Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 12-19 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DECEMBER 19, 1988 7 p.m. 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. Recess to EDA 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. December 5, 1988 - Regular Session 8. Resolutions: *a. Amending the 1988 General Fund Budget for the Lodging Tax *b. Amending the 1988 General Fund Budget to Increase Appropriations for Various Operating Departments *c. Authorizing a Capital Project's Fund Appropriation for the Acquisition of Tax Forfeit Land along Shingle Creek and Closing the Project d. Amending the 1988 General Fund Budget to Provide for Wage and Salary Adjustments e. Setting Wages and Salaries for Calendar Year 1989 *f. Approving Sick Leave for the Public Works Coordinator *g. Establishing Water Hookup Rates for Calendar Year 1989 *h. Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Improvement Projects in Residential Areas in 1989 *i. Accepting Bids and Authorizing Purchase of Four Police Patrol Sedans *j. Amending the 1988 General Fund Budget for a State Grant for a Community Energy Conservation Project CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- December 19, 1988 *k. Acknowledging Gift from the Korean Presbyterian Church of the Twin Cities -$200 gift 1. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Contracting for Services for a Community Survey 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 88018 submitted by Packaging Plus, Inc. requesting variance approval from City Council Resolution No. 77 -67, which governs wall signery along the north walls of 6800, 6820, and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, to allow wall signs not more than 11 feet above the building floor grade -This item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1988, meeting. At the applicant's request the Planning Commission did not refer the item to the City Council, allowing the applicant time to submit additional information. The Planning Commission recommended application No. 88018 be submitted to the City Council for denial at its December 8, 1988, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 88023 submitted by Gary Przymus requesting special use permit approval to conduct a reupholstering business out of the garage of the residence at 7012 Regent Avenue North -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its December 8, 1988, meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 88024 submitted by Shingle g Creek Land Company requesting preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into five lots the vacant land north of I -94 between James Circle and Humboldt Avenue North -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its December 8, 1988, meeting. 1. Approval of Final Plat and Subdivision Agreement 2. Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility Easement in Lot 3 Block 1 Richardson r n Addition 3. Ordinance Vacating the Street Easement in Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482 d. Planning Commission Application No. 88025 submitted by Bruce Neilson requesting special use permit approval to conduct an entertainment agency as a home occupation with one nonresident employee in the lower level of the residence at 3801 53rd Avenue North -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its December 8, 1988, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- December 19, 1988 10. Discussion Item: a. IRS Section 89 Compliance -Mr. Andy Prekker, representing D.C.A., Inc. and Moore, Costello & Hart (Attorneys at Law), will present a proposal to advise and audit the City on compliance with Section 89 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to our health and other benefit plans 11. Consideration of Specified Licenses: *a. On -sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses: - Beacon Bowl -Chuck Wagon Inn -City of Brooklyn Center (Centerbrook Golf Course) - Davanni's Pizza Denny's Restaurant -The Fifty's Grill - Little Brooklyn -Pizza Hut -Rocky Rococo - Scoreboard Pizza *b. Off -sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses: - Brooks Superette - Country Club Market - Country Store (Red Owl) - Jerry's New Market -Super America No. 4160 -Super America No. 4058 C. On -sale Club License - Brooklyn Center American Legion No. 630 *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment r { 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 DECEMBER 5, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Assistant Director of Finance Charlie Hansen, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Theis. 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. No requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 24 1988 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to. approve the minutes of the October 24, 1988, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7 1988 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1988, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 8 1988 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the November 8, 1988, special City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 21 1988 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the November 21, 1988, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 12/5/88 -1- �I r RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 88 -196 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CLOSING PROJECT COSTS AND APPROPRIATIONS IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -197 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION AND CLOSING THE PROJECT FOR THE CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 N. Lilac Dr. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Minnegasco 201 S. 7th St. SIGN HANGER Designer Sign Systems 3601 85th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION - CHARTER COMMISSION RETIRING MEMBERS The City Manager said Charter Commission members Donn Escher and Jean Schiebel were retiring members of the commission. Mayor Nyquist presented plaques to each of the retiring members. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO 88 -198 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DONN ESCHER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. 12/5/88 -2- 4 RESOLUTION N0, 88 -199 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JEAN SCHIEBEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS HOUSING COMMISSION There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to appoint Robert Torres to the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to appoint Nicholas Eoloff as chairperson of the Housing Commission until a new chairperson is appointed for 1989. The motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENT TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF LOCAL OFFICIALS FOR THE NEWLY DESIGNATED FEDERAL MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARK The City Manager said the designation for the Federal Mississippi River Park has been made and an advisory committee will be appointed. He suggested appointing Councilmember Scott, who has been involved in this issue for some time, as the Brooklyn Center representative. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to appoint Councilmember Scott to the advisory committee of local officials for the newly designated Federal Mississippi River Park. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO 88 -200 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -201 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. 12/5/88 -3- Y RESOLUTION NO. 88 -202 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY AND WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM (HOME ENERGY CHECKUPS) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -203 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MINNEGASCO AND WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM (PROJECT AIR) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager said the resolution awarding insurance contracts is recommended for approval by staff. The Director of Finance proceeded to highlight and explain information regarding the contracts. Councilmember Theis asked if the City deals through Jerry Coughlin, and the Director of Finance responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -204 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING INSURANCE CONTRACTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION BY METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Art Cunningham, Metro Waste Control Commissioner, who said he represents the precinct which includes Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Osseo, New Hope, and part of Minneapolis. He said his purpose for appearing at this evening's Council meeting is to tell the Council about the Metro Waste Control Commission and explain its rates. Commissioner Cunningham proceeded to provide some history on the commission and discuss its budget and rates for 1988 and 1989. He highlighted three major projects in which the commission is now involved. Commissioner Cunningham thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak before it and said he can be notified at 544 -6020; his office is at Mears Park Centre, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101. ORDINANCES NANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. He said this item was first read on November 7, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on November 17, 1988, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He noted there is a companion 12/5/88 -4- i i ordinance with this one, and the Council should pass one or the other of the ordinances. The companion ordinance is An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles. The City Manager said this item was first read on July 11, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and offered for a second reading on August 8, 1988. It was tabled at the August 8, 1988, September 19, 1988, and October 24, 1988, Council meetings. He reviewed the changes made to the ordinance amending Chapter 19 which were made subsequent to the November 7, 1988, Council meeting. Councilmember Scott asked how the City will determine the difference between a farm vehicle and a yard tractor. The Director of Planning and Inspection said this would be based on size, and the City Manager added that this is subject to some interpretation. Councilmember Lhotka asked for further explanation of Section 12 -e of the ordinance amending Chapter 19, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said this addresses legal commercial nonconforming uses in residential districts. Councilmember Theis referenced section 12 -d, inquiring what "publicly owned structures" are. The Director of Planning and Inspection said buildings like the City's pumphouses, utility buildings, and wells located in residential districts would be considered publicly owned structures. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. He recognized Mr. Roger Morin, 6107 Scott Avenue North, who said he is self - employed and owns a truck that is 23 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 11 feet 6 inches in height. He requested the Council to reconsider the size of the vehicle allowed by the proposed ordinance and suggested allowing one vehicle per residence. He added some motor homes are 36 feet long, and he feels if those can be parked at a residence, his truck, which is smaller, should also be able to be parked at his home. Mr. Morin added he starts his truck during regular hours, and he does not do repair work on it at home. He added if he has to park his truck at another location, he will have to purchase another vehicle in order to get to that location. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Morin what type of truck he has, and Mr. Morin said it is a one and one -half ton straight truck. Mayor Nyquist noted he received a phone call at 11:30 p.m. last night from a resident whose neighbor was running a diesel truck. The City Manager said the rationale behind this ordinance is the more you allow commercial activities in a residential area, the less residential the area becomes. Mayor Nyquist noted he has also received complaints regarding boats parked in residential areas. The City Manager pointed out this is recreational equipment as opposed to commercial equipment, and the City does not receive as many complaints about boats as it does about commercial vehicles. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the ublic e p hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka asked how long the City has been working on this ordinance, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said it has been more than one year. 12/5/88 -5- Councilmember Lhotka said this is an ordinance in which the City Council and staff have looked at every option, and it boils down to deciding if a residential area is for residents and commercial areas are for commercial business. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -20 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS A PUBLIC NUISANCE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis. Councilmember Lhotka said this amendment includes changes made since the first reading, which include a length of 21 feet and a height of 8 feet, plus other changes made to the ordinance amendment. Councilmember Scott said she will vote against this ordinance amendment. She said initially, the intent was to try to prevent people from bringing semi - trucks home, and the City is going from having no ordinance to one that will be too restrictive. She added there are some people who have small vans which are not the least bit obstructive, and this ordinance will cause a lot of people problems. Councilmember Lhotka disagreed, saying to his knowledge, the ordinance amendment from the start was not strictly for semi- trucks. He said a resident has a right to his yard, activities, and peace of mind. Councilmember Scott said she has received many complaints regarding semi- trucks, but not for smaller vehicles. Councilmember Lhotka said he did not understand why Councilmember Scott was just now making her objections known, and Councilmember Scott said she has objected to this in the past. Mayor Nyquist asked about the nuisance ordinances that may control diesel noise and fumes, and the City Manager said the City generally tries to follow through on such complaints. Mayor Nyquist pointed out the initial discussion of the Council included the problems related to noise as opposed to size. The City Manager pointed out that enforcing the noise ordinance is difficult and in reviewing other City's ordinances, gross vehicle weight and size were used to set limits. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted staff presented a number of ordinances to the City Council in April or May of this year, and this ordinance was one the City Council felt was a problem area which needed to be addressed immediately. He added this ordinance amendment was considered to be more direct and easier to deal with than some of the others. Mayor Nyquist asked what the difference is between this ordinance as opposed to the nuisance ordinance, and the City Manager said sound and noise problems are difficult to enforce and measure, while this one would be easier to enforce. Mayor Nyquist suggested if the ordinance is passed, there should be a phase -in period. The City Manager said a six -month period should be adequate for phasing in. the ordinance. Councilmember Scott said there are a number of people who work in Brooklyn Center who have to take their vehicles home and would not be able to do so if the ordinance is passed. She said this will create problems for some people. The City Attorney said the Council could specify a later effective date of the ordinance which does not make the ordinance any less sudden, but people could be 12/5/88 -6- notified in advance of the changes. The City Manager noted that even if the effective date is delayed, there will still be people who will be surprised by this ordinance. He added the usual progression is to send a letter requesting compliance, issue a warning, and then finally issue a hard tag. There was some discussion on how people would be notified of the ordinance amendment. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to amend his original mot -ion for approving An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. The amendment is to change the effective date of the ordinance to June 1, 1989. The motion passed with Councilmember Scott voting against it. Upon vote being taken on the amended original motion regarding An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance, the motion passed with Councilmember Scott voting against it. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -21 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption with the effective date of it as June 1, 1989: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances and said this item is offered this evening for a first reading. The Director of Planning and Inspection highlighted this ordinance amendment. Councilmember Lhotka asked how the City would determine if a .parking area is gravel, because over time gravel can get washed away. There was some discussion on the use of gravel in driveways, and the City Manager suggested staff may want to look at this further. Councilmember Theis asked how fish houses would fit into this ordinance, and there was discussion of the necessity of screening fish houses from public view. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table action on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinance by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. ORDINANCES (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Outside Storage, and he said this item is offered this evening for a first reading. He noted this ordinance amendment is a result of 12/5/88 -7- the Tires Plus case, and it would prohibit use of semitrailers for storage. Councilmember Hawes noted many gas stations store display items, such as pop and antifreeze, in front of their buildings and questioned the practice of this. The Director of Planning and Inspection said the ordinance allows four feet around a building for displays. Councilmember Lhotka asked about prohibiting shipping containers, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said if a shipping container is in a commercial zone, it must be screened. He added this is not included in the amendment. Councilmember Lhotka said he would like to see large storage containers included in this ordinance amendment. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for a first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Outside Storage to include large storage containers as part of the ordinance amendment and setting a public hearing date of January 3, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Abatement of Nuisances and Assessment of the Costs of Abatement and noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. Councilmember Lhotka expressed concern about having nuisance ordinances when they cannot be enforced, and he asked what could be done to put some teeth into the nuisance ordinance. The City Attorney said there is not an easy answer to this but noted enforcement problems are usually borderline cases. There are other cases when there is a clear violation, and the use of the nuisance ordinance is successful. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for a first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Abatement of Nuisances and Assessment of the Costs of Abatement and setting a public hearing date of January 3, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSES ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE CLASS A ($8,000 PER YEAR) There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve on -sale intoxicating liquor license class A for Red Lobster. The motion passed unanimously. ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE CLASS B ($11,000 PER YEAR) There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses class B for Applebees, Earle Brown Bowl, Green Mill Inn, Ground Round Restaurant, Days Inn, Holiday Inn, T. Wright's, and La Casita. The motion passed unanimously. ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE CLASS C ($14,_000 PER YEAR) Councilmember Scott asked what can be done about the calls the police department receives from Lynbrook Bowl, and there was some discussion about this. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the actual food ercenta e is at Lynbrook rook Bow P 1 g y , and the City Manager said it is 44 %. He noted management is cooperative and calls the police department when there are problems at this location. 12/5/88 -8- S There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve an on -sale intoxicating liquor license class C for Lynbrook Bowl. The motion passed unanimously. ON -SALE SUNDAY INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE (8200 PER YEAR) There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve on -sale Sunday intoxicating liquor licenses for Red Lobster, Applebees, Earle Brown Bowl, Green Mill Inn, Ground Round Restaurant, Days Inn, Holiday Inn, T. Wright's, Lynbrook Bowl, and La Casita. The motion passed unanimously. ON -SALE WINE LICENSE There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve on -sale wine licenses for Denny's Restaurant and Dayton's. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS ISSUE PRIORITY LISTING UPDATE The City Manager said he will present the Issue Priority Listing Update to the City Council on approximately a quarterly basis. There was discussion on the use of a community survey. Councilmember Scott referenced the D.A.R.E. program in which the police department will be participating, and noted there are expensive start -up costs for this program. She asked if state grant money is being pursued, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Theis suggested it would be a good idea to prepare a year -end status report on the priority listing for those who participated in the planning process. GROUP INSURANCE REVIEW The Director of Finance reviewed the City employee insurance plans, including health, dental, and life insurance coverage. He identified the administrators . of the program and the current providers for health insurance. He reviewed the City's open enrollment period for health coverage, the number of employees and retirees on each health plan, the 1989 premiums, and reasons why medical costs continue to escalate. He briefly highlighted the group dental program and proceeded to discuss the group term life insurance plan. The Director of Finance reviewed the City's monthly contribution for group insurance and the City Manager's proposal for the City /employee share of insurance. He discussed the use of the City's maximum contribution by employees taking single health coverage. The Director of Finance reviewed the action which will be requested of the City Council at its December 19, 1988, meeting and issues the City Council should consider for future action. He noted the insurance premiums for January are due in December, and if there is some assurance that the Council will approve a maximum monthly contribution of $205 per employee, the Finance Department could proceed with paper work to handle this. There were no objections from the Council. to do this. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:38 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 12/5/88 -9- ' CITY OF BRO OKLYN CENTER Council M I • REQUEST FOR meeting Date /aL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COUNCIL CON Agenda Item Number ITEM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SIDERATIOIV DE SCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING * * * * * * * ** THE 1988 GENERA * * *� * ** F *ND BUDG DEPT. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** FOR THE LODGING TAX APPROVAL IC�.� , k Signatu _� MANA GER'S REVIEVRECOMMEND * * * * * ** No c omments to supplement this report �-- Comments below /attached Y EXPLANATION; ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * ** * a (su PP►emen #al * * * * * * * ** sheets attached When the ----_ bureau, Lodging Tax was i nitiat ed nl teat in 1986 was basis anticipated ed collects O n for the sales tax we could to sup the convention ° n behalf of some other for it on the and was received, it would government units.taxes which the citsame as a revenue. When be set up as a That is, when money would be re disbursed to the o �he bll ity rather auditors leived rathe than recorded have advised u than tugovernment, the 1• conventi s t a expendire b liabilit n bureau that since the City t ded, pu her than the recorrllty be show as revenu is he taxin Y, rat g authority in this expenditures for th city. case the tax must Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR THE LODGING TAX WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for increasing the amount fixed in the budget resolution, but only to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimates and then not beyond the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 86 -08 created chapter 22 of the City Ordinances relating to a tax imposed upon lodging; and WHEREAS, for accounting purposes the City has been treating this as a pass through tax collected on behalf of the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau and not as a City revenue and expenditure; and WHEREAS, the City's auditors have determined that the proper accounting for this requires it to show as a City revenue and expenditure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by it City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1988 General Fund Budget by increasing the estimated Lodging Tax revenues and the appropriation for Convention and Tourism by $175,000.00. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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 thefollowing voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. i i i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Council Meeting Date REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CO ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** NSIDER Agenda Item Number IT EM DESCRIPTION: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CON SIDERATION RESOLUTION AMENDING APPROPRIATIONSEFOR88 GENERAL FUND * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** VARIOUS O PERATING D D E P TO INCREASE _ DEPARTMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *g nat * ** F - title MANA GER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION; No c omments to supplement this repo Comments b elow /attach SUMMA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RY EXPLANATION: ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (supplemental sheets attached The attached resolution .department adjusts ---__ necessar should exceed its o that the '1988 General Fund Y because of the a ppropriation, budget s Preparation and the eighteen month This adjustment becomes no d epartments conclusion la se acti listed in section of the budget of time between budget Y than were 1 � there sim Year. In the case of t by a transfer anticipated and these s were higher levels of listed from the contingency co s were in section 2 s will h , there gency appropritation to offset , to be ' For the dep artments ire Department are higher revenues budgeted and this w as eC eived state , partments The F to the Fire passed h igher Aension aid which was the expense. in more Relief Asso sed throug as a h higher than special assessments Higher weed pensi Of special asse on contribution ssments , but bemuse of cutting costs will Years. The two some of these rev Of h e inherent Problems r esult - levels recreation de partments ex timing problems resulting in both ex perienced hig received revenue and expenditure increases in future arti ci pa ti on Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR VARIOUS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS ------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; 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; and WHEREAS, in the course of carrying out city operations during 1988, some departments have found it necessary to operate at higher levels of activity than was anticipated in the 1988 Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1988 General Fund Budget as follows: 1. Transfer $ 31,000 fran the Contingency Appropriation in the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget (Account No. 01- 4995 - 000 -80) to the following departmental appropriations in the amount shown: Audit (Department No. 17) $ 2,500 Legal Counsel (Department No. 18) 10,500 Data Processing (Department No. 20) 8,000 Health Regulation and Inspection (Department No. 51) 10,000 $ 3, 1 000 2. Increase revenues and the appropriations for the following departments in the amounts listed for the reason that the actual receipts from the activity exceed the budget revenue estimate by at least the amount of the appropriation increase: Fire Department (Department No. 32) $ 11,988 Weed Control (Department No. 46) 600 Recreation Adult Programs (Department No. 62) 30,000 Recreation Teen Programs (Department No. 63) 3,000 $- 45,588 Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER.. Council Meeting Date_ /a /� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL Agenda item Number --7 � CONSIDERAT = � IT DESCRIPTION * * * * * ** ION E M * * * * * * * * ** .RESOLUTION A UTHORIZING A ACQUISITION OF TAX FORF D CAPITAL PROJECTS F ** ACQUISITION * * * * * * * * *FORFI* T ** * * ** FUND APPROPRIATION FOR ALONG SHINGLE. CREEK. AND THE DEPT. A PPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CLOSING THE PROJ * * * * * * * * *gU * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DM MANAGER'S REVIEW/RE * * * * * * * * * * ** COMMEND No comments to supplement this repo ................ --- -' Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANAT ION: * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** ** ( su Pplemental sheets attached * ** These six adjacent are 1 -ow land near Sh were acquired though they were re gle Creek and unsuitable r d becau were some sieved from the countltable for p S e they be 1988 Property Y as tax development. Even Paid These Y taxes which could forfeit land so th costs werenrt not be abated there cost ofpthisct wasp,t created until 1988. at the time ofaac had to which Project, it can now 1988' Since the gisition, authorizes the a be closed b tax is the only ppropria Y the tl same a resolution Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFIET LAND ALONG SHINGLE CREEK AND CLOSING THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City has established a Capital Projects fund to provide funds and to account for the expenditure of such funds for major capital outlays (which shall include, but not be limited to, construction or acqui- sition of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life); and /or to reduce debt incurred for capital outlays; and WHEREAS, the City Council during 1987 found and determined that it was desirable to acquire certain tax forfiet land along Shingle Creek to be preserved as open space within the flood plain; and WHEREAS, the land consists of six adjacent parcels located between 5906 Vincent and 5942 Vincent on the east side of the street, and WHEREAS, in the course of acquiring this land, the City was required to pay for certain delinquent property taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to appropriate the sum of $894.00 to the Capital Projects Fund Shingle Creek Land Project No. 57 from the Capital Projects fund balance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the final cost of the Shingle Creek Land Project is declared to be $894.00 and that the project is closed. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken theron, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. l (DDDRCC) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Council Meeting 9 Date * * * * * *tt* * * * * * ** * * * * * *tt *T FOR CO Agenda Item Number COUNCIL CANS {DERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1 ADJUSTMENTS 988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY. D EPT. APP OVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *gnature - title Director Of Finance MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMM ENDATION No c omments to supplement this repo p --- Comments below /attached �e • S UMMARY EXPLANATION;: EXPLANATION (su AAlementai -- ---- - -. sheets attached When the City Council . year, salary and adopts the Annual Cit Therefore ages have not Y Budget in October for the Budget ,the Council ap as Yet been determi the following and wages have been opriated ifle in the Una l ated Departmental departmental budgets g Year. determined. partmental Expenses employees with the 'caries and g when all of the s With police officers exception of wages have now been determined salaries City emplo estimated the and they are p officers. Settl for all Officers, cost of the 1988 Presently workin e has not been reached I have Salary increases for lice contract. g under the 1987 contract. calculates th 198 and actual costsnforhe estimated I have forward' additional cost of costs for police Unallocated Dresolution 1988 salar al all other cit Departmental will transfer Y and wade increases employees Expenses Budget the additional appropriation snfr mthe Of the t g to the individual de Departmental of $230,014 which Partmental al Ex budgets. adjustments. Apenses Budget, $220,112 originally a Departmental balance of ,112 was needed to a ppropriate d in the Unallocated Expen ses $9,902 remains una atisfy 1988 sala� Budget. PPro riated in the r '3' and wag P Unallocated SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED By Pass he � CITY COUNCIL attached resolution wage and salary adjustments. ending the 1 988 General Fund Budget t o provide for y (ARABFSA) 0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide that the City Council may, by majority vote of its members, transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department, or agency to another within the same fund; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 1987, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a budget for the calendar year 1988; and WHEREAS, when said budget was adopted, 1988 salaries and wages for some City employees had not been set; and WHEREAS, the City Council did appropriate funds for departmental labor and fringe benefits in the amount of $230,014 to Unallocated Departmental Expense (Department #80) to provide funds for 1988 salary and wage settlements; and WHEREAS, all wages and salaries for the calendar year 1988 have either been set by the Council or a reasonable estimate can be made for those wages and salaries not yet settled. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to transfer $220,112 from the following Unallocated Departmental Expense (Department #80) appropriations: 01 --4100 Salaries, Regular Employees $ 184,873 01 --4141 PERA- Regular 1,035 01 -4142 PERA - Combined 5,018 01-4143 PERA - Police 7,666 01 -4144 Social Security 8,599 01 -4151 Hospitalization Insurance 12,642 01 --4152 Life Insurance 138 01 --4157 Deferred Compensation 141 $ 220,112; and RESOLUTION NO. Increase the following departmental or divisional appropriations in the total amount of $220,112 as follows: Depart - Salaries Salaries Salaries PERA PERA PERA Medi- Health Life DEntal Defamed meat cr Regular Ovetime Tegxrary Regalar Gmbined Police FICA Care a%r. Insr. Inar. Ccrp. Divisicn 4100 4112 4130 4141 4142 4143 4144 4147 4151 4152 4153 4157 Manager $ 15,32 0 0 0 317 0 560 0 -420 0 1,318 137 Elections 902 0 0 0 39 0 67 0 -38 0 118 0 Assessing 4,797 0 0 0 204 0 360 0 -240 0 720 0 Finance 10,861 0 0 230 369 0 651 0 -180 0 1, 0 Govt. Bld 4,980 0 0 0 212 0 374 0 -350 0 1,080 0 Police 62,921 4,625 1,9619 -4 894 10,411 1,401 179 -' 0 0 7,800 0 Fire z0 0 1,200 0 0 30 0 0 -60 2 180 0 Plavansp 8,473 0 0 0 351 0 499 0 360 0 1,080 0 IInergeicy 1,571 0 0 0 21 128 48 0 -62 0 180 0 Animal Ch 0 0 23 0 9 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 Engineer 19,975 207 770 121 843 0 1,169 0 -180 0 1,620 0 Streets 14,210 484 500 237 550 0 972 0 794 0 2 0 VEh. Mein 4,482 65 0 0 193 0 342 0 -41 0 756 0 R&P Admin 12,601 0 0 0 53? 0 9 0 360 0 1,080 0 Parks Mtc 9,070 34 1,500 139 4 08 0 721 0 -295 0 1 0 Total $ 170,415 5,726 6,164 3,568 4,955 10,569 8,127 179 - 3,910 22 21,296 137 Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/19/88 Agenda Item Number elc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1989 PROPOSED COMPENSATION PLAN DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature g tor e title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: \ No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) HISTORY: During the month of December of each year, the council has traditionally reviewed the Compensation Plan for the following year. The Compensation Plan as attached includes the salary and benefit plan for all city employees who are nonorganized. Portions of the Compensation Plan include references • to the salaries and fringe benefits of organized groups of employees, but they are reflections of their contract provisions. Also attached is a copy of the resolution council passed implementing the comparable worth legislation. ANALYSIS: The attached 1989 proposed Compensation Plan recommends a general increase of 4%. Attached please find a table indicating a history of the Consumer Price Index as compared with the general salary Increases given by the City of Brooklyn Center to nonorganized employees. We have contacted a significant number of suburban municipalities p (see attachment), and it appears that the recommendation going before city councils is for salary increases of 4 %. You should understand that because of the adopted comparable worth salary plan, the 4% increase would go only to those positions which fall within or below the 110% comparable worth line. The resolution adopting the city's comparable worth implementation plan phases in increases for those employees below the 100% line, and 1989 is the third year of the four year phase in program. In reviewing the history of Brooklyn Center's salary increases to nonorganized employees, they have generally lagged behind the inflation lat�on r ate b roughly .5 %. There were ti r' Y 9 Y es du mg the last five to ten years when salary increases were higher than the rate of inflation and at times lower than the rate of inflation. It has been our consistent recommendation to the council that because the City competes with all other employers in this metropolitan area for competent personnel, it is essential that we keep our wages in line with market conditions, and now with the passage of the Pay Equity Act, we must also consider comparable worth. It is in our best interest to keep our salaries in line with other public and private employers for those positions doing similar work in our metro area. Over the years we have consistently used the DCA Stanton Group Survey (which is attached) to compare our salaries with other similar organizations. • In 1989 we are proposing an increase of $20 per month on the insurance contribution by the City, which will bring our cost per employee per month to $205. In 1989 the three group insurance plans available to Brooklyn Center employees, Physicians of Minnesota (PHP), Group Health, inc., and Med Centers Health Plan, have all experienced considerable increased premium costs. Attached is -a table giving a history of a comparison of employee - employer health insurance costs by year. The proposed employer contribution increase represents a sharing of the increased costs by the City and the employee. We believe it is in the best interest of the employer and the employee that there be a joint contribution to these insurance programs to assist in controlling costs. We have currently completed presenting our case to the arbitrator on the 1988/1989 police negotiations. The arbitrator now has both cases. The Public Works Local No. 49 negotiations are complete, and we have a signed agreement through 1989. Last year the mayor and city council members reviewed the salary compensation level for the mayor and city council. As part of that review, it appeared that because their salaries had not been adjusted since 1977, salaries were getting out of line with the compensation received by mayors and city councils in other similar size metro area communities. The staff presented documentation to the city council on proposals of how to implement a salary change and no action was taken by the city council Again this year, we are recommending that you review the need for adjusting the salaries for the mayor and city council. It might be worthwhile for you to consider the appointment of a citizens committee to make recommendations to you on this matter. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend favorable consideration of the resolution adopting the proposed 1989 Compensation Plan. Should any of the council members have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. At the time of the writing of this document, we have been unable to complete the analysis of documentation we believe may justify a modification of the pay range for our public safety dispatching position. We request your indulgence in considering this modification within the next 30 days upon completion of our analysis. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND GENERAL SALARY INCREASES BY YEAR (nonorganized employees) July /July Mpls. /St. Paul General Salary CPI Increase 1978 10.7% 6.8% 1979 12.4% 7.0% 1980 11.2% 8.0% 1981 11.4% 10.0% 1982 9.8% 9.0% 1983 2.6% 6.0% 1984 5.5% 5.0% 1985 1.0% 5.0% 1986 1.2$ 4.0% 1987 1.4% 3.5% 1988 5.6% 4.0% 1989 4.1 %* 4.0% proposed TOTAL 76.9% 72.3% * Mpls. /St. Paul figures only available July /July; this figure is the National CPI increase through September 1988 1989 SALARY INCREASES 12 -5 -88 Proposed /Approved/ Citv % Increase Budgeted Bloomington 3.75 Approved Brooklyn Park 4.0 Approved Edina 4.0 Approved Coon Rapids 4.0 Proposed Burnsville 3.9 Approved Plymouth 0 - 5 (based on Proposed performance); 3% to midpoint St. Louis Park Unsure Minnetonka 3.5 or 4.0 Proposed Eagan 3.0 or 4.0 Proposed Richfield 4.0 Approved Blaine 4.0 Approved Roseville 3.5 Proposed 3.0 + merit (management only) Maple Grove 4.0 Proposed Eden Prairie 4.0 Approved Apple Valley 4.0 Approved Fridley 4.0 Approved Maplewood 4.0 Approved Crystal 4.3 average Proposed New Hope 4.0 Budgeted Golden Valley 3.5 or 4.0 Proposed Anoka 3.5 Approved Robbinsdale 3.5 - 5.5 Proposed Shakopee 3.5 Budgeted DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (CCCHIC) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMPARISON OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS BY YEAR CITY MANAGER'S ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROPOSED 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 i GROUP HEALTH INC. FAMILY MONTHLY PREMIUM 160.76 169.83 183.05 186.70 204.65 254.70 CITY CONTRIBUTION 145.00 155.00 165.00 175.00 185.00 205.00 EMPLOYEE COST 15.76 14.83 18.05 11.70 19.65 49.70 EMPLOYEE % OF COST 9.80% 8.73% 9.86% 6.27% 9.60% 19.51% CITY % OF COST 90.20% 91.27% 90.14% 93.73% 90.40% 80.49% PREMIUM INCREASE 1.72 9.07 13.22 3.65 17.95 50.05 EMPLOYEE INCREASE -8.28 -0.93 3.22 -6.35 7.95 30.05 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN FAMILY MONTHLY PREMIUM 168.35 180.15 187.35 196.70 233.55 291.25 CITY CONTRIBUTION 145.00 155.00 165.00 175.00 185.00 205.00 EMPLOYEE COST 23.35 25.15 22.35 21.70 48.55 86.25 EMPLOYEE % OF COST 13.87% 13.96% 11.93% 11.03% 20.79% 29.61% CITY % OF COST 86.13% 86.04% 88.07% 88.97% 79.21% 70.39% PREMIUM INCREASE 15.55 11.80 7.20 9.35 36.85 57.70 EMPLOYEE INCREASE 5.65 1.80 --2.80 -0.65 26.85 37.70 PHYSICIANS OF MINNESOTA FAMILY MONTHLY PREMIUM 194.95 204.70 211.07 221.62 221.62 266.00 CITY CONTRIBUTION 145.00 155.00 165.00 175.00 185.00 205.00 EMPLOYEE COST 49.95 49.70 46.07 46.62 36.62 61.00 EMPLOYEE % OF COST 25.62% 24.28% 21.83% 21.04% 16.52% 22.93% CITY % OF COST 74.38% 75.72% 78.17% 78.96% 83.48% 77.07% PREMIUM INCREASE 13.18 9.75 6.37 10.55 0.00 44.38 EMPLOYEE INCREASE 3.18 , 0.25 -3.63 0.55 -10.00 24.38 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -11 -88 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Mayor and Council salaries DEPT. HEAD'S APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature " -title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Attached is a salary analysis of local elected officials. The salaries for the Brooklyn Center mayor and councilmembers have not been adjusted since January 1, 1978, and the existing salaries are well below the average and median salaries for cities in the metro area similar in size to Brooklyn Center. Any adjustment to the salaries must be made prior to the municipal election if a change is desired for 1989 salaries. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Direct staff to prepare an ordinance fixing mayor and council salaries effective January 1, 1989. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: March 23, 1988 SUBJECT: Annual Salaries of Mayor and City Councilmembers You had requested information on salaries of the mayor and city councilmembers, as well as suggested changes to the current salaries for Brooklyn Center's local elected officials. Following is a summary of how salaries are set for the mayor and members of the council, what the current salaries are and when they were last adjusted, an analysis of salaries for officials in cities of similar size, and recommended options for change. HOW SALARIES ARE SET The following is excerpted from the Brooklyn Center City Charter. " Section 2.07. Salaries. The mayor and the members of the council shall receive payment as set by ordinance. No change in salary shall take effect until the January 1 following the next succeeding general municipal election." CURRENT SALARIES AND WHEN LAST ADJUSTED Brooklyn Center ordinance number 77 -5 set salaries of $345 1month ($4,140 1year) for councilmembers and $540 1month ($6,480 1year) for the mayor. The effective date of this action was January 1, 1978, and salaries for these officials have not been adjusted since then. SALARY ANALYSIS OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Attached is a four -year summary of salaries for mayors and councilmembers in 25 metropolitan cities with populations over 20,000. The average population of these cities is 34,383, and the median population is 30,969. (Brooklyn Center's population is 30,267.) A. AVERAGE SALARIES Percent Percent Above Above MAYOR B.C. Councilmembers B.C. 1988 $7,226 109 $5,368 239 1989 7 222 $ 109 $5,368 239 B. MEDIAN SALARIES Percent Percent Above Above Mir B.C. Councilmembers B.C. 1988 $6,820 59 $5,040 1989 $7,200 10% 18$ $5,358 239 Memo to Gerald G. Splinter Page 2 March 23, 1988 C. RANKING Brooklyn Center's population is the 14th highest of the 25 cities in the analysis, and its assessed valuation is 15th highest. In 1988, the mayor's salary ranked 17th and the salary for councilmembers ranked 22nd. D. Number of cities raising salaries: From 1987 to 1988: 11 (449) From 1988 to 1989: 8 (329) E. In addition to salaries, five cities provide health benefits similar to those received by full -time employees. OPTIONS A. One option is to increase the salaries to be more in line with the average or median salaries of mayors and councilmembers in cities of size similar to Brooklyn Center. Following are suggested ranges from which an increase can be selected to bring the rates more in line with other cities. Ranges are for discussion purposes; it is recommended that one set rate be selected. Mayor: $7,000 - $7,400 (79 - 129 increase) Councilmembers: $5,000 - $5,400 (179 - 239 increase) B. Another option, as in all cases, is to make no adjustment whatsoever. RECOMMENDATION Because the salaries of the mayor and councilmembers have not been adjusted in ten years and because salary adjustments are not an easy action for elected Officials to take, I recommend option A be seriously considered. Even if the high ends of the ranges are selected, the salaries will not be out of step with other cities of similar size. Any adjustments made prior to the fall election will be effective January 1, 1989. CITIES WITH POPULATION OVER 20,000 - - -- MARCH 1988 --------------------------------- 1987 POPULATION REGULAR (MET MEETINGS / ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF COUNCILMEMBERS MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL) MONTH 1989 1988 1987 1986 1989 1988 1987 1986 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- Apple Valley 28538 4 6300 5400 5400 5400 5400 4800 4800 4800 Blaine 34632 2 ** 7008 6744 .6300 ** 5136 4944 4620 Bloomington 84289 4 15000 15000 15000 15000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Brooklyn Center 30267 2 6480 6480 6480 4140 4140 4140 Brooklyn Park 51424 2 10206 9720 9000 6600 6804 6480 6000 4800 Burnsville 42583 2 7200 6000 6000 6000 4800 4200 4200 4200 Columbia Heights 20029 2 13800 12000 10200 10200 7800 6900 6000 6000 Coon Rapids 42900 3 9000 9000 7600 5200 8000 8000 6600 3600 (WARD) 8500 8500 (AT- LARGE) Cottage Grove 20753 2 6600 6600 6600 6600 4800 4800 4800 4800 Crystal 24690 2 7068 7068 7068 6200 5358. 5358 5358 4700 Eagan 35311 2 4500 4500 4500 4500 3600 3600 3600 3600 Edina 45523 2 6450 5850 5850 5850 4500 3900 3900 3900 Fridley 29423 3 7500 7500 7200 6900 5475 5475 5250 5025 (WARD) 6150 6150 (AT- LARGE) Golden Valley 21541 2 6820 6820 6820 6820 5115 5115 5115 5115 Maple Grove 30969 2 7200 6600 6600 6000 5400 4800 4800 4200 CITIES WITH POPULATION OVER 20,000 -------- ------------------------ - - ---- MARCH 1988 1987 POPULATION REGULAR MUNICIPALITY (MET MEETINGS / ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCIL) MONTH 1989 1988 1987 1986 1989 1988 1987 1986 ----------------------------------------------------- Maplewood 28775 2 5500 5500 4800 4800 4600 4600 3900 3900 Minnetonka 42636 3 7200 7200 7200 6000 5040 5040 5040 4200 New Brighton 23310 2 5700 5700 5220 5220 4500 4500 4020 4020 New Hope 22770 2 6393 6393 6393 6325 4901 4901 4901 4476 Plymouth 41207 3 7500 7500 6600 6600 5400 5400 4800 4800 Richfield 36891 2 7000 7000 6700 6700 5435 5435 5200 5200 Roseville 35178 2 7200 6600 6000 6000 5400 5100 4800 4800 St. Louis Park 42713 2 7200 7200 7200 5400 4800 4800 4800 3600 South St. Paul 20489 2 7200 7200 7200 7200 4200 4200 4200 4200 White Bear Lake ---- 22726 1 4800 4800 4152 4320 3600 3600 3120 3300 - - - - - -- 5555 -- - - - - -- 5- --- - 536- - - -- 5368----- --- - - - - -- ---- AVERAGE (MEAN) 34383 2 7222 7226 6901 6505 5368 8 5368 4972 4640 MEDIAN 30969 2 7200 6820 6600 6200 5358 5040 4800 4476 * *Will receive same percent increase as rest of employees Total number of cities with population over 20,000: 25 Number of cities raising salaries from 1987 to 1988: 11 (44 %) Number of cities raising salaries from 1988 to 1989: 8 (32 %) CITY COUNTY ASSESSED VALUE % OF TOTAL YEAR ------------------------------------------------------------------ Apple Valley alle Dakota a $178,574,095 2. 2-2 4 7. 87pay88 Blaine Anoka $180,506,785 2.25% 87pay88 Bloomington Hennepin $1,126,741,878 14.03% 87pay88 Brooklyn Center Hennepin $244,194,282 3.04% 87pay88 Brooklyn Park Hennepin $334,549,184 4.17% 87pay88 Burnsville Dakota $389,277,181 4.85% 87pay88 Columbia Heights Anoka $116,413,206 1.4S% 87pay88 Coon Rapids Anoka $245,632,365 3.06% 87pay88 Cottage Grove Washington $101,657,994 1.27% 87pay88 Crystal Hennepin $135,666,772 1.69% 87pay88 Eagan Dakota $331,729,084 4.13% 87pay88 Edina Hennepin $767,762,240 9.56% 87pay88 Fridley - Anoka $246,874,760 3.07% 87pay88 Golden Valley Hennepin $320,299,759 3.99% 87pay88 Maple Grove Hennepin $213,235,200 2.66% 87pay88 Maplewood Ramsey $289,323,531 3.60% 87pay88 Minnetonka Hennepin $638,496,878 7.95% 87pay88 New Brighton Ramsey $149,850,667 1.87% 87pay88 New Hope Hennepin $178,619,476 2.22% 87pay88 Plymouth Hennepin $526,810,474 6.56% 87pay88 Richfield Hennepin $248,321,750 3.09% 87pay88 Roseville Ramsey $364,014,160 4.53% 87pay88 St. Louis Park Hennepin $463,299,328 5.77% 87pay88 South St. Paul Dakota $106,277,251 1.32% 87pay88 White Bear Lake Ram. /Wash. $131,490,053 1.64% 87pay88 ------------------------------------------------------------------ GRAND TOTALS $8,029,618,353 100.00% 87pay88 Source - County Assessors Offices 03/14/88 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. 77 -5 AN ORDINANCE FIXING COUNCIL SALARIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Effective January 1, 1978 and thereafter-until legally amended the monthly salary for Councilmen shall be $345 and - the monthly salary for Mayor shall be $540. