tested each
quarter. Systems serving over 100,000 would require 50 samples
per quarter. Testing parameters would also be expanded, significantly
increasing the cost of testing.
The proposed federal drinking water regulations are designed to
to prevent corrosion of lead and copper plumbing material by water
and to remove lead from distributed water. The federal Safe Drinking
Water Act requires that final regulations be promulgated no later than
June 19, 1989. The proposed NPDWRs require water utility operators
to meet "no action" levels for lead, copper, and pH. If maximum
contamination levels (MCL) are not achieved, cities would be required
to install or improve corrosion control treatment (best available
technology), drill new wells or blend water from other sources. Very
complex and costly sampling and testing requirements would also add to
the cost of local water utility operations.
Currently, the maximum contamination level (MCL) for lead in
drinking water is 0.050 mg /1; in the future it would be 0.005 mg /1.
Another way of expressing the measure is parts per billion; the
current standard is 50 parts per billion (50 ppb); the new limit
would be set at 10 ppb.
Copper is not considered nearly as toxic; the current MCL for copper
is 1.0 mg /1; the new proposed maximum contamination level is 1.3 mg /1.
The proposed NPDWR rules also require a pH level for drinking water
of not less than 8.0. Many water systems and groundwater sources
in Minnesota are stable at a pH lower than 8. Water utility
operators strongly object to the arbitrary assignment of a specific
minimum pH level and point out that requiring cities to raise the
level to 8.0 will require purchase of costly equipment and chemical
treatment supplies and result in scaling and deposits in the
distribution and plumbing system. It is evident that pH should not be
included in a criterion since there is no reliable correlation between
pH and the leaching of lead from plumbing systems.
The proposed regulations would also require city water utility
operators to initiate and carry out sample site selection that
is complex, unworkable and costly. The rule would require a
first -draw sampling in indvidual residences. At each monitoring
point, the city would have to meet the maximum contamination
level. If not, combined treatment would be required. The sampling
procedures would require utility operators to obtain samples at the
•
•
tap as a "morning first - draw" or another 8 -18 hours standing sample.
The sampled units would be required to have either new lead solder
(less than 5 years old) or lead service connections or interior
plumbing.
National figures on the cost of corrosion control, public
education and compliance with maximum contaminant levels indicate
that for very small (under 500) drinking water systems, meeting the
new MCL requirements would increase rates by $340 per year for single -
family residence service lines. The cost of installing corrosion
control treatment measures would increase individual water utility
rates by $27 per year.
Costs for larger systems are somewhat less per ratepayer but are
cause for serious concern for city officials who must implement
standards mandated by regulations. In many instances, the costs may
far outdistance the degree of public benefit derived since lead levels
in drinking water had not previously been viewed as a state or local
public heath issue requiring costly treatment and corrosion control.
Address :
Representative Gerry Sikorski
414 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
•
8060 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
•
•
Akww^ regulation alert
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Utility Executive Directors and Sections RA- 08 -88a
Government Affairs Office
EPA PROPOSES RULES ON LEAD
August 23, 1988
Introduction
On August 18, 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register (40
CFR Parts 141 and 142) proposed new requirements to minimize
lead and copper in drinking water. The proposal is under the
auspices of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
includes:
WUC Regulatory Cmte
Larry McReynolds, Chmn
Los Angeles Water & Power
Box 1 1 1 Room 1455
Los Angeles, CA 90051
Wayne Abbott
Ann Arbor Utilities Dept
City Hall
PO Box 8647
Ann Arbor, MI 48107
Annabel Delong
Union Williams Pub. Serv.
P. O. Box 243
Waverly, WV 26184
Chuck Froman
Gary Hobart Water Corp
650 Madison
Gary, IN 46401
George Haskew
Hackensack Water Co
200 Old Hook Road
Harrington Park, NJ 07690
Wendell Inhoffer
Passaic Valley Water Comm
1525 Main Avenue
PO Box 230
Clifton, NJ 07015
Don Jackson
Regional Water Authority
90 Sergent Drive
New Haven, CT 06511
Ted Pope
Orlando Utilities Comm
1 Box 3193
Orlando, FL 32802
Ken Stone
Vermont Health Dept
60 Main Street
PO Box 70
Burlington, VT 05401
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICE: 1010 Vermont Ave., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 6288303
1) New Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for Lead and
Copper
2) Corrosion Control Requirements
3) Public Education Measures
These new rules as presented will effect virtually all of the
suppliers of drinking water, regardless of size of population
served. The rule applies to all community water systems and all
non - transient ndh- community systems. EPA estimates that
approximately 53,000 public water systems might be effected by
the corrosion control proposal with a total estimated cost of $1
billion (and we think these estimates may be low).