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this 7th day of February 19 77 . May ATTEST: C C er Published in the official newspaper anuar 13 y 1977, February 3 1 77 Effective date January 1 , -1978 L (YYPLM) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Department of Finance SUBJECT: PROPOSED 1989 CITY PAY PLAN DATE: December 12, 1988 I have attached the Proposed City of Brooklyn Center 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan that I have prepared at your direction. I have also attached a resolution, which if adopted by the City Council, would approve the Pay Plan. The Proposed Plan is an across the board increase of four percent over the 1988 Plan for non - organized City employees. The schedule for Operating Engineers No. 49 (Public Works' employees) has been adjusted to reflect the 1989 contract. The schedule for L.E.L.S. Local No. 82 (Police) reflects the salary schedule for 1987, since agreement has not been reached for 1988 and 1989. Changes to individual schedules within the 1989 Pay Plan from the 1988 Pay Plan are as follows: SCHEDULE A (POSITIONS AUTHORIZED) 1. In accordance with the 1989 Budget as approved by the City Council, the following positions have been either added or deleted from the 1988 Plan Schedules: A. Government Buildings Division 1. Deleted 2 Custodian positions B. Police Department 1. Added 2 Police Officers (One additional police officer was also added to the schedule in 1988) C. Planning and Inspection Department 1. Added 1 Housing Inspector SCHEDULE B (EXECUTIVE PLAN) 1. Applied 4% increase to Range II Performance Midpoint SCHEDULE B-2 (SALARY MAXIMUMS) 1. Same positions, salaries increased by 4% SCHEDULE C (SUPERVISORY - PROFESSIONAL) 1. Add new position as follows: MIN GOING MAX MIN GOING MAX Housing Inspector S12A S14C S16C $2,015 $2,335 $2,453 2. Upgrade Appraiser II position as follows: From S19A S21C S23C $2,396 $2,775 $2,916 To S21A S23C S25C $2,517 $2,916 $3,063 3. Increased Part -time Fire Department positions by approximately 4% SCHEDULE C -1 (PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE) 1. Applied 4% increase to Grade S1A position (MEMO TO G.G. SPLINTER, DATED 12 -12 -88 CONTINUED) SCHEDULE D -1 (TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS HOURLY WAGE SCHEDULE) 1. Applied 4% increase to T1 A position����� �...�.M._�...�._.�_. SCHEDULE F (LOCAL NO. 49 POSITIONS HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE) 1. Changed per 1989 contract SCHEDULE G (LIQUOR STORES PART -TIME HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE) 1. No change to steps A through C 2. Step D added for persons with thirty -six months of employment. Step D pays an extra 25 cents per hour 3. Senior Step is continued and is 50 cents more than Step D and was increased 50 cents from 1988. SCHEDULE H (EMPLOYEE INSURANCE BENEFITS) 1. L.E.L.S., Local No. 82 Police Officers: No change. Operating under 1987 contract. 2. Local No. 49, AFL -CIO Public Works: a. Monthly contribution toward hospital - medical coverage increased from $185 to $205 b. Monthly dental allowable (included in $205) increased from $15 to $20 c. Group term life insurance provided by City increased from $5,000 to $10,000 d. Cost of $10,000 group term life not to be taken out of $205 monthly contribution 3. Non -- Organized City Employees: a. Monthly contribution toward hospital - medical coverage increased from $185 to $205 b. Monthly dental allowable (included in $205) increased from $15 to $20 c. Group term life insurance provided by City increased from $5,000 to $10,000 d. Cost of $10,000 group term life not to be taken out of $205 monthly contribution SCHEDULE I (CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT) 1. Salary increased from $69,450 annually to $72,228 (0) 2. Allows for an equivalent amount in salary if fringe benefits may cause disqualification of City's employee insurance plans under IRS Rule 89 3. Provides an additional eight months compensation in the event of involuntary resignation 4. States that the City will, at a minimum, annually provide the cost for the City Manager to attend the State and National ICMA Conferences or job - related courses, seminars, or training of equivalent cost SCHEDULE J (PERSONNEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY) 'mbur ement f u for business 1. Increases r eimbursement or use of personal automobile r City from 21 cents per mile to 24 cents per mile to allow maximum allowed by IRS mow Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance i (AAPC7RSW) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION SETTING WAGES AND SALARIES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1989 WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers and employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the 1984 Minnesota Pay Equity Act requires every political subdivision to establish "equitable compensation relationships" between its employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan meets the requirements of establishing "equitable compensation relationshipq ". and WHEREAS, the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan establishes that pay increases will be awarded on a pay for performance basis; and WHEREAS, the structure of the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan provides for pay increases awarded for improvements in job performance; and WHEREAS, an individual employee's movement through his or her respective pay schedule reflects a progression in corresponding levels or improved job performance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets wages and salaries for the calendar year 1989 by adoption of the attached Position and Classification Plan (Schedules A through J) for the calendar year 1989 which sets ranges and maximums which the City Manager shall be authorized to pay in classified positions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager may move an individual employee to pay grades in the attached Position and Classification Plan (Schedules A through J), but he is limited to authorizing increases due to Pay Equity Act compliance for an individual employee of no more than $1.50 per hour in 1989 and to the balance of any remaining increase in 1990; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all increases due to Pay Equity Act compliance must be within the Annual Budget constraints adopted by the City Council; and j I ". , yp p r 5 y S t c t Y % ry r RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1989 City Employee Position and Classification Plan is approved and adopted because it is generally an equitable pay plan for City employees, however parts of the Plan were approved and adopted solely for the purpose of compliance with the mandate of Minnesota statutes, Sections 471 .999 ; that adoption of said Plan shall create no vested rights, terms or conditions of employment or entitlement to any given level of compensation for any employee or group of employees; that said Plan shall be subject to continuing review and reconsideration and may be amended from time to time by the City Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to employ such temporary part —time and temporary full —time employees as may be necessary, and to establish competitive rates of pay for such help consistent with the 1989 budget appropriations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager er be authorized to make interim appointments to fill vacant positions whenever a position is vacant because the regular employee is on leave of abscence, vacation leave, sick leave, or is absent for any other reason and to establish rates of pay for such appoint — ments consistent with the 1989 budget appropriations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage adjustments, not to exceed the maximums contained herein, shall become effective January 1, 1989; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, in recognition that labor contract provisions are not as yet settled for calendar years 1988 and 1989 with the bargaining unit represented by L.E.L.S. Local No. 82, extends existing (1987) wage and salary rates for related job classicications in the Police Department. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing p g ng 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. D OC �J L:Zi y JU. (AAPC7CP) ' � m , 41 a �- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1989 Adopted: , 1988 Resolution No. 88— Note: Since labor contract provisions are not as yet settled with the bargaining unit repre— sented by L.E.L.S. Local No. 82 (Police), wage and salary rates for related job classifications for organized employees in the Police Department are shown in this pay plan at 1987 rates. (AAPC7TC) ` � aggBa y i h U CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Schedule Page Positions Authorized A 1_2 Executive Pay Plan B 3 Executive Pay Plan Conversion Schedule B-1 4 Executive Positions Salary Maximums B-2 5 Supervisory - Professional Pay Plan C 6 Supervisory- Professional Monthly Salary Schedule C-1 7 Supervisory- Professional Conversion Schedule C--2 8 Technical -- Secretarial Pay Plan D 9 Technical - Secretarial Hourly Wage Schedule D-1 10 Technical- Secretarial Conversion Schedule D--2 11 Police Officers Pay Plan E 12 Local No. 49 Pay Plan F 13 Liquor Stores Part -Time Employee Pay Plan G 14 Employee Insurance Benefits H 15 City Manager Compensation Agreement I 1617 Personnel Expense Reimbursement Policy 1 18-19 (YYPC7A) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE A PERMANENT FULL -TIME AND SALARIED PART —TIME POSITIONS AUTHORIZED POSITIONS AUTHORIZED POSITIONS EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHOR- ORGAN- FROM SALARY UNIT POSITION IZED IZED OVERTIME SCHEDULE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: City Manager 1 No Yes —Exc B E.D.A Coordinator 1 No Yes —Adm C Personnel Coordinator 1 No Yes —Adm C City Clerk 1 No Yes —Adm C Administrative Aide 1 No Yes —Adm C Administration /Licenses Secretary 1 No No D Administration /Elections Secretary 1 No No D Switchboard Operator /Receptionist 1 No No D ASSESSING DEPARTMENT: Assessor y 1 No Yes —Exc B Appraiser II 1 No Yes —Adm C Assessment Technician 2 No No D FINANCE DEPARTMENT:�� Director of Finance /City Treasurer .1 No Yes —Exc B Assistant Director of Finance 1 No Yes —Adm C Staff Accountant 1 No Yes —Aden C Payroll /Personnel Technician 1 No No D Utilities Technician 1 No No D Accounting Technician 1 No No D Finance Secretary 1 No No D Data Entry Operator 1 No No D GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS DIVISION: Maintenance Supervisor 1 No Yes —Adm C Maintenance Custodian 1 No No D Lead Custodian 1 No No D Custodian 1 No No D FIRE DEPARTMENT: — Fire Chief 1 No Yes —Exc B POLICE DEPARTMENT: Police Chief /Civil Defense Coordinator 1 No Yes —Exc B Police Captain 3 No Yes —Adm C Police Sergeant 5 L #82 No E Police Officer 27 L #82 No E Administrative Assistant 1 No Yes —Adm C Administrative Services Manager 1 No Yes —Adm C Code Enforcement Officer 2 No No D Public Safety Dispatcher 6 No No D Police Secretary 2 No No D Police Classification Operator 1 No No D Police Receptionist 1 No No D PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT :� — � Director of Planning and Inspection 1 No Yes —Exc B Inspector /Building Official 1 No Yes —Adm C Inspector 1 No Yes —Adm C Planner 1 No Yes —Adm C Housing Inspector 1 No Yes —Adm C Planning and Inspection Secretary 1 No No D Planning and Inspection Receptionist 1 No No D 1989 Positions Authorized, Schedule A, Continued: ENGINEERING DIVISION: Director of Public Works 1 No Yes -Exc B City Engineer 1 No Yes -Adm C Public Works Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm C Administrative Aide 1 No Yes -Adm C Engineering Technician IV 1 No No D Engineering Technician III 3 No No D Engineering Receptionist 1 No No D STREETS DIVISION: Public Works Superintendent 1 No Yes -Adm C Supervisor of Streets and Parks Maintenance No No C Maintenance II 11 L #49 No G Mechanic 3 L #49 No G Night Service Person 1 L #49 No G Public Works Dispatcher 1 No No D PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Director of Recreation 1 No Yes —Exc B Program Supervisor 3 No Yes —Adm C Supervisor of Streets and Parks Maintenance 1 No No C Aquatics Supervisor 1 No Yes —Adm C Maintenance II 7 L #49 No G Parks and Recreation Secretary 1 No No D MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE: J Golf Course Manager _ C: L 1 No Yes —Adm C PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION: Supervisor of Public Utilities 1 No No C Maintenance II 6 L #49 No G LIQUOR STORES DEPARTMENT: Liquor Stores Manager 1 No Yes —Exc B Supervisor, Retail 2 No Yes —Adm C TOTAL PERMANENT FULL —TIME POSITIONS AUTHORIZED: 134 SCHEDULED PART —TIME POSITIONS AUTHORIZED: FIRE DEPARTMENT: Assistant Fire Chief 1 No Yes —Vol C Fire Secretary 1 No Yes —Vol C Senior Fire Training Officer 1 No Yes —Vol C Fire Training Officer 1 No Yes —Vol C Fire Inspector, Days 1 No Yes —Vol C Fire Inspector 4 No Yes —Vol C Fire Education Officer 1 No Yes —Vol C LIQUOR STORES DEPARTMENT: • Clerk /Stocker As Needed No No H Cashier As Needed No No H Cashier /Office Assistant 1 No No H O Fj n 4 r1. G LA (YYPC7B)„� ' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1 9 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ANNUAL SALARY SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE PLAN RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT POSITION MIMIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM City Manager $ 60,539 $ 67,661 $ 68,373 $ 71,222 $ 74,783 $ 75,496 $ 81,906 Director of Public Works $ 49,607 $ 55,444 $ 56,027 $ 58,362 $ 61,280 $ 61,863 $ 67,116 Director of Finance/ City Treasurer $ 46,125 $ 51,552 $ 52,095 $ 54,265 $ 56,978 $ 57,521 $ 62,405 Chief of Police $ 44,928 $ 50,214 $ 50,743 $ 52,857 $ 55,500 $ 56,028 $ 60,786 Director of Recreation $ 40,498 $ 45,262 $ 45,739 $ 47,644 $ 50,027 $ 50,503 $ 54,791 Director of Planning and Inspection $ 40,063 $ 44,776 $ 45,247 $ 47,133 $ 49,489 $ 49,961 $ 54,203 Fire Chief $ 39,161 $ 43,768 $ 44,229 $ 46,072 $ 48,376 $ 48,836 $ 52,983 City Assessor $ 38,397 $ 42,914 $ 43,366 $ 45,172 $ 47,431 $ 47,883 $ 51,948 Liquor Stores Manager $ 34,245 $ 38,274 $ 38,677 $ 40,289 $ 42,303 $ 42,706 $ 46,332 INTERVALS: Each range has a spread of approximately 35% from minimum to maximum. The minimum is approximately 85% and the maximum is approximately 115% of the midpoint. SALARY RANGES: I: GROWTH RANGE. The lower range (approximately 85% to 95% of the midpoint) should normally include relatively inexperienced employees, as well as those whose performance remains below fully satisfactory levels. II. PERFORMANCE RANGE: The middle range (approximately 96% to 105% of the midpoint) should i 1 experienced, ul p nclude the normally fully satisfactory employees and represent the established "going - rates ". III. MERIT RANGE. The top range (approximately 106% to 115% of the midpoint) should include only those employees who have demonstrated superior performance over a significant period on the job or at comparable levels of responsibility. SALARY SETTING AUTHORITY: The City Council must approve individual salary adjustments within Merit Range III. Salaries within Growth Range I and Performance Range II may be established by the City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the minimum range when performance or qualifications are less then required for the position. The City Manager's salary is established by the City Council. OVERTIME: These positions are exempt from overtime. -3- t y � l (AAPC7B1) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B-1 EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ANNUAL SALARY CONVERSION SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE PLAN --- CONVERSION TABLE RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT POSITION MIMIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM City Manager ~ Annual: $ 60,539 $ 67,661 $ 68,373 $ 71,222 $ 74,783 $ 75,496 $ 81,906 Monthly: $ 5,045 $ 5,638 $ 5,698 $ 5,935 $ 6,232 $ 6,291 $ 6,825 Hourly: $ 28.994 $ 32.405 $ 32.746 $ 34.242 $ 35.816 $ 36.157 $ 39.227 Director of Annual $ 49,607 $ 55,444 $ 56,027 $ 58,362 $ 61,280 $ 61,863 $ 67,116 Public Works Monthly: $ 4,134 $ 4,620 $ 4,669 $ 4,863 $ 5,107 $ 5,155 $ 5,593 Hourly: $ 23.758 $ 26.55 $ 26. 833 $ 28.058 $ 29.349 $ 29.628 $ 32.144 Director of Annual: $ 46,125 $ 51,552 $ 52,095 $ 54,265 $ 56,978 $ 57,521 $ 62,405 Finance /City Monthly: $ 3,844 $ 4,296 $ 4,341 $ 4,522 $ 4,748 $ 4,793 $ 5,200 Treasurer Hourly: $ 22.091 $ 24.690 $ 24.949 $ 26.089 $ 27.288 $ 27.548 $ 29.887 Chief of Police Annual: $ 44,928 $ 50,214 $ 50,743 $ 52,857 $ 55,500 $ 56,028 $ 60,786 Monthly: 744 4 18 4 22 Y• 3, $ 5 $ 9 $ 4,405 $ 4,625 $ 4,669 $ 5,065 Hourly: $ 21.517 $ 24.049 $ 24.302 $ 25.412 $ 26.580 $ 26.834 $ 29.112 Director of Annual: $ 40,498 $ 45,262 $ 45,739 $ 47,644 $ 50,027 $ 50,503 $ 54,791 Recreation Monthly: $ 3,375 $ 3,772 $ 3,812 $ 3,970 $ 4,169 $ 4,209 $ 4,566 Hourly: $ 19.396 $ 21.677 $ 21.906 $ 22.906 $ 23.959 $ 24.187 $ 26.241 Director of Annual: $ 40,063 $ 44,776 $ 45,247 $ 47,133 $ 49,489 $ 49,961 $ 54,203 Planning and Monthly: $ 3,339 $ 3,731 $ 3,771 $ 3,928 $ 4,124 $ 4,163 $ 4,517 Inspection Hourly: $ 19.187 $ 21.445 $ 21.670 $ 22.660 $ 23.702 $ 23.928 $ 25.959 Fire Chief Annual: $ 39,161 $ 43,768 $ 44,229 $ 46,072 $ 48,376 $ 48,836 $ 52,983 Monthly: $ 3,263 $ 3,647 $ 3,686 $ 3,839 $ 4,031 $ 4,070 $ 4,415 Hourly: $ 18.755 $ 20.962 $ 21.183 $ 22.150 $ 23.168 $ 23.389 $ 25.375 City Assessor Annual: $ 38,397 $ 42,914 $ 43,366 $ 45,172 $ 4 7 , 431 4 1 4 7, 4 3 $ 7, 88 3$5 ,98 Monthly $ 3,200 $ 3,576 $ 3,614 $ 3,764 $ 3,953 $ 3,990 $ 4,329 Hourly: $ 18.389 $ 20.553 $ 20.769 $ 21.717 $ 22.716 $ 22.932 $ 24.879 Liquor Stores Annual: $ 34,245 $ 38,274 $ 38,677 $ 40,289 $ 42,303 $ 42,706 $ 46,332 Manager Monthly: $ 2,854 $ 3,190 $ 3,223 $ 3,357 $ 3,525 $ 3,559 $ 3,861 Hourly: $ 16.401 $ 18.331 $ 18.523 $ 19.370 $ 20.260 $ 20.453 $ 22.190 NOTE: The Executive positions are classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an annual salary. This schedule converts the annual salary to a monthly salary by dividing the annual salary by twelve months. The schedule converts the annual salary to an hourly equivalent by dividing the annual salary by the normal work hours in the current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by subtracting Saturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying that number by eight hours. There are 2,080 normal work hours in 1989. This conversion schedule is for informational purposes only and is not an official wage schedule. —4— (AAPC7B2) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE B-2 EXECUTIVE POSITIONS 1989 MAXIMUM ANNUAL SALARIES ESTABLISHED EXECUTIVE POSITIONS 1989 ANNUAL SALARY MAXIMUMS IL L LUJI, IN ADDITION TO THE SALARY SETTING AUTHORITY GRANTED THE CITY MANAGER IN EXECUTIVE PLAN SCHEDULE B TO SET SALARIES IN GROWTH RANGE I AND PERFORMANCE RANGE II, THE CITY MANAGER IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO SET INDIVIDUAL SALARIES WITHIN MERIT RANGE III DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1989 TO THE MAXIMUM SALARIES SHOWN IN THIS SCHEDULE. CONVERSION TABLE MAXIMUM MONTHLY HOURLY POSITION ANNUAL SALARY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT Director of Public Works $ 62,507 $ 5,209 $ 30.051 Director of Finance/ City Treasurer $ 59,257 $ 4,938 $ 28.489 Chief of Police $ 57,720 $ 4,810 $ 27.750 City Assessor $ 48,380 $ 4 $ 23.259 NOTE: The Executive positions are classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an annual salary. This schedule also converts the annual salary to monthly and hourly. The conversions are for informational purposes only and are not a part of the official wage schedule. —5— D D (CCCPC7C) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE C SUPERVISORY AND PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS GRADE RANGE AND MONTHLY SALARY SUPERVISORY - PROFESSIONAL GRADE RANGE MONTHLY SALARY RANGE FROM SCHEDULE C-1 FROM SCHEDULE C-1 EXEMPT GOING GOING FROM POSITION MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM OVERTIME City Engineer S34A S36C S38C $ 3,470 $ 4,019 $ 4,223 Yes Police Captain S32A S34C S36C $ 3,303 $ 3,825 $ 4,019 Yes E.D.A. Coordinator S32A S34C S36C $ 3,303 $ 3,825 $ 4,019 Yes Public Works Superintendent S31A S33C S35C $ 3,222 $ 3,732 $ 3,921 Yes Assistant Director of Finance 331A S33C S35C $ 3,222 $ 3,732 $ 3 Yes Personnel Coordinator S29A S31C S33C $ 3,067 $ 3,552 $ 3,732 Yes Planner S23A S25C S27C $ 2,644 $ 3,063 $ 3,218 Yes Administrative Assistant, Police 323A S25C S27C $ 2,644 $ 3,063 $ 3,218 Yes Inspector /Building Official S22A S24C S26C $ 2,580 $ 2,988 $ 3,140 Yes Staff Accountant S22A S24C S26C $ 2,580 $ 2,988 $ 3,140 Yes Public Works Coordinator S21A S23C S25C $ 2,517 $ 2,916 $ 3,063 Yes City Clerk S21A S23C S25C $ 2,517 $ 2,916 $ 3,063 Yes Appraiser II S21A S23C S25C $ 2 $ 2,916 $ 3,063 Yes Supervisor of Streets and Parks 320A S22C S24C $ 2 1 456 $ 2,844 $ 2,988 No Supervisor of Public Utilities S20A S22C S24C $ 2 1 456 $ 2,844 $ 2 No Golf Course Manager S20A S22C S24C $ 2 $ 2,844 $ 2,988 Yes Program Supervisor, Recreation S20A S22C S24C $ 2,456 $ 2,844 $ 2,988 Yes Inspector, Planning and Inspection 318A S20C S22C $ 2,337 $ 2,707 $ 2,844 Yes Administrative Services Manager, Police S17A S19C S21C $ 2,280 $ 2,641 $ 2,775 Yes Maintenance Supervisor S16A S18C S20C $ 2,225 $ 2,577 $ 2,707 Yes Housing Inspector S12A S14C S16C $ 2,015 $ 2,335 $ 2,453 Yes Administrative Aide, Engineering S8A S10C S12C $ 1,826 $ 2,115 $ 2,222 Yes Supervisor, Liquor Retail S8A S10C S12C $ 1,826 $ 2,115 $ 2,222 Yes Aquatics Supervisor S8A S10C S12C $ 1,826 $ 2,115 $ 2,222 Yes Administrative Aide, City Manager's Office S8A S10C S12C $ 1,826 $ 2,115 $ 2,222 Yes Part -time Positions: Assistant Fire Chief $ 435 Yes Fire Secretary $ 160 Yes Fire Education Officer $ 160 Yes Senior Fire Training Officer $ 295 Yes Fire Training Officer $ 230 Yes Fire Inspector, Days $ 400 Yes Fire Inspector $ 230 Yes -6- (AAPC7C1) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE C-1 SUPERVISORY - PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE PROGRESSION STEPS MERIT STEPS GRADES A B C D E S1 $ 1,536 $ 1,613 $ 1,694 $ 1,778 $ 1,867 S2 $ 1,574 $ 1,653 $ 1,736 $ 1,823 $ 1,914 S3 $ 1,614 $ 1,695 $ 1,779 $ 1,868 $ 1,962 S4 $ 1,654 $ 1,737 $ 1,824 $ 1,915 $ 2,011 S5 $ 1,696 $ 1,780 $ 1,869 $ 1,963 $ 2,061 S6 $ 1,738 $ 1,825 $ 1,916 $ 2,012 $ 2,112 S7 $ 1,781 $ 1,870 $ 1,964 $ 2,062 $ 2,165 S8 $ 1,826 $ 1,917 $ 2,013 $ 2,114 $ 2,219 S9 $ 1,872 $ 1,965 $ 2 , 06 3 $ 2 , 16 7 $ 2,275 S10 $ 1,918 $ 2,014 $ 2,115 $ 2,221 $ 2,332 S11 $ 1,966 $ 2,065 $ 2,168 $ 2,276 $ 2,390 S12 $ 2,015 $ 2,116 $ 2,222 $ 2,333 $ 2,450 S13 $ 2,066 $ 2,169 $ 2,278 $ 2,391 $ 2,511 S14 $ 2,118 $ 2,223 $ 2,335 $ 2,451 $ 2,574 S15 $ 2,170 $ 2,279 $ 2,393 $ 2,513 $ 2,638 S16 $ 2,225 $ 2,336 $ 2,453 $ 2,575 $ 2,704' S17 $ 2,280 $ 2,394 $ 2,514 $ 2,640 $ 2,772 S18 $ 2,337 $ 2,454 $ 2,577 $ 2,706 $ 2,841 S19 $ 2,396 $ 2,516 $ 2,641 $ 2,773 $ 2,912 S20 $ 2,456 $ 2,578 $ 2,707 $ 2,843 $ 2,985 S21 $ 2,517 $ 2,643 $ 2,775 $ 2,914 $ 3,059 S22 $ 2,580 $ 2,709 $ 2,844 $ 2,987 $ 3,136 S23 $ 2,644 $ 2,777 $ 2,916 $ 3,061 $ 3 S24 $ 2,711 $ 2,846 $ 2,988 $ 3,138 $ 31295 `2, S25 $ 2,778 $ 2,917 $ 3,063 $ 3,216 $ 3,377 S26 $ 2,848 $ 2,990 $ 3,140 $ 3,297 $ 3,462 S27 $ 2,919 $ 3,065 $ 3,218 $ 3,379 $ 3,548 L= S28 $ 2,992 $ 3,142 $ 3,299 $ 3,464 $ 3,637 S29 $ 3,067 $ 3,220 $ 3,381 $ 3,550 $ 3,728 S30 $ 3,143 $ 3,301 $ 3,466 $ 3,639 $ 3,821 S31 $ 3,222 $ 3,383 $ 3,552 $ 3,730 $ 3,916 S32 $ 3,303 $ 3,468 $ 3,641 $ 3,823 $ 4,014 S33 $ 3,385 $ 3,554 $ 3,732 $ 3,919 $ 4,115 S34 $ 3,470 $ 3,643 $ 3,825 $ 4,017 $ 4,218 S35 $ 3,557 $ 3,734 $ 3,921 $ 4,117 $ 4,323 S3 $ 3,645 $ 3,828 $ 4,019 $ 4,220 $ 4,431 S37 $ 3,737 $ 3,923 $ 4,120 $ 4,326 $ 4,542 S38 $ 3,830 $ 4,021 $ 4,223 $ 4,434 $ 4,655 S39 $ 3,926 $ 4,122 $ 4,328 $ 4,545 $ 4,772 S40 $ 4,024 $ 4,225 $ 4,436 $ 4,658 $ 4,891 NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting wage. Advance to Step B after six months probationary period. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment. Additional grade advances in Step C, within the City Council authorized limits shall be at the discretion of the City Manager. CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting grade and grade /step advances, within the City Council authorized limits set for each position, shall be at the discretion .of the City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the minimum grade range when performance or qualifications are less then required for the position. INTERVALS: Grades 1 through 40 represent 2 112% advances. Steps A through E represent approximately 5% advances. MERIT STEPS: Merit steps shall only be awarded with express approval of the City Council. -7- In Tetot3Jo ue qou st pue ATuo sasod.znd Teuotgew •aTnpagos a2eM ao�ut zo3 st aTnpagos uots.zanuoo SU U '6861 ut sJnoq xjom Tewaou 080 aje ajagy 'sanoq gg2Ta Aq jaqumu gegq 2utATdig1nw pue aeaA agq ut sAep jo aaqumu Tegog aqq UlOJJ sAepunS pue sAepinges Buigoeagqns Aq pauiwaagap st sinoq >IJOm TewJOu JO Jaqumu aqy •.z eaA quaiino aqq uT sanoq NuO Tew,zou JO J@qulnu aqq Aq ageu Tenuue auq 2utpintp Aq agej quaTeninba ATinoq ue oq AJeTes Tenuue aqq sgJanuoo aTnpagos aLU •sgquow 9nT9mq Aq ageJ ATgquow aqq 2u',KTdigTnw Aq guaTentnba Tenuue ue og AJETes ATgquow aqq sgJanuoo aTnpagos stay 'AueTes ATgquow e qe pagesuadwoo aJe pue (VS72) 40V spiepuegS soge7 jie,3 aqq aapun gdmxa se patJtsseTo 9Je suotgisod Teuotssajojd — AaosiAiadng aqy :ZION z6S'SZ $ z£z`£S $ 9£tt`tr $ SL£'trz $ oOL`OS $ Szz`tt $ SLz'£z $ 88z $ ttz0`tt $ 696'ttz $ 9£6`LS $ 8z£`tr $ L8L'£z $ tt9tt`6tr $ ZZL`tt $ OS9'ZZ $ ZWLtt $ 9Z6`£ $ £9£'ttz $ 9L9`OS $ £ZZ`tt $ 86L'£Z $ ZSz`8tr $ 20`tt $ 960'ZZ $ 096`Stt $ 0£8`£ $ 69L'£Z $ Otttr`6tr $ Ozl `tr $ ££9'ZZ $ 9Lo`Ltt $ £z6`£ $ 09S* Le $ tttr8`tft $ L£L`£ $ L8L'£Z $ See' ft $ 6L0`tt $ S90'zz $ 9£6`Str $ 2z8`£ $ 6Z0' LZ $ Wr tt $ Stt9`£ $ LZ9'ZZ $ zS0`Ltt $ LZ6`£ $ ZttS' LZ $ 809'tttt $ tt£L`£ $ LzS'OZ $ tr89`Ztt $ LSS`£ $ L90'ZZ $ 006`Str $ SZW $ LLO' LZ $ 9LL`£tt $ £tt9`£ $ 6L0'OZ $ Otr9` Ltt $ OLtt`£ $ L£S' LZ $ tt8L ` ttit $ Z£L `£ $ trOS' Oz $ 8tr9 `Ztt $ trSS `£ $ 6zS' 6 L $ OZ9 `Ott $ S8£ `£ $ 900'2 $ Z69`£tt $ Ltr9`£ $ 200'0Z $ 9L9`Ltr $ 89tt`£ $ 9S0'6L $ 9£9`6£ $ £0£`£ $ Z6tr'OZ $ ttZ9` $ z55`£ $ LLS'6L $ 96S`Ott $ £8£`£ $ 88S $ t99`8£ $ ZZZ`£ $ 966'6L $ Z6S` $ 99tr`£ $ trtt0'6L $ zL9`6£ $ LO£` $ ££L'8L $ 9LL`L£ $ £ttL`£ $ 90S' 6 L $ zLS ` Ott $ L8£ `£ $ LLS' 9 L $ ott9 ` 8£ $ OZZ `£ $ t69' LL $ t0249£ $ L90 $ ££0'6L $ 88S`6£ $ 66Z`£ $ L ZL' 8 L $ #OP L£ $ ztrl`£ $ Z9z'LL $ tt06`S£ $ Z66`Z $ S9S'8L $ 9L9`8£ $ 82`£ $ £89'LL $ 08L`9£ $ S90`£ $ OW 9L $ 8 Z0`S£ $ 6L6`Z $ SLL'8L $ 089`L£ $ Ottl`£ $ OSZ'LL $ OWS£ $ 066`Z $ L£tt $ 9LL`tr£ $ 8tr8`Z $ LL9'LL $ 9SL`9£ $ £90`£ $ 6Z8'9L $ tt00`S£ $ LL6`Z $ Lz0'9L $ 9££`££ $ 8LL`Z $ 8£Z'LL $ 9S8`S£ $ 886`Z $ 6W9L $ ZSL`K $ 9tt8`Z $ otr9'SL $ Z£S`Z£ $ LLL`Z $ £Z8'9L $ Z66`tr£ $ 9L6`Z $ 20'9L $ ttZ£`££ $ LLL`Z $ trSZ'SL $ 8zL` L£ $ tttr9`z $ SOW 9 L $ 8Z L ` tt£ $ trW e $ 6z9' S L $ 80S ` Z£ $ 60P e $ S88' tt L $ 096 ` 0£ $ OSS ` z $ OLO'9L $ 00£`££ $ SLL`z $ w*SL $ 9LP L£ $ £tt9`Z $ Lz5'ttL $ toe `O£ $ LLS`Z $' LL9'SL $ tt8tr`z£ $ LOL`Z $ £L9 *K $ 9£6`0£ $ 8LS`Z $ 69L'tr $ ZLtt`6Z $ 9Stt`Z $ L£ $ Z69`L£ $ Ltt9`Z $ SLS'ttl $ Z6L`0£ $ 9LS`Z $ £Z8'£L $ zSL`8Z $ 96£`Z $ L98'ttl $ ttZ6`0£ $ LLS`z $ 8SL'ttl $ 8trtr`6Z $ ttStt`z $ £8tt'£L $ trtto`8Z $ L££`z $ ttOS *K $ 29L`0£ $ K S`Z $ ZL8'£L $ 8ZL`8Z $ tt6£`Z $ ttSl'£L $ 09£`Lz $ 08Z`Z $ ZSL'ttl $ 9£tr`6Z $ £Stt`Z $ LLtt'£L $ z£0`8Z $ 9££`Z $ L£8'ZL $ OOL`9Z $ SZZ`Z $ 908'£L $ %L`8Z $ £6£`z $ 8ttl'£L $ 8tt£`Lz $ 6LZ`z $ 6LS'ZL $ Ott W $ OLL`Z $ LLtr'£L $ OZO`8Z $ S££`Z $ Sz8'ZL $ 9L9` 9z $ £ZZ`Z $ 6tZ'ZL $ q W Sz $ gtt`Z $ Zttl'£L $ 9££`LZ $ 8LZ`Z $ £LS'ZL $ 8Z0`9Z $ 69L`z $ 6L6'LL $ z6L`trZ $ 990`Z $ 6L8'ZL $ tt99`9z $ ZZZ`Z $ 80Z'ZL $ Z6£`SZ $ 9Ll`Z $ SZ9'LL $ o2L`ttZ $ SLO`Z $ 80S'ZL $ 9L0`9Z $ 890Z $ £L6'LL $ 08L`ttZ $ S90`Z $ Ztr£'LL $ z6S`£Z $ 996`L $ ZOZ'ZL $ 08£`Sz $ Sll`z $ 6L9'LL $ 29L`ttZ $ trl0`Z $ S90'LL $ 9L0`£Z $ 8 W L $ Z06' LL $ 9SL`ttZ $ £90`Z $ L££' LL $ 08S`£Z $ S96` L $ 008'OL $ tt9tt`zZ $ ZL9 L $ £L9' LL $ 9SL`t7Z $ £LO`z $ 090' LL $ t700`£Z $ LW L $ S£S'OL $ ZL6` LZ $ 9zg` L $ L££' LL $ 89S`£Z $ tt96` L $ 88L'OL $ Otttt`ZZ $ OWL $ SLZ $ ZL£` LZ $ L8L` L $ ttSO'LL $ Z66`zz $ 9 W L $ 6ZS'0L $ 006`LZ $ SW L $ LZ o'OL $ 9S8`00 $ 8£L`L $ £8L'OL $ 8Ztt`ZZ $ 698`L $ 69z'oL $ o9£`LZ $ o8L`L $ S8L'6 $ ZS£`OZ $ 969`L $ £ZS' $ 299 Le $ ttZ8 L $ 20'0L $ tttr8 $ L£L L $ ZttS'6 $ M ` 6 L $ hS9` L $ £9Z'0L $ 8h£`LZ $ 6LL`L $ 6LL'6 $ Ott£`OZ $ S69`L $ zL£'6 $ 89£`6L $ trL9`L $ SLO'OL $ z£8`OZ $ 9£L`L $ L£S'6 $ 9£8`6t $ £59`L $ LSO $ 889`8L $ ttLS`L $ £LL '6 $ 8Z $ tr69`L $ 90£'6 $ 9S£`6L $ £L9`l $ z92'8 $ Z£tr`8L $ 9£S `L $ )�'IKOH liVMNV �'IHINOW X 'IH n OH livnNNv 7,''lHLNOW X'IdnOH 'IVfINNV I MINOW TIgVy NOISUHAN00 HIVE 17HINOW MCHHOS NOISU11N00 X8V'IVS )�'IHINOW SNOIIISOd gVNOISSH30iid — lUOSIA113dnS Z H MCHHOS NVgd NOI VOIM 70 GNI NOI 0 n 17T 68 8HINEO N;MOOU8 20 )UIO (ZO LO dVt ) • • (AAPC7D) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE D TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS GRADE RANGE AND HOURLY RATES TECHNICAL- SECRETARIAL PLAN GRADE RANGE HOURLY WAGE RANGE FROM SCHEDULE D-1 FROM SCHEDULE D -1 GOING GOING POSITION MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM Engineering Technician IV T37A T39C T41C $ 15.53 $ 17.99 $ 18.90 Engineering Technician III T27A T29C T31C $ 12.13 $ 14.06 $ 114.77 Maintenance Custodian T24A T26C T28C $ 11.27 $ 13.05 $ 13.71 Lead Custodian T20A T22C T24C $ 10.21 $ 11.82 $ 12.42 Public Works Dispatcher T19A T21C T23C $ 9.96 $ 11.54 $ 12.12 Payroll /Personnel Technician T19A T21C T23C $ 9.96 $ 11.54 $ 12.12 Public Safety Dispatcher T19A T21C T23C $ 9.96 $ 11 $ 12.12 Assessment Technician ~T17A T19C T21C $ 9.48 $ 10.98 $ 11.54 Utilities Technician T17A T19C T21C $ 9.48 $ 10.98 $ 11.54 Accounting Technician T17A T19C T21C $ 9.48 $ 10.98 $ 11.54 Code Enforcement Officer �T14A T16C T18C $ 8.80 $ 10.20 $ 10.71 Planning & Inspection Secretary T14A T16C T18C $ 8.80 $ 10.20 $ 10.71 Police Classification Operator T1 4 A ' T16C T18C $ 8.80 $ 10.20 $ 10.71 Finance Secretary �. T13A T15C T17C $ 8.59 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Police Secretary T13A� T15C T17C $ 8.59 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Data Entry Operator T13A T15C T17C $8.59 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Administration /Licenses Secretary T13A T15C T17C $ 8.59 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Parks and Recreation Secretary T13A T15C T17C $8.59 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Planning & Inspection Receptionist T13A T15C T17C $ 8. $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Engineering Receptionist T13A T15C T17C $ 8.59 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 Administration /Elections Secretary T9A T11C T13C $ 7.78 $ 9.01 $� 9.47 Switchboard Operator /Receptionist T8A T10C T12C $ 7.59 $ 8.79 $ 9.24 Police Receptionist T8A T10C T12C $ 7.59 $ 8.79 $ 9.24 Custodian T6A T8C T10C $ 7.22 $ 8.37 $ 8.79 (AAPC7D1) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE D-1 TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS HOURLY WAGE SCHEDULE PROGRESSION STEPS MERIT STEPS GRADES A B C D E T1 $ 6.39 $ 6.70 $ 7.04 $ 7.39 $ 7.76 T2 $ 6.55 $ 6.87 $ 7.22 $ 7.58 $ 7.96 T3 $ 6.71 $ 7.04 $ 7.40 $ 7.77 $ 8.15 T4 $ 6.88 $ 7.22 $ 7.58 $ 7.96 $ 8.36 T5 $ 7.05 $ 7.40 $ 7.77 $ 8.16 $ 8.57 T6 $ 7.22 $ 7.59 $ 7.97 $ 8.36 $ 8.78 T7 $ 7.41 $ 7.78 $ 8.16 $ 8.57 $ 9.00 T8 $ 7.59 $ 7.97 $ 8.37 $ 8.79 $ 9.23 T9 $ 7.78 $ 8.17 $ 8.58 $ 9.01 $ 9.46 <. . T10 $ 7.97 $ 8.37 $ 8.79 $ 9.23 $ 9.69 L T11 $ 8.17 $ 8.58 $ 9.01 $ 9.46 $ 9.94 a T12 $ 8.38 $ 8.80 $ 9.24 $ 9.70 $ 10.18`'' T $ 8.59 $ 9.02 $ 9.47 $ 9.94 $ 10.44 � F T14 $ 8.80 $ 9.24 $ 9.70 $ 10.19 $ 10.70 T15 $ 9.02 $ 9.47 $ 9.95 $ 10.44 $ 10.97 V T16 $ 9 .25 $ 9 .71 $ 10.20 $ 10.71 $ 11.24 T17 $ 9.48 $ 9.95 $ 10.45 $ 10.97 $ 11.52 ` T18 $ 9.72 $ 10.20 $ 10.71 $ 11.25 $ 11.81. T19 $ 9.96 $ 10.46 $ 10.98 $ 11.53 $ 12.11 T20 $ 10.21 $ 10.72 $ 11.25 $ 11.82 $ 12.41 .Y T21 $ 10.46 $ 10 .99 $ 11.54 $ 12.11 $ 12.72 CC= T22 $ 10.73 $ 11.26 $ 11.82 $ 12.42 $ 13.04 T23 $ 10.99 $ 11.54 $ 12.12 $ 12.73 $ 13.36 T24 $ 11.27 $ 11.83 $ 12.42 $ 13.04 $ 13.70 T25 $ 11.55 $ 12.13 $ 12.73 $ 13.37 $ 14.04 T26 $ 11.84 $ 12.43 $ 13.05 $ 13.70 $ 14.39 T27 $ 12.13 $ 12.74 $ 13.38 $ 14.05 $ 14.75 T28 $ 12.44 $ 13.06 $ 13.71 $ 14.40 $ 15.12 T29 $ 12.75 $ 13.39 $ 14.06 $ 14.76 $ 15.50 T30 $ 13.07 $ 13.72 $ 14.41 $ 15.13 $ 15.88 T31 $ 13.39 $ 14.06 $ 14.77 $ 15.51 $ 16.28 T32 $ 13.73 $ 14.42 $ 15.14 $ 15.89 $ 16.69 T33 $ 14.07 $ 14.78 $ 15.51 $ 16.29 $ 17.10 T34 $ 14.42 $ 15.15 $ 15.90 $ 16.70 $ 17.53 T35 $ 14.78 $ 15.52 $ 16.30 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 T36 $ 15.15 $ 15.91 $ 16.71 $ 17.54 $ 18.42 T37 $ 15.53 $ 16.31 $ 17.13 $ 17.98 $ 18.88 T38 $ 15.92 $ 16.72 $ 17.55 $ 18.43 $ 19.35 T39 $ 16.32 $ 17.14 $ 17.99 $ 18.89 $ 19.84 T40 $ 16.73 $ 17.56 $ 18.44 $ 19.36 $ 20.33 T41 $ 17.15 $ 18.00 $ 18.90 $ 19.85 $ 20.84 NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting wage. Advance to Step B after six months probationary period. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment. Additional grade advances in Step C, within the City Council authorized limits, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager. CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting grade and grade /step advances, within the City Council authorized limits set for each position, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the .minimum grade range when performance or qualifications are less then required for the position. INTERVALS: Grades 1 through 40 represent 2 112% advances. Steps A through E represent approximately 5% advances. MERIT STEPS: Merit steps shall only be awarded with express approval of the City Council. -10- (AAPC7D2 )� t._ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE D-2 TECHNICAL AND SECRETARIAL POSITIONS HOURLY RATE CONVERSION SCHEDULE HOURLY RATE i CONVERSION TABLE HOURLY ANNUAL MONTHLY HOURLY ANNUAL MONTHLY HOURLY ANNUAL MONTHLY $ 6.39 $ 13,282 $ 1,107 $ 6.70 $ 13,936 $ 1,161 $ 7.04 $ 14,643 $ 1,220 $ 6.55 $ 13,614 $ 1,135 $ 6.87 $ 14,290 $ 1,191 $ 7.22 $ 15,018 $ 1,251 $ 6.71 $ 13,954 $ 1,163 $ 7.04 $ 14,643 $ 1,220 $ 7.40 $ 15,392 $ 1,283 $ 6.88 $ 14,303 $ 1,192 $ 7.22 $ 15,018 $ 1,251 $ 7.58 $ 15,766 $ 1,314 $ 7.05 $ 14,661 $ 1,222 $ 7.40 $ 15,392 $ 1,283 $ 7.77 $ 16,162 $ 1,347 $ 7.22 $ 15,027 $ 1,252 $ 7.59 $ 15,787 $ 1,316 $ 7.97 $ 16,578 $ 1,381 $ 7.41 $ 15,403 $ 1,284 $ 7.78 $ 16,182 $ 1,349 $ 8.16 $ 16,973 $ 1,414 $ 7.59 $ 15,788 $ 1,316 $ 7.97 $ 16,578 $ 1,381 $ 8.37 $ 17,410 $ 1,451 $ 7.78 $ 16,183 $ 1,349 $ 8.17 $ 16,994 $ 1,416 $ 8.58 $ 17,846 $ 1 $ 7.97 $ 16,587 $ 1,382 $ 8.37 $ 17,410 $ 1,451 $ 8.79 $ 18,283 $ 1,524 $ 8.17 $ 17,002 $ 1,417 $ 8.58 $ 17,846 $ 1,487 $ 9.01 $ 18,741 $ 1,562 $ 8.38 $ 17 $ 1,452 $ 8.80 $ 18,304 $ 1,525 $ 9.24 $ 19,219 $ 1,602 $ 8.59 $ 17,863 $ 1,489 $ 9.02 $ 18,762 $ 1,563 $ 9.47 $ 19,698 $ 1,641 $ 8.80 $ 18,309 $ 1,526 $ 9.24 $ 19,219 $ 1,602 $ 9.70 $ 20 $ 1,681 $ 9.02 $ 18,767 $ 1,564 $ 9.47 $ 19,698 $ 1,641 $ 9.95 $ 20,696 $ 1,725 $ 9.25 $ 19,236 $ 1,603 $ 9.71 $ 20 $ 1,683 $ 10.20 $ 21 $ 1,768 $ 9.48 $ 19,717 $ 1,643 $ 9.95 $ 20,696 $ 1,725 $ 10.45 $ 21,736 $ 1,811 $ 9.72 $ 20,210 $ 1,684 $ 10.20 $ 21,216 $ 1,768 $ 10.71 $ 22,277 $ 1,856 $ 9.96 $ 20,715 $ 1,726 $ 10.46 $ 21,757 $ 1,813 $ 10.98 $ 22,838 $ 1,903 $ 10.21 $ 21,233 $ 1,769 $ 10.72 $ 22,298 $ 1,858 $ 11.25 $ 23,400 $ 1,950 $ 10.46 $ 21,764 $ 1,814 $ 10.99 $ 22,859 $ 1,905 $ 11.54 $ 24,003 $ 2 10. 22 $ 73 $ ,308 $ 1,859 $ 11.26 $ 23,421 $ 1,952 $ 11.82 $ 24,586 $ 2,049 $ 10.99 $ 22,866 $ 1,905 $ 11.54 $ 24,003 $ 2,000 $ 12.12 $ 25,210 $ 2,101 $ 11.27 $ 23,438 $ 1,953 $ 11.83 $ 24,606 $ 2,051 $ 12.42 $ 25,834 $ 2,153 $ 11.55 $ 24,024 $ 2,002 $ 12.13 $ 25,230 $ 2,103 $ 12.73 $ 26,478 $ 2,207 $ 11.84 $ 24,624 $ 2,052 $ 12.43 $ 25,854 $ 2,155 $ 13.05 $ 27,144 $ 2,262 $ 12.13 $ 25,240 $ 2,103 $ 12.74 $ 26 $ 2,208 $ 13.38 $ 27,830 $ 2,319 $ 12.44 $ 25,871 $ 2,156 $ 13.06 $ 27,165 $ 2,264 $ 13.71 $ 28,517 $ 2,376 $ 12.75 $ 26,518 $ 2,210 $ 13.39 $ 27,851 $ 2,321 $ 14.06 $ 29,245 $ 2 $ 13.07 $ 27,180 $ 2,265 $ 13.72 $ 28,538 $ 2,378 $ 14 .41 $ 29,973 $ 2,498 $ 13.39 $ 27,860 $ 2,322 $ 14.06 $ 29,245 $ 2,437 $ 14.77 $ 30,722 $ 2,560 $ 13.73 $ 28,556 $ 2,380 $ 14.42 $ 29,994 $ 2,499 $ 15.14 $ 31,491 $ 2,624 $ 14.07 $ 29,270 $ 2,439 $ 14.78 $ 30,742 $ 2,562 $ 15.51 $ 32,261 $ 2,688 $ 14.42 $ 30,002 $ 2,500 $ 15.15 $ 31,512 $ 2,626 $ 15.90 $ 33,072 $ 2 $ 14.78 $ 30,752 $ 2,563 $ 15.52 $ 32,282 $ 2,690 $ 16.30 $ 33,904 $ 2,825 $ 15.15 $ 31,521 $ 2,627 $ 15.91 $ 33,093 $ 2,758 $ 16.71 $ 34,757 $ 2,896 $ 15.53 $ 32,309 $ 2,692 $ 16.31 $ 33,925 $ 2 $ 17.13 $ 35,630 $ 2,969 $ 15.92 $ 33,117 $ 2,760 $ 16.72 $ 34,778 $ 2,898 $ 17.55 $ 36,504 $ 3,042 $ 16.32 $ 33,945 $ 2,829 $ 17.14 $ 35,651 $ 2,971 $ 17.99 $ 37,419 $ 3,118 $ 16.73 $ 34,793 $ 2,899 $ 17.56 $ 36,525 $ 3,044 $ 18.44 $ 38,355 $ 3 $ 17.15 $ 35,663 $ 2,972 $ 18.00 $ 37,440 $ 3,120 $ 18.90 $ 39,312 $ 3,276 NOTE: The Technical and Clerical positions are classified as non - exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an hourly wage rate. This schedule converts the hourly rate to an annual rate by multiplying the hourly rate by the number of normal work hours in the current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by subtracting Saturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying that number by eight hours. There are 2,080 normal work hours in 1989. The monthly wage is determined by dividing the annual wage by twelve months. This conversion schedule is for informational purposes only and is not an official wage schedule. -11- (AAPC7E) * * * * * * * * * ** �3& B RAE TE UETT'L1JMEiQT REACHED * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1987 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE E POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE, L.E.L.S., LOCAL NO. 82 POLICE OFFICERS PLAN HOURLY RATE PROGRESSION STEPS P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 POSITION (65 %) (70 %) (80 %) (90 %) (100 %) Police Officer $ 10.016 $ 10.787 $ 12.328 $ 13.869 $ 15.410 CONVERSION TABLE Monthly $ 1,736 $ 1,870 $ 2,137 $ 2,404 $ 2,671 Annual $ 20,834 $ 22,436 $ 25,642 $ 28,847 $ 32,052 NORMAL PROGRESSION: Step P1 is the starting wage. Advance to Step P2 after six months Of employment. Advance to Step P3 after one year of employment. Advance to Step P4 after two years of employment. Advance to Step P5 after three years of employment. CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting step and step advances, within the City Council authorized limits, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager. INTERVALS: P5 is top police officer salary. P1 is 65% of P5; P2 is 70% of P5; P3 is 80% of P5; P4 is 90% of P5. CONVERSION TABLE HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL Sergeant (P5 monthly salary plus $310) $ 17.198 $ 2,981 $ 35,772 LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE: Percent of Base Pay based on longevity or educational credits to be paid as supplementary pay: EDUCATIONAL LONGEVITY COLLEGE QUARTER CREDITS PERCENT 4 -8 years 45 -89 3% 8 -12 years 90_134 5% 12-16 ears 16 years and over 180 ^ or 9 more 9% SPECIAL JOB CLASSIFICATION: 1. Employees classified or assigned by the City of Brooklyn Center to the following job classifications or positions will receive $110 per month or $110 prorated for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate: CONVERSION TABLE HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL A. Investigator $ 0.635 $ 110 $ 1,320 B. Juvenile Officer $ 0 .635 $ 110 $ 1,320 C. Dog Handler $ 0.635 $ 110 $ 1,320 2. Employees classified or assigned by the City of Brooklyn Center to the following job classifications or positions will receive $50 per month or $50 prorated for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate: CONVERSION TABLE HOURLY MONTHLY ANNUAL A. Corporal $ 0.288 $ 50 $ 600 NOTE: The Police Officer positions are classified as non — exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an hourly rate. This schedule also converts the hourly wage rate to monthly and annual. The conversion tables are for informational purposes only and are not a part of the official wage schedule. —12— (AAPC7F) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE F UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL N0. 49 POSITIONS HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE LOCAL N0. 49 PLAN NOTE: The following Wage Schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1989 through the last payroll period in 1989: CONVERSION TABLE HOURLY POSITION RATE MONTHLY ANNUAL Maintenance III $ 12.98 $ 2,250 $ 26,998 Maintenance II $ 12.46 $ 2,160 $ 25,917 Mechanic $ 12.98 $ 2,250 $ 26,998 Night Service Person $ 12.26 $ 2,125 $ 25,501 Maintenance I Beginning $ 9.17 $ 1,589 $ 19,074 Maintenance I Step 1 $ 9.99 $ 1,732 $ 20,784 Maintenance I Step 2 $ 10.82 $ 1,875 $ 22,495 Maintenance I Step 3 $ 11.64 $ 2,017 $ 24,206 Welding $ 12.73 $ 2,207 $ 26,478 Crew Lead $ 0.54 in addition to regular rate when assigned in writing by the department head 0 �y to assist a supervisor as crew leader while J -ff performing such duties. L I ITTAG1' TES SHOWN ABOVE: In addition to the above wage schedule, all employees shall be paid a lump sum payment for'all hours that the employee would be normally scheduled to work (excluding all overtime hours) equal to two percent (2%) of the employee's base pay rate. Payment of the lump sum shall be in three installments: 1. April 15, 1989 or as close to April 15, 1989 as possible, for all hours worked in January, February, March, and April; and 2. August 15, 1989, or as close to August 15, 1989 as possible, for all hours worked in May, June, July, and August; and 3. December 15, 1989, or as close to December 15, 1989 as possible, for all hours worked in September, October, November, and December. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY: Employees required by the employer to operate certain items of heavy equipment will be paid the Maintenance III rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit. Employees hired after February 7, 1984, in the Maintenance I class - ification who are required by the employer to operate certain items of light equipment will be paid the Maintenance II rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit. STANDBY PAY: Public Utility employees who are designated by their supervisor to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a weekend will receive as compensation for such service five (5) hours of overtime pay for the period beginning the end of the work day on Friday and ending the start of the work day on Monday when serving in such status. Public Utility employees who are designated by their supervisors to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a holiday will receive as compensation for such service two (2) hours of overtime pay for each holiday served in such status. Such standby pay shall be in addition to other compensation which the employee is entitled to under this agreement. NOTE: The above positions are classified as non - exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are compensated at an hourly rate. This schedule also converts the hourly wage rate to monthly and annual equivalents. The schedule converts the hourly rate to an annual rate by multiplying the hourly rate by the number of normal work hours in the current year. The number of normal work hours is determined by subtracting Saturdays and Sundays from the total number of days in the year and multiplying that number by eight hours. There are 2,080 normal work hours in 1989. The schedule converts the annual rate to the monthly rate by dividing the annual rate by twelve months., The conversions are for informational purposes only and are not a part of the official wage schedule. —13— AAPC G ( 7) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE G LIQUOR STORES PART —TIME HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE LIQUOR STORES ------------- ---- -- PART —TIME EMPLOYEES PLAN N Li t STEPS POSITION A � B � C DSENIOR Clerk /Stocker 4.75 5.35 6.15 6.40 6.90 Cashier 4.75 5.35 6.15 6.40 6.90 Cashier /Office Assistant 6.60 7.65 8.00 N/A N/A NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting hourly rate. Advance to Step B after six months employment. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment. Advance to Step D after thirty —six months employment. Advancement to the Senior Step is at the discretion of the City Manager upon the recommendation of the Liquor Stores' Manager. No more than six employees may be designated as Senior at any time. CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION: Starting grade and step advances, within the City Council authorized limits, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager. — 14 — I (AAPC7H) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1988 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE H EMPLOYEE INSURANCE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE INSURANCE BENEFITS i U U , p L.E.L.S., LOCAL NO. 82, POLICE OFFICERS: * * * * * * * ** 1987 CONTRIBUTION EXTENDED UNTIL SETTLEMENT REACHED * * * * * ** The City will contribute up to a maximum of $175 per month per employee toward health, life, long -term disability insurance, and dental insurance. (Dental insurance not to exceed $15.) INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO: The City will contribute, effective with insurance premiums due January 1, 1989, payment of an amount not to exceed $205 per month toward the cost of coverage under the Brooklyn Center Group Hospital - Medical Insurance Plans and Group Dental Insurance as fringe benefit compensation for full -time employees and eligible dependents. Dental Insurance not to exceed $20 per month. In addition, the City will provide a $10,000 Group Term Life Insurance policy. NON - ORGANIZED CITY EMPLOYEES: The City will contribute, effective with insurance premiums due January 1, 1989, payment of an amount not to exceed $205 per month toward the cost of coverage under the Brooklyn Center Group Hospital - Medical Insurance Plans and Group Dental Insurance as fringe benefit compensation for full --time employees and eligible dependents. Dental Insurance not to exceed $20 per month. In addition, the City will provide a $10,000 Group Term Life Insurance policy. CITY MANAGER: As provided in the City Manager's Personal Service Contract. -15- (AAPC71) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE I 1989 CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT b ' 777 rA TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT: 1. The City Charter, adopted by the voters of the City of Brooklyn Center on November 8, 1966, created the position of City Manager. 2. Gerald G. Splinter was appointed City Manager effective October 17, 1977 (Resolution No. 77-168) and is currently serving in that position. 3. The position of City Manager is not covered by the provisions of Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances. 4. Other conditions of employment are hereby explicitly stated: a. Mr. Splinter shall perform the duties and meet the obligations for the position of City Manager as set forth in the City Charter and Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances. b., Mr. Splinter's salary for 1989 shall be $72,228 per annum and adjustment to the City Manager's salary shall be reviewed annually in conjunction with the establishment of salaries for City employees. c. The City Manager shall be granted sick leave and holiday benefits granted to other employees and commencing January 1, 1983 he will earn four weeks vacation per year. d. The City Manager shall reside within Brooklyn Center within twelve months following the effective date of appointment. e. The full premium cost for individual and family coverage under the Brooklyn Center Group Health and Dental Plan and/or Insurance Plan and the full premium cost for two times his annual salary of term life insurance under the Brooklyn Center Group Life Insurance Plan shall be paid by the City on the City Manager's behalf. Because of the 1989 implementation of IRS Rule 89, it may be necessary, in order to maintain IRS nontax status of all employee insurance benefits, to modify this section of the City Manager's compensation package. If the Finance Director recommends modification in the payment of the City Manager's insurance benefits as the simplest and most effective method for assuring "qualification" of Brooklyn Center's employee group insurance plans under the new regulations of IRS Rule 89, then the City Manager's salary is to be adjusted an equivalent amount to compensate for any reduction in insurance benefits. f. The City Manager shall receive $250 per month if the City does not provide a car for the City Manager's twenty-four hour business use. 16- 1989 City Manager's Compensation Agreement, Schedule I, Continued: g. In the event of resignation, notice thereof shall be submitted in writing to the City Council at least 30 days prior to the effective date. h. In the event of dismissal by the City Council, the City Manager shall be notified at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of dismissal and shall be furnished a written statement of the reasons therefor, and further, shall be granted a hearing thereon, if requested. i. In the event of voluntary resignation or death, the City Manager shall receive severance pay based on 100% of his unused vacation leave and one —third of his unused sick leave. j. In the event of involuntary resignation or dismissal, severance pay based on 100% of his unused vacation leave and one —third of his unused sick leave plus eight months pay (to include health, dental, and life insurance premiums) shall be paid to the City Manager. However, in the event that the City Manager is terminated because of his conviction of any illegal act involving personal gain to him, the City shall have no obligation to pay the eight months severance sum designated in this paragraph. k. Minnesota State Law provides City Managers with a choice of pension plans: PERA or a deferred compensation fund. The City of Brooklyn Center will contribute to the qualified fund of the City Manager's choice a dollar amount equivalent to the required PERA contribution. 1. The City will, at a minimum, provide the cost for the City Manager to attend the state or national ICMA conferences or job — related courses, seminars, or training of equivalent cost. Y . t t 77 $ 7) 4;� -17- (AAPC7J) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN SCHEDULE J PERSONNEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY �, PERSONNEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY camas It is necessary that there be a uniform policy of reimbursement for travel, lodging, meals, and mileage expenses incurred by City employees and officials while performing their duties as representatives of the City of Brooklyn Center. It is also necessary that existing reimbursement policies be reviewed annually, and be adjusted when necessary, to reflect the current costs of travel, lodging, meals, and the use of personal automobiles for business use. Therefore, all existing reimbursement policies are hereby ammended to be as follows for e . costs incurred on January 1, 1989 and thereafter. 1. Reimbursements of travel expenses are intended to refund actual costs incurred by City employees and officials while traveling as authorized representatives of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. In order to qualify for travel reimbursement, trips to a destination exceeding 100 miles from Brooklyn Center must have the prior approval of the City Manager. 3. Requests for travel advances intended to defray costs incurred while on a trip and prior to susbmission of an expense report shall be submitted to the City Manager for approval at least seven . days in advance of the trip. P 4. Travel advances shall be limited to 90% of the estimated expenses for lodging, meals, and other related travel expenses. Costs of transportation and registration shall be advanced in full. 5. A properly verified, itemized expense claim shall be submitted to the City Manager for approval within ten days following the date of return from an authorized trip. Expense claims shall be accompanied by receipts for: a. Transportation costs to and from the destination via coach, tourist, or economy class transportation. b. Lodging costs not to exceed 8 g a reasonable anc single occupancy rate as determined by the City Manager. c. Conference or meeting registration fees. d. Any unusual items for which advance approval has been obtained from the City Manager. 6. The mode of transportation must be approved by the City Manager prior to any authorized trip. Personal automobile use for authorized trips will be reimbursed at a rate of 24 cents per mile, or an amount equal to air travel tourist class, whichever is the lesser. -18- 1989 Personnel Expense Reimbursement Policy, Schedule J, Continued 7. Reimbursement for meals while on authorized travel will be for actual expenditures with a maximum of $31 per day allowable, including tips. There shall be no per diem for meals or any other expenses. The maximum meal reimbursement for any fraction of a full day shall be as follows: a. Breakfast - $7.00 ' `sj e b. Lunch _ $9.00 � c. Dinner - $15.00 U The full cost shall be reimbursed for meals which are a scheduled activity of a conference or meeting and the cost of such meals is not included in the registration fee. 8. Employees and officials of the City shall be reimbursed for luncheon and dinner costs as authorized by the City Manager in accordance with the following provisions: a. The actual cost of the meal not to exceed $12.00 will be allowed for meals associated with attendance at training essions g when meals are an integral part of the program or when there are training sessions before and after the meal, or, for attendance at regular luncheon meetings of professional or related associations. b. The entire cost of related meals shall be reimbursed to those employees or officials designated to represent the City at meetings or other City business functions that the Council or City Manager deems necessary. 9. Employees or officials of the City who, in the conduct of official City business, are authorized or required to use their personal automobiles for transportation shall be reimbursed at the rate of 24 cents per mile for mileage incurred in the conduct of such business. An itemized mileage expense claim must be submitted to the City Manager for approval. 10. Certain employees of the City are required to drive a City vehicle to their home and keep it there while off -duty. They must do so to be able to respond to emergency situations. These emergency situations include fire and police protection, civil defense and restoring City services such as water, sewer, and streets. It may also be necessary to keep a City vehicle at home for security purposes or other City business purposes. These vehicles must be used for City business use only and cannot be used for the personal use of any employee. The employees who are authorized to keep a City vehicle at their home on a regular basis while off --duty are as follows: The Director of Emergency Preparedness The Chief of Police The Supervisor of Street Maintenance The Supervisor of Parks Maintenance The Supervisor of Public Utilities The Liquor Stores' Manager —19— � (AAPC7RSW) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SETTING WAGES AND SALARIES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1989 WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers and employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the 198+ Minnesota Pay Equity Act requires every political subdivision to establish "equitable compensation relationships" between its employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan meets the requirements of establishing "equitable compensation relationships ". and WHEREAS, the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan establishes that pay increases will be awarded on a pay for performance basis; and WHEREAS, the structure of the 1989 Employee Position and Classification Plan provides for pay increases awarded for improvements in job performance; and WHEREAS, an individual employee's movement through his or her respective pay schedule reflects a progression in corresponding levels or improved job performance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets wages and salaries for the calendar year 1989 by adoption of the attached Position and Classification Plan (Schedules A through J) for the calendar year 1989 which sets ranges and maximums which the City Manager shall be authorized to pay in classified positions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager may move an individual employee to pay grades in the attached Position and Classification Plan (Schedules A through J), but he is limited to authorizing increases due to Pay Equity Act compliance for an individual employee of no more than $1.50 per hour in 1989 and to the balance of any remaining increase in 1990; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all increases due to Pay Equity Act compliance must be within the Annual Budget constraints adopted by the City Council; and RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1989 City Employee Position and Classification Plan is approved and adopted because it is generally an equitable pay plan for City employees, however parts of the Plan were approved and adopted solely for the purpose of compliance with the mandate of Minnesota statutes, Sections 471.999; that adoption of said Plan shall create no vested rights, terms or conditions of employment or entitlement to any given level of compensation for any employee or group of employees; that said Plan shall be subject to continuing review and reconsideration and may be amended from time to time by the City Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to employ such temporary part —time and temporary full —time employees as may be necessary, and to establish competitive rates of pay for such help consistent with the 1989 budget appropriations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to make interim appointments to fill vacant positions whenever a position is vacant because the regular employee is on leave of abscence, vacation leave, sick leave, or is absent for any other reason and to establish rates of pay for such appoint — ments consistent with the 1989 budget appropriations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage adjustments, not to exceed the maximums contained herein, shall become effective January 1, 1989; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, in recognition that labor contract provisions are not as yet settled for calendar years 1988 and 1989 with the bargaining unit represented by L.E.L.S. Local No. 82, extends existing (1987) wage and salary rates for related job classicications in the Police Department. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12 - 19 -8e Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING SICK LEAVE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS COORDINATOR DEPT. APPROVAL: 4&4�LML- Personnel Coordinator S' nature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report �_. Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The City recently hired Diane Spector as the new public works coordinator replacing Joe Oster. In the existing personnel ordinance, section 17 -112 (1), employees are allowed to accumulate sick leave • benefits at the rate of eight hours for each calendar month of full -time service. In addition, section 17 -106 (4) prohibits probationary employees from using sick leave benefits during the first six months of service. The resolution before the city council would provide the public works coordinator with a 96 hour block of sick leave, equivalent to one year of accumulated sick leave benefits, to be available for use during the first year of service. Additional hours would not accumulate until the 96 hours have been earned. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve a Resolution Approving Sick Leave for the Public Works Coordinator. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SICK LEAVE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS COORDINATOR WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to authorize certain sick leave benefits for the new public works coordinator in the engineering division, department of public works. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Diane Spector, as public works coordinator, is granted a 96 hour block of sick leave which can be used in the first year of employment, but which must be earned before additional hours accumulate. Date Mayor ATTEST: • 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1 . Agenda Item Number___�� q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER HOOKUP RATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1989 DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KVlAPP DIRE TOR OF PUBLIC WO MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: I &;�; —61, 0 k 0=. --,e ff � . � 7 No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached- SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation Annually the water hookup rates are adjusted to account for inflation. This • year the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index was 5.3 percent. Accordingly, the proposed water hookup rates for calendar year 1989 have been increased 5.3 percent. Citv Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. f., • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER HOOKUP RATES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1989 WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 74 -45 and 77 -113 provided for the annual adjustment of water assessment rates for non - single - family residential and single - family residential properties, respectively; and WHEREAS, said adjustment in water assessment rates is to be effective January 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, Resolution 88 -05 changed the date from October to July; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index from July, 1987 to July, 1988 was an increase of 5.30 percent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the water assessment rates effective January 1, 1989 shall be as follows: Assessment 1989 Rate Single Family Residences $2,767.00 (includes service hookup) Frontage (front 135 feet) $28.20 per front foot Area (area outside front 135 feet) $8.75 per 100 square feet Service Hookup $652.00 per each Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date ° 12/19/88 Agenda Item Number �h REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT RATES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN 1989 DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * *V * *sk REC *O PUBLIC WO ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation . Annually the assessment rate for street improvement projects in residential areas is adjusted to account for inflation. The adjustment depends on the change in the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis as published in the Engineering News Record This year the change in the construction cost index was 2.0 percent. Accordingly, the proposed assessment rates for street improvement projects in residential areas in 1989 have been increased 2.0 percent. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. • ( :7 h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT RATES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN 1989 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -34 established residential assessment rates for street reconstruction projects; and WHEREAS, the residential assessment rate should be adjusted to correspond to changes in the cost of construction; and WHEREAS, the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis in the Engineering News Record reflects the changes in the cost of construction; and WHEREAS, the residential assessment rate should be adjusted annually to be effective January 1; and WHEREAS, the annual adjustment should be equal to the annual change in the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis for the preceding month of December; and WHEREAS, City Engineer has reported to the City Council that the change in Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News Record from December, 1987 to December, 1988, was an increase of 2.0 percent; and WHEREAS, the R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 zoned districts should be assessed based on an evaluation of project cost and project benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction shall apply to properties in R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned districts. These rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two - family residential sites at the time the assessment role is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then - existing Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The residential rate for street reconstruction shall be adjusted annually to be effective January 1. 3. The annual adjustment of the residential assessment rate for street reconstruction shall be equal to the annual change in the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis as published in the Engineering News Record for the year preceding and ending in December. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction effective January 1, 1989 shall be as follows: Land Use 1989 Assessment Rate R -1 zoned, used as a one - family $1,351 per lot site that cannot be subdivided R -2 zoned, or used as a two- family $17.95 per front foot site that cannot be subdivided with a minimum $1,351 per lot R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $17.95 Number of residential units 5. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction shall not apply to R -4, R -5, R -.6 or R -7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction for R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 zoned property shall be based on an evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the ad the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b y adoption of y P g g 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date Agenda Item Number Y / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING, BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) POLICE PATROL SEDANS DEPART NT APPR VAL: Administrative Aide Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The City Council approved an appropriation of $49,000 for the purchase of four police patrol sedans in 1989. One bid was received for these vehicles. Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet submitted a bid in the amount of $45,956. 1 recommend the City Council accept this bid -, and award the contract to Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) POLICE PATROL SEDANS WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for the purchase of four (4) police patrol sedans; and WHEREAS, one bid was received as follows. . Company Bid Thane Hawkins Polar Chev. $45,956.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of four (4) police patrol sedans from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet, in the amount of $45,956 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon the following llowin voted in favor thereof: hereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Number O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR A STATE GRANT FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECT DEPT. APPROVAL: CAA&& a N F, Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The City has applied to the Minnesota Department of Public Service, Energy Division for a grant for a Community Energy Conservation Project. The grant is for $4,858.00 and will benefit Brooklyn Center and two other cities. Work will be done by the West Hennepin Human Services Council in all three cities. The only other contribution required of the City will be some staff support which will be provided by existing personnel. V Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR A STATE GRANT FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for increasing the amount fixed in the budget resolution, but only to the extent that actual receipts exceed the estimates and then not beyond the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, the City has, on behalf of itself and two other cities, applied for a grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Service, Energy Division for a Community Energy Conservation Project; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of this grant, the City will be forwarding it on to the West Hennepin Human Services Council which is to carry out the program on behalf of the three cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by it City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1988 General Fund Budget by increasing the estimated State Grant revenues and the appropriation for the Planning and Inspection Department by $ 4,858.00. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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 thefollcwing voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. �K \ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF THE TWIN CITIES WHEREAS, THE KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF THE TWIN CITIES (BROOKLYN CENTER) has presented the City a gift of two hundred dollars ($200) and has designated that it be used for a civic purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Korean Presbyterian Church of the Twin Cities for its civic efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $200 be appropriated to the Children's Recreation Programs Budget to be used for playground programs. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12 -19 Agenda Item- Number 1�— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Contracting for Services for a Community Survey DEPT. APPROVAL: P rinatr i -title M i r MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An appropriation for a community survey was approved in the 1989 budget (Unity 33, Object No. 4310, Professional Services). The City has received two quotes for services. The first is from Anderson, Niebuhr, & Associates for $15,000, and the second is from Decision Resources Ltd. (DRL) for $6,500. The DRL quote is for conducting a survey of 60 questions; for each additional question over 60, there is a fee of $90. Attached are the proposals received from each firm. City staff has met with representatives of each firm, received samples of the final product from each of them, and received a listing of each firm's clients. Staff is confident that DRL will work cooperatively with the City in obtaining the Information desired in a timely manner. Therefore, staff recommends accepting the quote from DRL and authorizing contracting for services with it. As noted in its proposal, DRL will be working with the city council and staff to develop the survey. The basic quote of $6,500 provides for a survey of 60 questions. The 1989 budget includes $8,500 for a community survey, so when the questionnaire Is developed, there will be some flexibility to expand the survey to more than 60 questions if so desired. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve a Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Contracting for Services for a Community Survey. U L- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES FOR A COMMUNITY SURVEY WHEREAS, an appropriation of $8,500 was approved in the 1989 budget for contracting for services for a community survey; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company Quote Anderson, Niebuhr, & Associates, Inc. $15,000 Decision Resources LTD. $ 6,500 (plus $90 for each question over 60) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn Center that the contracting for services for a community survey, in the amount of at least $6,500 but not to exceed $8,500, is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. Decision ON N Resources Ltd. November 29, 1988 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this survey research proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center. Much of this proposal is based upon our earlier conversation with you and members of your staff. This prospectus is organized in three parts: a discussion of the goals of the research; a proposed design and schedule; and, estimated project costs. As you will see, I am certain that DRL can provide the City of Brooklyn Center with the information it seeks in both a cost - effective and timely manner. GOALS OF THE RESEARCH: The survey would assess the attitudes and needs of Brooklyn Center residents on four separate, but interrelated, issues: 1. EVALUATION OF CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS. How satisfied are residents with current city services? Are there any services which are rated as duplicative or unsatisfactory? Are there any services which residents feel should be newly offered or augmented? How much would residents be willing to pay to cover the cost of new and /or expanded services? 2. IMAGE OF THE CITY. How do residents view Brooklyn Center? Why did they move there? Have things changed for the better or the worse? What types of policies should be pursued in order to keep the city "special "? What alternative futures do residents most prefer? Is there an existing consensus about the future, or the possibility of crystallizing a consensus? 3. FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT. What types of redevelopment do residents most welcome? What types would they most oppose? Is there an "optimal mix" for redevelopment efforts? What should be the priorities? What role should Brooklyn Center play in our evolving regional /national /international system of interde- 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 e (612) 920 -0337 pendencies? What policies do citizens feel that the city should follow for future growth and /or stability? 4. CHANGING CITY DEMOGRAPHICS. Does the current population profile suggest policy strategies for city government? What are the possibilities for residential renewal -- to expand the tax base as well as stabilize the average increasing age of the population? Among newer residents, what characteristics of the city attracted them to settle? Does the composition of the households in the city suggest the need for specific types of programs? The survey questionnaire would contain a series of items aimed at exploring each of these topics, as well as any other concerns of the Council and staff. In addition to providing an excellent gauge of residential attitudes at the present time, the responses would also provide a benchmark for any future research, either updating this study or examining specific topics, such as residential mobility and economic redevelopment. One of the strengths of our company is the ability to realistically and accurately project current attitudes and opinions into the future. Because of the many different types of cities we have worked with, and several Metropolitan Area -wide studies we have completed recently, we are able to derive implications about the shape of future decades for a community. As you may know, suburbs follow a pronounced "life cycle" -- DRL has worked with municipalities at all stages of this cycle. 0 Consequently, we are able to anticipate probable change, and its effect on residential needs and perceptions, based upon the present. DESIGN AND SCHEDULE OF THE RESEARCH: Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 500 randomly selected households in Brooklyn Center. A sample of this size would provide results projectable to the entire city within + 4.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The sample is also of sufficient size to permit the city to be divided into a maximum of five zones for more detailed analysis. To insure the integrity of the sample, DRL places the most exacting sampling standards in the industry on our procedures. Before an alternate household is substituted for a designated target, five tries are made to contact the initial household. The calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and during the weekend. Our phoners are also instructed to seek convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our in- process refusal rate to less than four percent on average. An unbiased selection process is also used to identify the adult member of the household to be interviewed. To validate the completed sample, the latest census and Metropolitan Council updated population characteristics are utilized as a standard of comparison. The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The Company is proud of the fact that the average length of employment of the DRL interviewers is four years; the employment stability of our phoners is unique in the industry and provides our clients with the most sophisticated and proven interviewers available in the region. The computer analysis will be obtained from the DRL remote job entry facility to the University of Minnesota CYBER system, insuring both access to the most current statistical analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set. The City of Brooklyn Center will be presented with two bound copies of the final report highlighting all the major findings of the study. DRL will also speak to any major differences from and similarities with other recently completed suburban residential attitudes studies undertaken for Richfield, Saint Anthony, and Roseville, within the inner ring, as well as sixteen other suburbs within the second- and third - rings. A volume of all computer generated cross tabulations and other multivariate statistical techniques will also be included to provide the "raw" data required for further secondary analyses. In addition, the findings will be presented by me at any meetings or work sessions specified by the City. The components of the project and the proposed time schedule is outlined below: 1. Planning meetings with council, staff, and /or relevant citizens committees, to establish the topics to be covered in the survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would word specific, neutral questions. This activity to be completed within three weeks of the initiation of the contract. 2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities to be completed within four weeks of the initiation of the contract. 3. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing. 4. Pre - testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity to be completed by the second day of field work. 5. Completion of all fieldwork within a two week period. 6. Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All analytical analysis and commentary will be available within SIX WEEKS after completion of the field work. 7. Meetings with the City Council, staff and /or citizen committees in either a work session or formal presentation to explain and discuss the results of the study. The final discussion and strategy session can be arranged at a time convenient for the City Council members and /or staff after delivery of the report. Assuming a January 1, 1988 starting date, this timetable conforms to your stated objective of an April 1, 1988, final report delivery date. DRL personnel are also willing to attend a reasonable number of additional meetings for dissemination of the data to the public, city boards, or other organizations. On -going telephone consultation about any part of the study, analysis, or implications is also included. PROJECT COSTS: A sixty question unit 500 household random sample of the City of Brooklyn Center would cost $6500.00. Each additional question unit beyond the initial sixty would be $90.00. Included in this cost are two bound copies of the written analysis, one volume of crosstabs and related statistical tests, an executive summary of the highlights of the study, and a reasonable number of presentations and work sessions. The cost of any study is driven by the number of question units contained on the survey instrument. DRL counts each question as one or less "units." For example, a series of ten queries soliciting respondents to evaluate various school programs would not count as "ten" units. More likely, it would be counted as two or three, depending upon the response required of the interviewee. Similarly, open -ended questions, or unaided response questions requiring top -of- the -mind reactions, also count as one unit. Hence, the final number of questions is usually considerably greater than the number of question units. As company policy, DRL requires one -half of the cost prior to the commencement of field work; the remainder is due upon delivery of the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL invoices clients at the time of the approval of the survey instrument. I hope this proposal sufficiently covers all the information you require. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact either Diane. Traxler or me. Sincerely, William D. Morris,- .D. President Decision Resources L CAPABILITIES STATEMENT The Firm Decision Resources, Ltd. is a full - service market and research firm. DRL was incorporated in 1983, and has already served clients across the nation in the private, public, and political sectors. The firm's main offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Divisional Personnel reside in Pittsburgh, Penn- sylvania. As a full- service firm, all word processing, duplication, print- ing, sample selection, interview tabulation, and computer analy- sis are undertaken on -site. All telephone surveys are conducted at the DRL phonebank located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Local in- home and elite /specialized interviews are administered by company personnel. In addition to internal IBM computer facilities, the firm also has a remote entry access to the CYBER system at the University of Minnesota. The company is composed of fifty full -time and part -time em- ployees. The main principals of the firm possess extensive backgrounds in marketing, public affairs, survey research, and statistical methods. This cross - disciplinary background allows DRL to approach research problems from many different perspec- tives, and to evaluate potential strategies from a myriad of theoretical bases. Recent and Current Clients Private and Public Sector Clients: Municipalities and State Government City of Plymouth, Park Referendum Analysis, Plymouth, Minnesota City of Plymouth, City Services Assessment, Plymouth, Minnesota City of Plymouth, Quality of Life Study, Plymouth, Minnesota City of Bloomington, Quality of Life Study, Bloomington, Minnesota City of Inver Grove Heights, Solid and Harzardous Waste Disposal Study, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota City of Inver Grove Heights, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota City of Roseville, Quality of Life Study, Roseville, Minnesota 3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920 -0337 City of Shoreview, Quality of Life Study, Shoreview, Minnesota City of Cottage Grove, Economic Development Study, Cottage Grove, Minnesota City of Eagan, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Eagan, Minnesota City of Plymouth, Quality of Life Tracking Study, Plymouth, Minnesota City of Chaska, Community Center Needs Study, Chaska, Minnesota City of Woodbury, Referendum Planning for the Administrative Facilities Proposal, Woodbury, Minnesota City of Little Canada, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Little Canada, Minnesota City of Mounds View, Quality of Life Study, Mounds View, Minnesota City of Hopkins, Residential Needs Analysis, Hopkins, Minnesota City of Lakeville, Quality of Life Study, Lakeville, Minnesota City of Burnsville, Vision: 2010 Project, Burnsville, Minnesota City of Richfield, Municipal Services /Economic Development Study, Richfield, Minnesota City of Richfield Marketing Task Force, City Image and Population Mobility Study, Richfield, Minnesota City of Oakdale, Parks and Recreational Facilities Needs Analysis, Oakdale, Minnesota City of New Brighton, Residential Needs Analysis, New Brighton, Minnesota City of Minnetonka, Employee Census, Minnetonka, Minnesota City of Rosemount, 2010 Project, Rosemount, Minnesota Washington County, Residential Attitudes Survey, Stillwater, Minnesota Dakota County, Household Hazardous Waste Program Evaluation, West Saint Paul, Minnesota Minnesota World Trade Center, Regional Feasibility Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota Government Training Services, Study for the Energy Division of the State Department of Administration, Saint Paul, Minnesota Corporations Cowles Communications, Inc., Theatre Market Segmentation Analy- sis, Minneapolis, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Corporate Culture Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Issues Management Task Force, Image and Issues Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Group Facilitation Methods, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Internal Communications Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, 3M, Public Relations Department, External Communications Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Market Analysis of Local Pub- lications, Saint Paul, Minnesota 0 3M, Public Relations Department, Course on Public Relations Strategy, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Public Relations Department, Practicum on Public Relations Strategy, Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M Executive Offices, Crisis Management Team Product Failure Saint Paul, Minnesota 3M, Leisure Products Division, Packaging Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota CFS- Minnesota, Inc., Planning and Communications Focus Group Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota CFS- Minnesota, Inc., Sexual Harassment and Appropriate Behavior Focus Group Sessions, Golden Valley, Minnesota Continental Cablevision Sierra Region, Fresno City Utility Tax Referendum, Continental Cablevision, Stockton, California Financial Institutions and Realtors Franklin State Bank, Rural Viability Study, Franklin, Minnesota Twin City Federal Savings and Loan, Market Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota James Hoffman and Associates, Rural Housing Study, Willmar, Minnesota First Bank Minneapolis, Metropolitan Area Quality of Life Study, First Banks System, Minneapolis, Minnesota Business Organizations Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Major League Baseball Task Force, Twins Market Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Convention Center Preference Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Minnesota Project on Corporate Responsibility, Leadership in Transition Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry, Membership Survey Series, Saint Paul, Minnesota School Districts Bloomington School District, Communications Audit, Bloomington, Minnesota Mounds View School District, Referendum Planning Study, Roseville, Minnesota Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Education in the Jacksonville Area Study, Jacksonville, Florida Diocese of Saint Augustine, Catholic Education in the Saint Augustine Area Study, Saint Augustine, Florida Totino -Grace High School, Market Segmentation Study, Fridley, Minnesota Bethlehem Academy, School Feasibility Study, Faribault, Minnesota Holy Angels High School, Alumni Perceptions Study, Richfield, . Minnesota Saint Matthews Elementary School, Parish Family Preference and Future Policies Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota f Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Dakota County School Feasibility Study, Saint Paul, Minnesota Religious Organizations Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Development Office, Annual Catholic Appeal Market Segmentation Analysis, Saint Paul, Minnesota School Sisters of Notre Dame, Community and Ministry Satisfaction Study, Mankato, Minnesota Non- Profit and Cultural /Arts Organizations Ramsey County Historical Society, Membership Survey and New Member Drive, Saint Paul, Minnesota O'Shaughnessy Dance Series, Market Segmentation Analysis, College of Saint Catherine, Saint Paul, Minnesota The Minnesota Opera, Potential Audience Study, Development Office, Saint Paul, Minnesota The League of Minnesota Cities, Membership Survey, Saint Paul, Minnesota Northwest Community Television, Cable Subscribers Satisfaction Study, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota A PROPOSAL To CONDUCT A SURVEY OF CITY RESIDENTS Submitted to: , The City of Brooklyn Centel 1 vi,,✓e"'i'liitc.t'", vy. � � 1 iJj � � t -1 ��, re���, III � 3, i i• (. Anderson, Niebuhr. �- Associates, Inc. 1885 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 (612)645 -5577 Deco - iber, 1988 a j,, r 1. i A PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A i SURVEY OF CITY RESIDENTS Submitted to: The City of Brooklyn Center Submitted by: Anderson Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 185 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 (612) 645 -5577 December, 1988 � l r PROPOSAL SUMMARY t The City of Brooklyn Center wishes to conduct a general surrey of its residents to assess satisfaction with various City services, programs, and facilities. Our proposed research strategies and understanding of the project may be summarized as follows: ■ The population of interest consists of residents of Brooklyn Center. r ■ We will obtain a random sample of 385 households for participation in the survey. ■ We will meet with City representatives to further identify the key issues and topics I r to be addressed in the questionnaire. ■ We recommend pretesting the questionnaire with a random sample of 20 residents. ■ We propose to conduct the survey using telephone survey techniques. ■ We will work with City representatives to determine what statistical analyses will t conduct in addition to co be most useful and appropriate o descriptive P statistics. ■ Brooklyn Center representatives will receive five copies of a comprehensive written final report. ■ A project such as the one we have proposed typically requires approximately 90 IC days to complete from project design through final report. The research project proposed by Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. will provide the City of Brooklyn Center with high quality and actionable information for use in developing their short- and long -range planning goals. I C 2 INTRODUCTION C The City of Brooklyn Center is interested in conducting a general services survey of its residents. The purpose of the survey is to assess current satisfaction with various City programs, services, and facilities, as well as to determine interest in new or expanded services, it programs, and facilities. The information gathered will be used in establishing both the short- and long -term planning goals of the City. To obtain the needed information, the City is interested in having the community C residential survey conducted by an independent research firm working closely with City representatives. Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. was contacted by the City to discuss the needed research and was requested to submit a proposal to conduct the study. This proposal z is submitted in response to that request and contains the following sections: ■ A description of the project and its purpose; P P J P P ■ The qualifications of Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc.; ■ The proposed plan for designing, implementing, and completing the survey of Brooklyn Center residents; and ■ The time and cost for conducting the project. We believe the best survey research projects are conducted by working closely with our clients. Therefore, we are committed to maintaining close contact with City representatives, including the City Manager, Director of Planning and Development, and the City Council, throughout the project. Face -to -face working sessions are recommended to finalize the design of the study, identify the key issues and topics for the questionnaire, and finalize the statistical analyses to be conducted and the report format. It should be noted that we are willing to i discuss alterations to this proposal if changes are desired. C 3 QUALIFICATIONS i Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. is a Twin Cities based corporation that has been conducting market research and other types of survey research since 1974. During that time, the firm has gained a national reputation for excellence. Anderson- Niebuhr offers a full range of research services, including study design, sampling design, questionnaire construction, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, graphics, and report writing. In addition to conducting survey research projects, the firm is recognized as a leader in providing professional training nationally for people who wish to improve their research skills. I. Our Staff Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. employs a full -time staff of professional, technical, and administrative employees who are all well trained and experienced in research work. Our T interviewing staff consists of highly skilled interviewers who are experienced in community resident surveys. They are monitored by experienced interviewer supervisors using electronic monitoring equipment and are trained in techniques to facilitate response in community studies. II. Our Relationship to Our Clients It is the policy of Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. to maintain close contact with clients throughout all stages of the research project. We work with our clients to define the research direction, and our clients are kept abreast of the project as it develops to insure that the collected data will be maximally useful when the project is completed. Depending on the particular project and client needs, we often provide consultation concerning applications of the research findings. In other City and State studies, we have also worked with staff executive ( 4 committees and department heads to integrate the survey findings into their planning processes. C III. Our Experience in Research The residential survey for the City of Brooklyn Center requires several kinds of expertise: (1) experience designing and implementing a sampling strategy so that conclusions can be accurately drawn about Brooklyn Center residents, (2) skills in constructing a survey instrument a which will elicit the information needed from residents, (3) expertise in telephone survey methods so that a high response rate and high quality data are obtained, and (4) demonstrated ability to in conducting community resident surveys. Our extensive experience in each of these areas means that we have a solid understanding of the dynamics involved in obtaining accurate, reliable, and actionable data from Brooklyn Center residents. Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. has conducted numerous surveys of residents in the Brooklyn Center area, including several market research surveys of residents for North Memorial Medical Center, and surveys of area residents regarding shopping preferences. i Examples of community surveys we have conducted include: (1) A mail survey of 600 residents and a telephone survey of 150 businesses was conducted for the City of St. Louis Park. The survey obtained information regarding image, satisfaction with City services, and the need for expanded services. Response rates of 91 percent and 94 percent were obtained for the residential and business surveys, respectively. (2) A telephone survey of 385 City and 385 suburban residents was conducted for the Saint Paul Tomorrow planning project for the City of St. Paul. The survey obtained information about the perceptions and expectations of area residents regarding their satisfaction with St. Paul and its neighborhoods. Statistical 5 comparisons were conducted to determine whether there were significant differences between the responses of City and suburban residents. (3) A survey of customers of Northern States Power Company (NSP) was conducted for the Minneapolis Energy Office, City of Minneapolis, in conjunction with NSP and the Minneapolis Community Action Agency. In Phase 1, Anderson- Niebuhr conducted personal and telephone surveys of customers regarding electric use. In Phase II, Anderson - Niebuhr trained energy auditors to conduct appliance inventories effectively. (4) A mail survey of residents in the 14 recreation areas of St. Paul was conducted for the City of St. Paul, Division of Parks and Recreation. The needs assessment identified priorities for increased programming, the needs of residents overall, the needs of subgroups of residents, and perceptions about existing programs and services offered by the Division of Parks and Recreation. (5) Two surveys of the Dayton's Bluff community were conducted for the City of St. Paul using mail survey methods. The focus of the first study was to obtain information about the need for community services. The second study assessed the need for neighborhood services and recreation programs. In addition, this study elicited opinions about future uses of the Mounds Park School site. (6) A survey of Richfield community residents was conducted for the City of Richfield to obtain information on the energy efficient improvements residents have made, ~ their plans for future energy efficiency improvements, and preferred methods of paying for such improvements. Other examples of relevant projects we have conducted in which community residents were surveyed include: ■ A survey of 502 Minnesota residents was conducted for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to determine awareness of DNR i i r 6 services, satisfaction with these services, and opinions on future directions for the DNR ■ A community services needs assessment, in which residents, community leaders, and agency representatives were surveyed, for the United Way of the St. Cloud area ■ Needs assessment survey of West Side community in St. Paul ■ Needs assessment survey of West 7th community in St. Paul ■ Needs assessment survey Y of Pa ne- Phalen community in St. Paul F ■ Needs assessment survey of Hamline- Midway community in St. Paul ■ Needs assessment survey of St. Anthony Park community in St. Paul ■ Needs assessment survey of residents and businesses in the North End Community in St. Paul ■ Community survey for Mount Sinai Hospital in Minneapolis ■ Several surveys of community residents, patients, and physicians for North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale, Minnesota regarding selected medical services ■ Survey f St. Paul residents regarding police service r Y 9 g ■ Survey of residents living in the Mt. Airy housing project in St. Paul ■ Population study for the Minneapolis Federation for Jewish Service ■ Evaluation survey of Identified Treatment Area Program in St. Paul C ■ Survey of residents living in St. Paul's housing projects ■ Neighborhood and recreation needs assessment of the Edgcumbe community in St. Paul i n Anderson Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. has been conducting residential surveys g ntial Y s for nearly 15 years. In addition to the community studies mentioned above, we routinely conduct household surveys for many other organizations. Examples of these studies include: I C 7 ■ A survey of 30,000 subscribers for TIME, Inc. was conducted in which a 0 response rate exceeding 90 percent was achieved. ■ A national survey of 1,000 high school students was conducted for the College Board regarding student search materials. ■ A national study is currently in progress for the corporate office of Kaiser T Permanente to assess the satisfaction of members with recent hospitalization in Kaiser hospitals across the country. ■ A survey of patients is currently being conducted for Vanderbilt University Medical Center regarding satisfaction with a recent hospital stay. ■ Numerous telephone surveys of policyholders have been conducted for JCPenney Financial Services to determine their satisfaction with services and interest in new products. Anderson - Niebuhr also conducts market research studies on a regular basis for corporate clients located throughout the United States. Types of studies conducted include: ■ Customer satisfaction studies ■ Feasibility studies for new ventures i ■ Potential customer surveys a ■ Competitor analysis studies Examples of corporate clients for whom we have conducted market research studies include 3M, Control Data Corporation, H.B. Fuller, Weyerhaeuser Paper Company, Gould, Inc., MCI Telecommunications, U S West, Federal Reserve Bank, and Owens - Corning Fiberglas. IV. Project Direction and References The professional staff assigned to this project will include Dr. John Anderson, Ms. Marsha Niebuhr, Ms. Karen Lyon, Dr. Pamela Jones, and Dr. Elizabeth Peterson. Dr. Anderson and Ms. Niebuhr are rinci als and founders of Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc., and have P P C 8 many years of experience conducting surveys. They have co- authored a widely used textbook about survey research, Questionnaires: Design and Use (2nd ed., 1986). In addition, Dr. t Anderson has published market research articles in a variety of professional journals and publications, including Journal of Marketing, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Marketing News. i Ms. Lyon is an Executive Associate with Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. She has been responsible for managing over 50 projects at Anderson - Niebuhr, including several surveys in the Brooklyn Center area. She was a speaker at the 1987 national conference of the American Marketing Association, and her research has been published in professional journals. Dr. Jones is a Research Associate with Anderson- Niebuhr. In addition to constructing questionnaires, interpreting statistical data, and writing research reports, she manages various projects at Anderson- Niebuhr. Previously she has conducted research projects at the University of Minnesota and with the U.S. Forest Service. She has presented research papers at national conferences for the National Recreation and Park Association and the Association of r Interpretive Naturalists. Dr. Peterson is also a Research Associate with Anderson - Niebuhr. Questionnaire construction, statistical data interpretation, technical writing of research reports, and project management are her primary areas of responsibility. Previously she has worked on a number of research projects at the University of Minnesota and served as the editorial associate for an international educational journal. She has presented a research paper at the Midwestern Psychological Association. The above named people are the senior research staff who will be responsible for the r Brooklyn Center resident survey and who will work directly with representatives of Brooklyn Center throughout the study, including the stages of project design, questionnaire construction, data analysis, report writing, and presentation of findings. If you wish to talk with a few of our past clients for their comments on our work, the following individuals may be contacted: 9 (1) Ms. Judy Barr, City of St. Paul, (612) 292 -7731 (2) Ms. Lynn Wolfe, City of St. Paul, (612) 292 -7400 (3) Ms. Sharon Klumpp, City of Oakdale, (612) 739 -5086 (4) Ms. Pat Arndt, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, (612) 297 -4192 Mr. Tom Baumann, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, (612) 296 -6038 (5) Ms. Colleen Stiles, United Way of St. Cloud, (612) 252 -0227 f 10 RESEARCH METHOD The survey of residents desired by the City of Brooklyn Center may be described in terms of six phases of research. These phases are: (1) Project design (2) Sampling design (3) Questionnaire design (4) Data collection (5) Data analysis and interpretation (6) Reporting of results Within each of these phases of research, careful attention must be devoted to methodology in order to insure that the desired outcome of each phase is achieved. These outcomes and the methods we use to achieve them are outlined below: f Research Phase Desired Outcome Anderson - Niebuhr Method 1. Project Design Research design that Obtain input from City will obtain the information representatives and identify needed to make decisions to be made using decisions. the data. 2. Sampling Design Sampling that permits Select a representative the data to be general- sample using an appropriate izable to the desired sample size and sample population. type. f 1 3. Questionnaire Questionnaires that will Construct valid and reliable Design yield accurate, useful questions that are pretested. data. 4. Data Collection Compilation of accurate Use skilled interviewers data with minimal and extensive follow -up nonresponse bias. to routinely achieve 90% response rates. 5. Data Analysis Thorough and meaning- Use statistical procedures ful statistical analyses. appropriate to the type of data collected and the client's needs. 6. Reporting of Useful, meaningful Present easy -to- understand Results description of the results findings tailored to the needs results. of the City of Brooklyn Center. 11 Described in greater detail below are the procedures we propose to use for designing, implementing, and completing the survey of residents for the City of Brooklyn Center. I. Project Design At the beginning of the project, Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. will meet with City representatives to discuss the desired outcomes of the study, the methodology to be used, t how the data will be used, and the timetable for implementation and completion of the survey. We will work particularly closely with City representatives in the project design and questionnaire construction stages so that we will together achieve the desired outcomes. 