1. Maximum Contaminant Levels
Lead
The new MCL for lead is proposed to be 0.005 mg /I (5 ppb)
at the entry to the distribution system which is a major change
from the current lviCL of 0.050 mg /I (50 ppb) at the "free flowing
tap" as established in 1975, (40 CFR, Section 141.11(b)). The
maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) has been reduced from
0.020 mg /1 recommended in November 1985 to zero.
Copper
There is a current national secondary drinking water
regulation (NSDWR) for copper of I mg /1 (1000 ppb). Secondary
regulations are not federally enforceable and are considered
guidelines only. This new rule proposes to set an MCL
(enforceable) for copper of 1.3 mg /I (1300 ppb) at the entry to
the distribution system.
The number and frequency of sampling varies according to the
system size and also the source of the raw water. If the analysis
shows that MCL's are exceeded in ONE sample, the water supplier
will be required to install a treatment technology or trice other
steps to reduce the concentrations of lead and copper in distributed water. The EPA has designated
several treatment technologies as best available treatment technologies, (tAT's) any one (or
combination of which) may work.
•
[he time tables for MCL compliance monitoring are, again, dependent on the system size. For a
system serving less than 500 persons, monitoring must begin by 2] months after the rule is published
and must be completed by 42 months after rule publication. Similarly, systems serving between 500
and 3300 persons must begin by 15 months after and be complete by 30 months after publication.
Large systems ( 3300 persons) have the shortest time schedules and must begin monitoring by 3 months
and be complete by 18 months after the rule is published.
2. Corrosion Control
Additional sampling will be required at the consumers' tap in order to determine whether
treatment for corrosion control will be required. (See Public Comment Item No. 2 below.) These
samples must be taken in the morning from the first draw of tap water (or other 8 -18 hour standing
samples) and from service lines. These samples also be obtained from turyeted buildings that are most
likely to have lead in the drinking water. Targeted homes can be found at the ends of the distribution
system, and /or can have either new lead solder (less than 5 years old) or lead service connections or
lead interior plumbing. The number and frequency of this sampling is as follows and could represent a
significant increase in the levels of testing currently being performed.
Population Served Number of Samples
Corrosion control treatment is required if the arithmetic average amount of lead in the samples
is greater than 0.010 rng /1 (10 ppb). It is also required if more than 5% of the samples contain greater
than 1.3 mg /1 (1300 ppb) of copper. Similarly, if the pH of more than 5% of the samples is less than 8,
corrosion control treatment is required.
When these "no action" levels are exceeded, the water supplier must apply for or develop a
treatment plan to be approved by the primacy ayency. In addition to installing corrosion control
methods, the utilities must also implement a public education program. The public education program
can also be trigyered (without corrosion control) if more than 5% of the lead samples exceed 0.020
mg /1 (20 ppb).
3. Public Education
<500 10 per year in first year, repeated every 5 years
500 -3300 10 per year in first year, repeated every 2 years
3301 - 10,000 20 per quarter
10,001- 100,000 30 per quarter
>100,000 50 per quarater
•
The purpose of the public education program is to enable consumers to reduce their exposure to
lead in drinking water more than it would be possible to throuyh corrosion control alone. Elements
included in this program must include:
o the causes and potential health effects of excess levels of lead
o actions the water supplier has taken to evaluate and correct the problem
o information that the water user can take to detect the presence of and mitigate the
exposure to lead in drinking water.
As proposed, the education program will be the water system's responsibility and must 4r)
active. An active program may include the following:
•
•
•
o radio and television announcements
o newspaper advertisements
o public meetings
o notices in the water bill, pamphlets, brochures
o local telephone notlines.