11. Population and Sample A common, but misguided, approach to conducting a residential survey such as the one needed by the City of Brooklyn Center may be described as follows: (1) A large sample is drawn. (2) A limited number of contacts is made to reach the original sample. (3) Those unable to be reached with minimal effort are replaced. (4) The response rate is either not reported or does not take into consideration the replacement of the original sample. The use of this approach ignores two types of methodological error that affect the reliability of the data: (1) sampling error, which affects the generalizability of the data; and (2) nonresponse bias, which affects the accuracy of the data. We recommend, instead, the following sampling procedure: Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. will obtain a complete list of households in the City of Brooklyn Center. From this list, we will draw an equal probability random sample of 385 households using computer - generated random digits. Drawing the sample in this manner will insure that each household in Brooklyn Center has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. In addition, this sampling strategy, combined with data collection methods that yield a high response rate from 12 the original sample, will provide highly accurate data from a representative sample of Brooklyn Center residents. A sample size of 385 will insure that the data will be generalizable to Brooklyn Center residents as a whole, and will also yield data from City residents that are accurate within ± 5 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. Only household members who are 18 years of age or older will be interviewed from the households selected for the survey. III. Questionnaire Design Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. will work closely with City representatives during the design of the resident questionnaire. Experience has shown that close contact with clients is the most effective way to insure that appropriate questionnaires are designed. An appropriate questionnaire depends on the successful completion of the following four activities: (1) identification of issues and information that need to be addressed, (2) construction of reliable and valid questions, (3) construction of a questionnaire format appropriate for the particular study, and (4) pretesting of the questionnaires. Each of these phases is described below. A. Identification of Issues and Needed Information Anderson - Niebuhr will meet with City representatives to obtain specific information regarding the topics City representatives wish to include in the survey. After the meeting, we C will prepare a draft of the survey questionnaire for review by City representatives. Topics to be addressed in the questionnaire may include: ■ Satisfaction with various City services and programs ■ Importance of various City services and programs ■ Residents' reactions to the development of new facilities ■ Willingness of residents to accept a new bond issue to fund a City facility expansion 13 ■ Interest in and perceived need for a Senior Center ■ Interest in and perceived need for a field house ■ Park and recreation issues ■ Transportation for seniors ■ Housing issues ■ Satisfaction with human services available in the community ■ Importance of human services ■ Perceived image of Brooklyn Center ■ Sources of information about Brooklyn Center We will meet with City representatives to further discuss and identify topics to be included in the questionnaire. B. Question Construction Questions will be phrased in ways that minimize bias and maximize validity and reliability. Careful attention will be given to phrasing of questions to insure they ask for precisely the desired information. Questions will be phrased using language and words easily understood so all people will interpret the questions in the same way. Questions will be phrased so they are not "loaded% i.e., so they do not suggest that one answer may be socially preferred or more "correct" than some other answers. Words that may stimulate strong emotional reaction on the part of respondents will be avoided, as will words that may offend or alienate respondents. C. Questionnaire Format As much as possible, closed questions having a predetermined set of response options that are exhaustive and mutually exclusive will be used. This means that the response options will include all possible answers and that no one can legitimately respond with more than one answer to a given question. Such wording avoids confusing respondents and prevents 14 problems of interpreting multiple responses to a single question. The questionnaire will be constructed so the layout and design prevent confusion and are compatible with the data analysis strategy. Our project costs are based on a survey questionnaire that does not exceed 15 minutes to complete. After Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. has prepared a draft of the survey questionnaire, copies will be provided for review and critique by City representatives. Suggestions for additions, deletions, or other changes will be incorporated into a revised version of the questionnaire. The revised questionnaire will then be pretested. D. Pretest The pretest will consist of conducting a small version of the study using the methods r that will be used in the main study. Only by trying out the questionnaire with actual Brooklyn Center residents can it be discovered whether or not questions are understood clearly and can be answered by those selected for the survey. We recommend conducting the pretest with 20 Brooklyn Center residents. Based on the results of the pretest and a discussion of the results with City representatives, the questionnaire will be further revised. Data collection will begin only after final approval of the questionnaire by City representatives. E. Minimizing Bias Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. has been studying response rates and the effects of nonresponse bias for nearly 15 years. The approach we use for questionnaire construction, pretesting, and data collection, including follow -up, is designed to minimize bias on the part of s. the respondent. To this end, we have written two editions of a book and numerous articles. Our data collection methods are designed on the basis of this research and routinely achieve response rates of 90 percent or better. Described below are the procedures we propose to { 15 use to obtain high quality, nonbiased results in the telephone survey of Brooklyn Center residents. i IV. Data Collection We recommend collecting the household data for the study by telephone survey methods using our on -site centralized telephone interviewing facilities. Our professional interviewers have had years of experience in conducting community telephone surveys. Telephone interviewers will call at varying times of the day and on different days of the week, including weekends, to insure that every conceivable attempt is made to contact the originally selected random sample. Extensive callbacks will be made to reach people who are not available when first called. We frequently attempt to contact a household in excess of 30 times before replacing it in the sample, thus reducing nonresponse bias. Our interviewers know the importance of obtaining high response rates from the originally selected random sample and have been trained in methods to reduce refusals and noncontacts to a minimum. While other market research firms generally obtain response rates ranging from 40 to 50 percent, our interviewing procedures routinely achieve response rates in excess of 90 percent from the original random sample. Such high response rates insure that nonresponse bias is not a factor. In addition, interviewing is carefully monitored by interviewer supervisors using electronic monitoring equipment. If desired, City representatives may also monitor our telephone interviewing from their own location using this telecommunication equipment. The following is a summary of the telephone survey research techniques we will use for the survey of Brooklyn Center residents: (1) Use interviewers experienced in surveys of community residents. (2) Brief interviewers at the beginning of the project to inform them about the 16 purpose of the study, review the survey instrument, role -play the interviewing process, and answer any questions they may have at the outset of the project. C (3) Contact the original sample at varying times of the day and on different days of the week, including weekends, to insure that every conceivable attempt is made to contact the original sample. (4) Conduct extensive callbacks to reach persons selected for the survey. (5) Monitor the work of interviewers using electronic monitoring equipment. (6) Debrief interviewers at the conclusion of data collection to review the survey f process. We understand that City representatives may notify residents in advance that a survey is being undertaken and to encourage them to participate. V. Data Analysis Responses from all completed surveys will be reviewed for completeness and consistency and transferred to magnetic media for computer analysis. All transfer to magnetic media will be verified. Analyses will be conducted by computer using our on -site facilities and r i computer programs contained in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS /PC +). Anderson- Niebuhr has the capability to conduct a variety of statistical analyses, from simple t tests and crosstabulations to complex multivariate analyses. We will work with Brooklyn Center representatives to determine what statistical analyses will be useful and appropriate to conduct in addition to complete descriptive statistics. VI. Deliverable Products of the Study Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. is committed to maintaining close contact with City representatives throughout the project. The following products will be delivered to 17 Brooklyn Center representatives during the study: ■ Pretest questionnaire, ■ Final questionnaire, ■ Final report, and ■ A verbal presentation of the findings, if so desired. We will work with City representatives to prepare a comprehensive final report that will be both useful and meaningful for the City. This report will contain a complete description of the research method used, a co of the survey questionnaire, complete descriptive results and copy Y q P p any other additional statistical analyses, computer - generated graphics, tables, and our conclusions and recommendations based on the surrey findings. The City of Brooklyn Center will receive five copies of the final report. f c I 18 QUALITY CONTROL Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. has established a reputation in the field of market research for providing high quality data to its clients. Quality is maintained through several mechanisms: (1) We work closely with our clients throughout the project, particularly in the sampling design and questionnaire construction stages, to insure that the completed project reflects the client's precise data needs. (2) We recommend pretesting the survey instrument with individuals from the population of interest. r (3) Data collection is undertaken only after finalization of the questionnaire. (4) Telephone interviewers receive professional training and have years of experience in interviewing. Interviewers are carefully trained for each project undertaken to insure that they thoroughly understand the project and questionnaire to be used. In addition, supervisors monitor interviewing with electronic monitoring equipment. (5) Data are collected, reviewed, coded, and verified according to established procedures. (6) All documents pertaining to the project are retained in accordance with our documentation storage procedures, described in the next section. ;i 19 DOCUMENTATION STORAGE Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. adheres to strict practices regarding confidentiality to preserve the interests of its clients and surrey respondents. All data from the survey will be stored on magnetic media permanently in case there is a need for data retrieval at a later date. All documentation for the project will be retained for a period of six months after completion of the project. Unless otherwise directed by City representatives, at the end of the designated storage period these documents will be disposed of in a manner preserving confidentiality. 20 TIME AND COST r Anderson- Niebuhr is committed to working with the City of Brooklyn Center to complete this project in a timely manner. We understand that City representatives wish to receive a draft t copy of the report by March 15 and the final report by March 31. To meet these deadlines we recommend beginning the project the first week of January. The cost to conduct the survey of 385 Brooklyn Center residents, as outlined in this proposal, is $15,000. r { C MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 8, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Mike Nelson and Ellamae Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Recording Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Lowell Ainas and Bertil Johnson were unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 1988 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the November 10, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Nelson and Sander. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht as he did not attend that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88023 (Gary Przymus) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a reupholstering business out of the tuck -under garage of the residence at 7012 Regent Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88023 attached). He suggested that a seventh condition be added stating that approval of this application in no way implies that the applicant is exempt from the nuisance ordinance amendment regarding the parking of commercial vehicles which will become effective June 1, 1989. He noted there is a public hearing required and the proper notices have been sent. Commissioner Malecki inquired if the tuck -under garage is used to store some of the materials used in the upholstering business, could the garage still be used for other permitted accessory uses? The Secretary stated as long as a car can enter the garage and is not used entirely for the home occupation it would still be considered a garage. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant, Gary Przymus, if he had a commercial vehicle. Mr. Przymus responded he owns a 112 ton van with a weight of about 7,000 pounds. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Przymus if he could use his garage. Mr. Przymus stated that he could if it was necessary. Commissioner Bernards asked the applicant how many vehicles he owned. Mr. Przymus stated he has a van and a car. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Clyde Phillips, 7007 Quail Avenue North, stated he lives behind Mr. Przymus and has never had a problem with the home occupation and has no problem with the granting of the permit requested. 12 -8 -88 -1- t Y „S Commissioner Bernards asked if there is any problem with electrical disturbance. Mr. Phillips stated that there is none. Greg Koszalinski, 7013 Regent Avenue North, stated he is also a neighbor of Mr. Przymus and has never had a problem with the home occupation. He stated Mr. Przymus owns two vehicles and both are normal type vehicles. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Koszalinski if there has ever been any significant traffic impact caused by the home occupation. Mr. Koszalinski answered that there has not. Commissioner Bernards asked if a non - resident employee was added in the future would Mr. Przymus be required to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88023 (Gary Przymus) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 88023 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator .and is nontransferable. 3. Noise from the operation of the home occupation shall not emanate beyond the property lines of the premises. 4. A fire extinguisher shall be kept in the garage for safety purposes. 5. The home occupation is deemed to be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. It is noted that the home occupation is conducted in a tuck -under garage, not a separate building. 6. When stored on site, materials and furniture accessory to the home occupation shall be stored indoors. No outside storage is permitted. 7. Approval of the special use permit in no way implies exemption from the recently adopted restrictons on the parking and storage of certain vehicles in residential zoning districts which becomes effective June 1, 1989• Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Nelson and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88024 (Shingle Creek Land Company) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into five lots the land north of I -694 and bordering on Earle Brown Bowl. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Application No. 88024 attached). Commissioner Sander asked why the lots are divided the way they are. The Secretary stated that there are no definite proposals at this time although Embers still owns a parcel for a future restaurant. He explained there is a rezoning proposed for some of the lots in the I -1 zoning district in order to restrict certain commercial development. 12 -8 -88 -2- Commissioner Sander inquired if the sewer lines would have to be changed to accommodate some uses. The Secretary stated they would, for example, if a hotel or ` motel development is proposed as they would cause much more discharge into the sewer system. He added when the Ramada Hotel was built a lift station was created for sewage disposal. The City Engineer then explained the sewer allocations for the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Bernards asked if the reenstri was a result of this subdivision. g P The Secretary answered in the affirmative, but other parcels will have to comply with the 15' greenstrip requirement. Further discussion ensued regarding greenstrip requirements. Al Beisner, representative of Shingle Creek Land Company, stated he does have firm proposals for Lot 1, Block and Lot 2, Block 2 of the subdivision. He stated Embers still plans to build a restaurant on their parcel and a proposal has been made for the other parcel. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88024 (Shingle Creek Land Company Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 88024 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The drainage plan for the plat shall be reviewed and approved by the West Mississippi Watershed Commission prior to final plat approval. 4. The owner of the property shall execute an easement to protect the ponding area and the overflow swale on Lot 3, Block 2 prior to final plat approval. 5. The owner shall execute, prior to final plat approval, a Subdivision Agreement covering at least the following items: a) Submission of a subdivision bond to insure completion of required improvements within public right -of -way. b) Construction of Irving Avenue North and 64th Avenue North including storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water mains, sidewalk, curb and gutter and street paving. c) A maintenance and inspection agreement for the drainage system. d) A hook -up agreement for the water main. e) Limitation on sanitary sewer flow generated by development within the plat. 12 -8 -88 -3- Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Nelson and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88025 (Bruce Neilson) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct an entertainment agency with one non - resident employee in the residence at 3801 53rd Avenue North. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88025 (attached). He noted there is also costume rental available and the Commission may want to add a condition regarding the recently adopted nuisance ordinance amendment concerning parking of commercial vehicles. He stated there had been one complaint received by a councilmember concerning the costume rental. Commissioner Bernards asked for clarification of size of home occupation signery. The Secretary stated the maximum allowed is 2 112 sq. ft. Commissioner Nelson stated that home occupation signs are considered identification signs. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Bruce Neilson of Bruce Neilson /Associates explained he was not aware a special use permit was required for his operation or would have obtained one at the time he moved to his present residence at 3801 53rd Avenue North. He stated his company has been in existence for 19 years, 5 years at the present address, and offers production of night club shows, grand opening entertainment, musicals for department stores and businesses. He explained occasional rehearsals are held at the residence and adequate parking is available. Commissioner Malecki asked the applicant how many people come to the residence for the rehearsals. Mr. Neilson responded that 4 to 6 singers with four cars at the most parked at the residence (he is also part of the rehearsal group). Commissioner Malecki asked how much traffic is generated from the costume rental. Mr. Neilson stated that there is more at Halloween time than any other time of year as people come to his residence to select the type of costume desired. He explained most of the costuming ties in with the show a client requests and is taken off -site. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Sander stated she is concerned that residential neighborhoods are becoming too commercial. Chairman Lucht referred to ceramic classes that generate more traffic than the proposed entertainment agency request. Mr. Neilson stated that there is very little traffic generation caused by his home occupation. The Secretary stated the ordinance tries to strike a compromise for home occupations. He stated retail sales are not allowed in residential zones unless they are produced on the property. He explained the City is limited legally as to what it can prohibit. He stated conditions of approval of the special use permit place certain restrictions on the home occupation. Mr. Neilson commented that if the costume rental activity increases that he will find a commercial location to conduct that part of his business. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO.88025 (Bruce Neilson) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 88025 subject to the following conditions: 12 -8 -88 -4- 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space provided by the applicant. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of one non - resident employee. 5. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. The applicant shall make no appeals through signery for walk -in traffic from the neighborhood. 6. Approval of the special use permit in no way implies exemption from the recently adopted restrictions on the parking and storage of certain vehicles in residential zoning districts which becomes effective June 1, 1989• Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Nelson and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary asked the Commission to review the 1989 meeting schedule distributed and comment at a later time if there is a conflict with the dates listed. The Secretary stated he received a letter from James Montgomery of Packaging Plus, Inc. regarding a study of the signery allowed at the industrial building located at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. This application (Application No. 88018) was denied by the Planning Commission meeting at its November 10, 1988 meeting and held off the City Council agenda in order to give the applicant time to obtain and submit further information on the height of signs along 69th Avenue North. Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Nelson to reaffirm the Commission's recommendation to deny Application No. 88018 and to refer it to the City Council for consideration at its December 19, 1988 meeting. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission .m. adjourned at 8:50 J P Chairman 12 -8 -88 -5- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88023 Applicant: Gary Przymus Location: 7012 Regent Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a home upholstering business in the garage of the residence at 7012 Regent Avenue North. The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the west by Regent Avenue North and on the north, east, and south by single - family residences. The home occupation is classified as a special home e. occupation because it involves the use of the garage. P h g g The applicant has submitted information regarding the home occupation with the application. The business is conducted in a 22' x 17' attached tuck -under garage. The hours of operation are enerall 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 .m. He states that the have g Y P Y no need for extra parking spaces on the property because no customers come to the house. He goes to customers' houses to show samples and to pick up furniture for repair. There are no non - resident employees. A fire extinguisher is located in the garage for safety purposes. Equipment includes a sewing machine, air compressor, hand tools, jigsaw, and a drill. None of these tools make noise perceptible beyond the property according to Mr. Przymus. Mr. Przymus stores most of his materials off -site and retrieves them for use as needed. Mr. Przymus uses basically all his garage for the home business. Under the definition of "special home occupation" in the Zoning Ordinance, a special home occupation is "clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit, the accessory structures, and the Lot upon which it is constructed . . ." (see Section 35 -900 attached). Section 35 -406 subsection 2 stipulates that "No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35 -310 and Section 35 -311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance." The home occupation is the primary use of the garage though it is certainly a secondary use of the premises as a whole. In the past, the City has generally tried to prevent the creation of commercial buildings for home occupations in residential zoning districts. If the Commission recommends approval of the special use permit, it should note that the garage in this case is a tuck -under garage and that the home occupation is an incidental and secondary use of the property. Generally, we feel the proposed home occupation is in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 3. Noise from the operation of the home occupation shall not emanate beyond the property lines of the premises. 4. A fire extinguisher shall be kept in the garage for safety purposes. 5. The home occupation is deemed to be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. It is noted that the home occupation is conducted in a tuck -under garage, not a separate building. 6. When stored on site, materials and furniture accessory to the home occupation shall be stored indoors. No outside storage is 12 -8 -88 permitted. r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88024 Applicant: Shingle Creek Land Company Location: North of I -694 and West of Humboldt Avenue North Request. Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into five lots the land north of I -694 and bordering on Earle Brown Bowl. Dedication of public street right -of -way is also a part of this plat. The land is presently zoned I -1 (there will be a City- initiated rezoning to C -2 covering this land in early 1989) and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east by Days Inn and Humboldt Avenue North, on the south by I -694 and on the west by Budgetel and partially by Earle Brown Bowl (see area map attached). The name of the proposed plat is Richardson Park Addition. The plat is to be divided into two blocks. Block 1 is to be located immediately south of Freeway Boulevard, west of the proposed Irving Avenue North and east of Earle Brown Bowl. Block 2 is to be located immediately adjacent (north of) the freeway and south of the proposed 64th Avenue North, extending from the existing James Circle on the west to the Humboldt Avenue North bridge on the east. Block 1 is to have two lots, and Block 2 , three lots. The sizes of the lots are as listed below: Block 1 Lot 1 1.07 acres Lot 2 1.12 acres Total 2.19 acres Block 2 Lot 1 1.27 acres Lot 2 2.00 acres Lot 3 4.62 acres Total 7.89 acres The new right -of -way for 64th Avenue North is 1.59 acres. Part of an existing Irving Avenue North right -of -way is to be vacated. It is 80' wide and will be reduced to 60' width (the right -of -way width for 64th will also be 60' ) except toward the intersection with Freeway Boulevard where it will widen to 74' to allow two lanes out and one lane in. The new right -of -way will make the greenstrip for Days Inn on the west and Earle Brown Bowl on the south nonconforming. The greenstrip for Days Inn is 51 in width adjacent to the proposed Irving Avenue right -of -way. The boulevard on the east side of Irving will be extra -wide, with 10' of green, then a 5' wide sidewalk, and then 91 of green adjacent to Irving Avenue North. Earle Brown Bowl has approximately an 8' greenstrip adjacent to the proposed 64th Avenue North. There will be no sidewalk on the north side of 64th. There will be an approximate 16' boulevard in this area; so, the total green space will average about 24 The applicant has also submitted construction plans for the two streets, including a drainage plan. The drainage plan provides for a ponding area at the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 2. The pond will provide both water detention for flood control and water purification. The plan proposes 15 diameter storm sewer pipes in both 64th and Irving flowing to an inlet in the pond. The City Engineer feels at this time that these inlet pipes may need to be enlarged to 21" in diameter. The outlet pipe is proposed at 24 in diameter and will flow northward in Irving Avenue 12 -8 -88 _Z_ Application No. 88024 continued to a 60" storm sewer line in Freeway Boulevard. An emergency overflow to the freeway right -of -way is also proposed. The drainage plan will have to be approved by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission prior to approval of the final plat. The ponding area will have to be protected by an easement, to be filed with the plat. The overflow to the freeway is to be protected by a temporary drainage and utility easement to expire when Lot 3 is developed and storm sewer is provided for the overflow. Also of concern is the amount of sanitary sewer flow from this plat to the sanitary sewer line in Freeway Boulevard. That line is only 10" in diameter and narrows to 8 in diameter between Humboldt and Dupont. Consequently, development of the land in this plat will have to generate a limited amount of sewer flow or will have to provide some on -site holding capacity to live within the constraints of the public sewer system. Altogether the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The drainage plan for the plat shall be reviewed and approved by the West Mississippi Watershed Commission prior to final plat approval. 