Additionally, systems serving more than 10,000 persons roust, within 12 months after a public
education program is undertaken, (and every 24 months thereafter) evaluate the extent to which the
program is effective.
Both corrosion control treatment and public education must be approved by the Primacy Agent.
Public Comments 1
EPA is considering several alternatives to the proposed rule and has requested public comment on
a number of issues and approaches related to this regulation. (See page 31546 of the proposal.) Some
of these are as follows:
I) Should EPA control corrosion by- products with MCL's or a treatment technique?
2) Is an MCL measured at the tap more or Tess appropriate than the proposed MCL with
treatment technique for corrosion control?
3) EPA requests data on contributions of lead service lines to lead levels at tin tap.
4) Should EPA establish national requirements for accelerated lead service line replacement?
5) What are the effects of lead MCL's from partial service line replacement?
6) Would the proposed public education program reduce exposure to potentially excessive levels
of lead in drinking water?
7) Are the proposed analytical techniques technically adequate and economically feasible?
8) What will be the effects of the proposed requirements on State programs?
Our preliminary analysis indicates that we have the following concerns: (not a complete list by
any means)
I) The pH no- action level is not a real indication of a lead problem and should be dropped.
Meeting the lead and copper no- action levels are the key issues and should not be diluted.
2) EPA has adopted many of our previously submitted suggestions in this rule including specific
language into the preamble to reduce utility responsibility. However, we need to continue to
insure that an MCL at the tap (or anywhere beyond the control of the utility) is NOT considered
in the future.
3) We concur with the stated adverse health effects of even very low blood lead levels,
however, some questions do exist regarding the contribution of lead in drinking water to those
blood lead levels. This is discussed in a recent study for AWWA /FtF by Karch and Associates.
Exposure to lead through drinking water should be further addressed with adequate and accurate
research. While the EPA correlation coefficient of 20% may be quite accurate, it appears to
lack adequate documentation.
4) The sampling requirement for the no- action levels may be quite heavy and will be costly as
well as difficult to execute. This issue deserves extensive input from the field.
5) The classification of lead as a "probable human carcinogen" is a weak case and not really an
important issue with the lead standards proposed. It is, however, an example of a classific
based on un- proven and marginal scientific facts and should be commented on.
6) The public education requirements are a very large unknown that could be very expensive
with limited payback in real benefits. There is also a major concern that the utility is being held
responsible merely as an act of convenience. Public education is a community -wide
responsibility which the utilities should certainly participate in, but NOT have to shoulder the
entire burden.
7) Forced accelerated replacement of lead service lines and connections is not a realistic
option. Not only would it be cost prohibitive, it would have little impact on total lead exposure
since it involves a partial solution at best. Each utility should address this issue head on with
data on quantities involved and potential impact. An important aspect of this is the limits of
ownership of their service lines. Utilities should also submit hard legal and contractural
documentation stating the limits of their control.
Comments on these issues, as well as many others, may be presented to EPA during any /all of the
three scheduled Public Hearings:
Washington, D.C. September 28,29 GSA Kegional Auditorium
Chicago, IL October 3,4 The Federal Building
Seattle, WA October 6,7 The Park Place Building
We will yet you more later as it becomes available, including the results of our legal review, but
DO NO WAIT for our final input. Start your own investigation of this issue NOW and be prepared to
comment individually as well as collectively through your Section and AWWA as a whole. T is
significant rule will not only have a major impact in and of itself, but will set the tone for future
of a similar nature. The deadline for submittals to EPA is 17, 1988 and should be sent to:
Lead and Copper Comment Clerk
Office of Drinking Water (WH -550)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Copies of your comments should also be sent to the AWWA Government Affairs Office in
Washington.
AWWA
1010 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 810
Washington, D.C. 20005
IFCEIVED SEP 9
oc
SOY
27141 26 NOL A36 RA *BA
H R SPURRIER
BROOKLYN CENTER WTR & SWR
6301 SHINGLE CRK PKY
BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430
FIRST CLASS
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT # 3539
ROCKVILLE, MD.
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 8, 1989:
CATERING FOOD VEHICLE,
Penguin Ice Cream
CIGARETTE
Brooks Superette
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Baskin Robbins
Boulevard Superette
Brooks Superette
Gloria Jean's Coffee Bean
Pizza Hut
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation
Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Air Comfort, Inc.
Care Heating and Air Cond., Inc.
Dependable Heating & Air Cond., Inc.
Green Mechanical, Inc.
Igloo Heating and A /C, Inc.
Kraemer Heating
Minnesota Heating & A/C
Pfiffner Heating & Air Cond.
Thompson Air, Inc.
Ray Welter Heating Co.
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Iten Chevrolet
SIGN HANGER
Cragg, Inc.
Kaufman Sign Co.
Lawrence Signs, Inc.
Leroy Signs, Inc.
Nordquist Sign Co., Inc.
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT
Carson Pirie Scott
SWIMMING POOL
Brookwood Estates
Holiday Inn
411/ GENERAL APPROVAL:
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk
1461 Belmont Lane
6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
1277 Brookdale Center
6912 Brooklyn Blvd.
6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
1119 Brookdale Center
5806 Xerxes Ave. N.
Central Park
Earle Brown Days Parade : /1 . 4/11�/ 1 tzi t.
Sanitarian
3944 Louisiana Circle
1211 Old Highway 8
2619 Coon Rapids Blvd.
8811 E. Research Cntr. Rd.
11440 Lakeland Dr. N.
7441 Dallas Court
6908 Georgia Ave. N.
6301 Welcome Ave. N.
5115 Hanson Court
4637 Chicago Avenue
6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
7150 Madison Ave. W.
315 Washington Ave. N.
945 Pierce Butler Route
6325 Welcome Ave. N.
312 West Lake Street
1200 Brookdale Center
6201 North Lilac Drive
2200 Freeway Blvd.
Chief of Police,'
City Clerk
Sanitarian r;K
ti
(_•C_. C11/wn4
Building Official
City Clerk
Sanitarian
Building Official
Sanitarian 4e,(L
(ALMEMO)
MEMORANDUM
maLL-wracrt, - 4 1
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
TO: Mayor Nyquist and Members of the City Council
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Department of Finance
DATE: May 8, 1989
SUBJECT: Northbrook Liquor Store Lease
During the past winter, the Northbrook Shopping Center came under new ownership.
It was purchased by Northbrook Partners. The City has operated a liquor store in
the shopping center since 1971. Since November 1, 1987, we have operated without
a contract, and have continued under the terms of the expired lease on a month -to
-month basis. That lease established a $4.57 per square foot, triple net, rental.
We are currently renting 4,375 square feet.
Northbrook Partners is in the process of remodeling the center. Included in the
remodeling plans is the relocation of our Northbrook store. Under the plan, the
store would remain in the same building that it is currently located, but the
store will be reduced to 3,520 square feet and completely reversed so that it will
front on 57th Avenue North. We reduced the square footage to make it more afford-
able, so we will have slightly less space then we do currently, but we will have
much better accessibility to our customers.
The result of our negotiations has provided the following proposed lease:
1. The lease would be for a period of five years.
2. The first three years of the lease would be at a rental rate of $7.00 per
square foot, triple net.
3. The fourth and fifth year of the lease would be at a rental rate of $8.00 per
square foot, triple net.
4. Northbrook Partners will provide at their expense:
a. New roof
b. New ceiling
c. New lights
d. HVAC to adequately heat and cool 3,520 square feet.
e. New demising walls
f. Rough -in new bathroom
g. New store front
•
(NORTHBROOK LIQUOR STORE LEASE MEMORANDUM CONTINUED)
5. We will provide at our expense:
a. Painting interior
b. Finish bathroom
c. Relocate cooler
d. Relocate fixtures
e. Carpeting
f. Electrical outlets
It is the opinion of the Liquor Stores' Manager, Jerry Olson, that the increased
exposure and convenient parking that we will have fronting on 57th Avenue, along
with the upgrading of both the store and the shopping center, will allow us to
increase sales at the store in sufficient volume to offset the additional rental.
If the City Council is in agreement with the store relocation and the terms of the
new lease, it should so signify by adopting the following motion:
"Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with
Northbrook Partners for the rental of space in the Northbrook Shopping Center to
be used for the Northbrook Liquor Store."
Ciowl toy, cLLet..,
Paul W. Holmlund, Director