4. The owner of the property shall execute an easement to protect the • ponding area and the overflow swale on Lot 3, Block 2 prior to final plat approval. 5. The owner shall execute, prior to final plat approval, a Subdivision Agreement covering at least the following items: a) Submission of a e tion of subdivision bond to insure completion P required improvements within public right -of -way. b) Construction of Irving Avenue North and 64th Avenue North including storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water mains, sidewalk, curb and gutter and street paving. c) A maintenance and inspection agreement for the drainage system. d) A hook -up agreement for the water main. e) Limitation on sanitary sewer flow generated by development within the plat. 12 -8 -88 -2- r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88025 Applicant: Bruce Neilson Location: 3801 53rd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct an entertainment agency with one non - resident employee in the residence at 3801 53rd Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 53rd Avenue North, on the east by France Avenue North, and on the south and west by single- family homes. Home occupations with one non - resident employee are special uses under Section 35- 406 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) describing the home occupation. Mr. Neilson states that his business has been in existence for 19 years, 5 years at its present location (3801 53rd). They provide entertainment of all types to businesses, associations, country clubs, fairs and festivals. They also do special productions and costuming. Most of the business is done by phone and letter and at clients'offices. They do conduct some rehearsals in their offices. The entertainment agency occupies four rooms, an enclosed porch and 1 112 baths in the basement of the residence. Office hours are 9:00 a. m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and occasionally on Saturday. There is a double driveway and a separate single driveway that together can accommodate up to seven vehicles. There is one employee. One stairway leads to a double garage and there are two other entrances into the office area at ground level. This home occupation is in the special use category because of the employment on the premises of one non - resident. Also of concern are the traffic associated with costume rental and rehearsals and the extent of the residence associated with the home occupation. The single employee does not represent much of an impact on the neighborhood. There is more than enough parking for his trips to the site. The rehearsals occur approximately 6 times a year and parking is off - street on the two driveways available. Costume rental is apparently a sideline and does not represent a significant amount of customer traffic. The home occupation involves approximately 1,250 sq. ft. of the lower level (this includes a small kitchen area and bathroom) . Two of the rooms, including a 300 sq. ft. porch, are used primarily for costume storage. There is a large family room that can be used for the occasional rehearsals. The main activity area is two rooms, approximately 12' x12' that are used for offices, one for Mr. Neilson and one for Bill Ewald, the employee. The total area used for the home occupation is somewhat less than 50% of the total floor area of the house. The lower level was used as an apartment for approximately 20 years before Mr. Neilson occupied the property. So it is a fairly autonomous working area with little impact on the residential quarters on the main floor. As some of the Commissioners may recall, the City attempted to prevent the expansion of the Lescault residence on Brooklyn Boulevard for home occupation purposes. That attempt was overruled by the district court and Dr. Lescault now has an enlarged chiropractor's office with an additional chiropractor working out of that space. Such a home occupation certainly involves far more traffic than this home occupation. Although the entertainment agency occupies a very large portion of the home, it still occupies less than 50% and is much more innocuous than a chiropractor's office. We feel therefore that the special > > P use permit can be approved. • 12 -8 -88 _1_ Application No. 88025 continued Recommended conditions of approval include: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the g premises of one non - resident employee. 5. Customers shall be served on an appointment -only basis. The applicant shall make no appeals through signery for walk -in traffic from the neighborhood. 12 -8 -88 -2- I :�`��� � fit' • i �� ��► � �'■ ":. i i � � NOR s - ICATION NO. .. - AV • 1 BROO HIG �1 v ��` it PA CKA GING INC December 05, 1988 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Planning Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center Mn. 55430 Attn : All Memb ers RE: Application No. 88018 Per our discussion at the November 10th Planning Commis- sion meeting, I submit the following report for your thoughtful consideration. I committed to study, in more detail, the degree of ob- scurity afforded by the landscaping and berming in the buffer strip along 69th Avenue, as it relates to sign height on the buildings. For the puropses of this report, I've included buildings 6800 6 820 and 6840, which are covered by City Council Reso- lu _ tion No. 7 7 67 date 4 . (dated /11/77), as well as the Municipal . Garage at 6844 and Palmer Lake Plaza which encompasses 6850, 6860 and 6870. I realize that the resolution o does not cover thes ro er p p ties but the intent and concern regarding 69th are definitely relevant. Starting at 69th and Shingle Creek Parkway and traveling east, the first property is: Palmer Lake Plaza (6850, 6860 and 6870) - -- This property has a sign over twenty feet high on the building that broadcasts only to 69th. It is higher and larger than either their identification sign on Shingle Creek or the proposed Packaging Plus sign. Here's a technicality -- the building faces northwest and Shingle Creek curves southeast. The net result is that traffic traveling east drives almost directly at the sign. The knoll would ob- scure a sign at five feet, but tends to underline this sign. The knoll drops suddenly to a level, along the adjacent side, that exposes ground level although there are no signs except the number 6860. 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway • Minneapolis, MN 55430 (612) 566-0180 FAX: (612) 566 -2140 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER -P /C December 05, 1988 Attn: All Members Page Two Evidently, this is for customers who get on 69th, but it is my belief that this does not happen. If "unnecessary intrusion into the visual environment" for those traveling 69th Avenue is important, as sighted at my last appearance, then this building is not in compliance with "at least" the intent of the concept. There is a beautiful, serene spot across 69th that this broadcast would offend con- siderably more than Packaging Plus would its neighbors. They are in stark contrast! Municipal Garage (6844) - -- This property, as you may know, is in perfect com- pliance. As well as city property, I doubt that many visitors are looking for this location. If applicable, the knoll would not obscure a sign even three feet high on the building. 6840 - -- This property is similar to Palmer Lake Plaza in regard to the way 69th curves, and when driven, goes even more directly at the east side of the building. You're also driving at a BOND TOOL AND DIE sign which is mounted at about fifteen feet and is very apparent. The berming would expose some signs at five feet and obscure others from five to ten feet depending on the exact viewpoint. At one spot also appears a ROYAL BUSINESS FORMS sign at the same 15 foot height. The adjacent side of this building has a knoll that would obscure signs, which is effective from five to ten feet, although there is only one tenant that fronts on this side. About seventy -five percent of this side is the side of Bond Tool and has no entrances. If you travel - 69th in the opposite direction, on the west side of this building is a very large (24 ") MAINLINE sign of bright orange at about a twenty foot height. This borders on offensive. 6820 - -- This property has a knoll that obscures any signs at about four to eight feet, although once again, there are only a few tenants that front on the north side. The major tenant, GRACO, which occupies most of this building can broadcast its location on Shingle Creek with a large identification sign. One of the tenants, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER -P /C December 05, 1988 Attn: All Members Page Two MODERN CONTROLS, has a sign mounted at about four feet on the north side which is visible when travel- ing 69th from east to west. I feel this further demonstrates the folly of the five foot limitation. 6800 - -- This property has the most tenants fronting on the north side, of which Packaging Plus is one. Travel- ing east on 69th, the berming once again exposes some spots at five feet and obscures others at ten feet. In fact, at the east end of the building, when traveling west on 69th, it exposes to ground level. If Packaging Plus remounted its sign at five feet, it still would be noticed from 69th at one spot. Summary: During this study, some things became very evident: 1) The five foot height stated in the resolution has no pertinence regarding the visual intru- sion to 69th. 2) The contradiction of one sign being accept- able and another not, despite the very literal interpretation of the resolution, is discrim- inatory. 3) Foliage, although not permanent, cannot be completely discounted. I noted that even a very small evergreen shrub (one foot high) will obscure six to eight feet of additional height. 4) There must be some avenue, whether variance, resolution, etc., that would allow remounting of the Packaging Plus sign exactly where it was prior to this application. As I stated at my appearance, I consider this very im- portant and request your understanding. I invite each Planning Commissioner to verify the information in this report. Sincerely, ACKAGING PLUS, INC. JRM /b James R. Montgomery 14INUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 10, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, and Ellamae Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Pro tem Nelson noted that Chairman George Lucht and Commissioner Ainas had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1988 Commissioner Malecki pointed out that she had seconded the motion on page 2 of the October 27, 1988 minutes rather than Commissioner Nelson who made the motion. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to approve the minutes of the October 27, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88018 (Packaging Plus, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval from City Council Resolution No. 77 -67, which governs wall signery along the north walls of 6800, 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, to allow wall signs not more than 11' above building floor grade. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88018 attached). The Secretary added that the landscaping along 69th and the buffer area was intended to screen the industrial area as much as possible from the residential neighborhood to the north and that it has been effective in making the Industrial Park compatible with the residential neighborhood north of 69th Avenue. Commissioner Bertil Johnson arrived at 7:39 P.M. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the addresses of the buildings appeared on the north walls. The Secretary stated that he was not aware that those addresses were visible from 69th. Mr. James Montgomery of Packaging Plus, Inc. stated that the addresses were visible from Shingle Creek Parkway, but not from 69th Avenue North. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had seen the address of Palmer Lake Plaza from 69th Avenue North. The Secretary stated that the building address could be visible from 69th, but not tenant identification signery. Commissioner Sander asked whether it was not the contractor's responsibility to know the City's ordinances before putting up a sign. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He added that sign contractors must be licensed and obtain a permit before putting up signs. Commissioner Sander stated that she was concerned a variance would set a precedent for other buildings in this area if it were allowed. The Secretary agreed and added that some tenants may try to erect signs without a permit if the applicant were successful with his variance request. 11 -10 -88 -1- In response to questions from Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary noted that the berms and landscaping and lack of access from the industrial buildings to 69th Avenue North was intended to create a barrier between the Industrial Park and the residential neighborhood. He stated that that barrier has worked well and that the Industrial Park has little impact on the residential neighborhood. Chairman Pro tem Nelson asked Mr. Montgomery if he had anything to add. Mr. Montgomery noted that the sign was erected without a permit and that he felt somewhat abused by the sign contractor who does the work part -time and is not a full time sign contractor. He noted that the sign was visible from 69th Avenue North, but that was not the intent of putting the sign at 11' above the building floor elevation. He stated that signs below the 5' height were not very visible to someone who drove around the building and would be vandalized by kids. Mr. Montgomery added that the landscaping along 69th Avenue North has grown since 1977 and creates a good visual barrier. He added that he would be willing to plant additional trees and get the neighbors approval if it was necessary to obtain the variance. He showed the Planning Commission one of the letters from the sign that had been purchased. Chairman Pro tem Nelson stated that the Commission would have to address the question of uniqueness for a variance to be granted. He asked whether tenants along 69th Avenue North have large signs. Mr. Montgomery stated that one tenant does along 69th and it has a better type of sign that would not be vandalized. He pointed out that other tenants do not have the amount of traffic that he has coming to his space. Commissioner Bernards asked what level the sign had to be to be visible over the berm. Mr. Montgomery answered that the sign can be seen at 11' high in winter, but that it is not very visible during the summertime because of the vegetative screening. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 88018) Chairman Pro tem Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In response to a question from Commissioner Johnson, the Secretary stated that the City's intent in Resolution No. 77 -67 was to keep the signs from being visible from 69th Avenue North. He stated that he did not know what height that would be, but that certainly they are not visible at 5' above building floor elevation. He stated that it was up to the applicant to make the case that a higher sign can still be erected and not be visible from 69th Avenue North. Chairman Pro tem Nelson stated that he would prefer not to grant a variance, but perhaps consider a change in the resolution to allow a higher sign that would still not be visible from 69th Avenue North. Mr. Montgomery added that perhaps a height could be found that would be out of reach of vandals, but still not be visible. The Secretary stated that the height to be considered should be the height blocked out by the earth berms along 69th Avenue North, not the trees. He added that the height limitations should be consistent for all of the buildings along 69th Avenue North, not just 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway. i 11 -10 -88 -2- Commissioner Sander stated that she did not see any reason for signs along the north side of the building since there was no access to the building from 69th Avenue North. The Secretary added that the freestanding signs in front of the building are large and are allowed to be 250 sq. ft. in area and 32' in height. Commissioner Sander stated that there are signs by the doors of the tenant space and that the tenant also has identification on the marquee signs in front of the property. She stated that she has never had any problem finding tenants that are so identified. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88018 (Packaging Plus, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend denial of Application No. 88018, citing the following findings as the basis for denial: 1. The proposed sign was fabricated and erected in error without a proper permit. The City, therefore, accepts no responsibility for the lost value of the sign, nor any responsibility for erecting the sign without a permit. 2. There is no access to the industrial buildings along the south side of 69th Avenue North. There is, therefore, no need to communicate a message to those driving along 69th Avenue North for directional purposes. 3. The proposed sign would constitute an unnecessary intrusion into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood north of 69th Avenue North. 4. A sign not more than 5' high is very readable to people on the property looking for a given business on the premises. 5. The Packaging Plus, Inc. business at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway is not a unique sort of business relative to other businesses located in the buildings adjacent to 69th Avenue North. 6. The Standards for a Sign Variance contained in Section 34 -180 are not met in this situation. (For a variance to be granted, all standards must be met and are not met in this case). Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Sander. Voting against: Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. Chairman Pro tern Nelson asked whether there should be direction on the height of allowable signs. The Secretary stated that if the applicant is willing to provide information on the height of signery that cannot be seen from 69th Avenue North, the Commission could table the application until further information is submitted. However, he added that would require a motion to reconsider the motion for denial. Chairman Pro tem Nelson suggested that the Commission recommend holding up City Council consideration of the variance until further information was provided, but that he felt the motion to deny the variance expressed the Commission's opinion accurately. ACTION RECOMMENDING HOLDING APPLICATION NO. 88018 FROM CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION UNTIL FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE HEIGHT OF SIGNS CAN BE SUBMITTED Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Johnson to hold Application No. 88018 from City Council consideration until the applicant submits further information on the height of signs which cannot be visible from 69th Avenue North. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 11 -10 -88 -3- l Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88018 Applicant: Packaging Plus, Inc. Location: 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from City Council Resolution No. 77- 67, which governs wall signery along the north walls of 6800, 6820, and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, to allow wall signs not more than 11 feet above the building floor grade. The property in question ( 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway) is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east by the Earle Brown Farm Apartments, on the south by Medtronic and Shingle Creek Parkway, and on the west by the Speculative Industrial Building #5 (6820 Shingle Creek Parkway). Signs are permitted accessory uses in the I -1 zoning district. However, City Council Resolution No. 77 -67 (attached) limits the height of signs along the north wall of 6800, 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway to no more than five (5) feet above the building floor grade. The applicant, Mr. James Montgomery, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues for a "temporary or permanent variance per Section 34 -180 of the Sign Ordinance" (also attached). He notes that the sign was put up (and paid for) by Porter Signs without a permit and was removed by Packaging Plus on September 24, 1988. As to the standards for a sign variance contained in Section 34 -180, Mr. Montgomery argues that they have experienced a hardship for seven years with customers and vendors having difficulty in locating their office. He adds that it would be an additional hardship to have paid for the sign and receive no benefit from it. He states that the proposed sign is appropriate for visitors circling the building looking for the tenant space. He adds that the sign which has been constructed is too large and fragile to be placed at the 5' height limit and would probably be vandalized. With regard to uniqueness, Mr. Montgomery states that the resolution governing signery on the north sides of these buildings testifies to the uniqueness of them. He argues that his business is unique from others in the building in the number of customers that come to his offices. With regard to possible detriment to the public welfare, Mr. Montgomery discusses the aesthetics of the proposed sign and argues that it is definitely not a blight on the surroundings. He points out that landscaping and berming in the buffer strip along 69th obscure the sign about 90% and that residents probably won't object. Mr. Montgomery concludes his letter by offering a revision of City Council Resolution No. 77 -67. The revision would allow signs up to 11 feet above the building floor elevation. Staff are not convinced that there is a particular hardship suffered by placing the sign below the 5' height limit. People traveling around the building in search of Packaging Plus are just as, if not more, likely to see a lower sign than a higher sign. While it would be easier to vandalize a lower sign, it would also be easier to repair and maintain. With respect to uniqueness, we do not regard Packaging Plus as a unique business along 69th Avenue North. To allow Packaging Plus to have a sign 11' high would certainly open the door to all other businesses along 69th to have 11 -10 -88 _1_ Application No. 88018 continued such signs. This is no doubt why Mr. Montgomery recommends at the conclusion to his letter an amendment to Resolution No 77 -67 to allow all the businesses along 69th to have signs up to 11' above building floor grade. We do not support such a revision as it would be an unnecessary intrusion into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood to the north. There is no access to the industrial buildings from 69th Avenue North. There is, therefore, no need to identify tenants along the north sides of those buildings. With respect to detriment to the public, the applicant argues that the proposed sign is aesthetically pleasing and offends no one. It may well be an attractive sign, but it is the intrusion such a sign makes into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood along 69th Avenue North which Resolution No. 77 -67 seeks to preclude. Whether the sign is attractive or not is not the issue. The fact is it would constitute an unnecessary message bombarding the consciousness of those who drive or live along 69th Avenue North. We strongly recommend that the variance request be denied and that City Council Resolution No. 77 -67 be kept as is. The following findings are recomended as a basis for the denial: 1. The proposed sign was fabricated and erected in error without a proper permit. The City, therefore, accepts no responsbility for the lost value of the sign. i 2. There is no access to the industrial buildings along the south side of 69th Avenue North. There is, therefore, no need to communicate a message to those driving along 69th Avenue North. 3. The proposed sign would constitute an unnecessary intrusion into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood north of 69th Avenue North. 4. A sign not more than 5' high is very readable to people on the property looking for a given business on the premises. 5. The Packaging Plus business at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway is not a unique sort of business relative to other businesses located in the buildings adjacent to 69th Avenue North. 6. The standards for a sign variance contained in Section 34 -180 are not met in this situation. 11 -10 -88 -2- SHINGLE SREE EAST -73 72 NM 1 I Z PONDS DR. N/ �± ``F �� ��i co N t (, ,o o, I 72 ND J QUAIL +� P` 71 Sl CIRCLE' I ST CIR t - - � 0 0 - - -, ;, WILLOW � R5 / •� /� 1 LANE 2 SCHOOL X - , 1 APPLICATION NO. - - -� - 88023 \x z /Z WILLOW LANES j , / PARS � a X/ 2 uj Q 8 27 33'34 N0. 130 c. S. A. H, ` -� o u.5 cr- w POST t % W j W l d C / uj OFFICE Z � W o 66TH � � Jo 68TH AV E. R2 i t aN r c9 a 3 o � R ul o o a- 1 t I , A /E. N. - - - -, 67TH - - - - ' 44 LANE /y HOWE } Q z O AVE. N. `� X 66TH �Q I w � a: EM I 6 i LANE vx ' WINCHESTER X.r lot I/ N p� t o FA T VE. t x 65TH I a W a uj FPA7LRT Z , , ;NCE �' J a Z CREEK !w F- 67TH LA.� !� F p o co y� _u 67TH F- 0 J 5 OPEN SPACE t 67TH AVE. j m r _ —= = Q j / BROOKLYN A � HIGH SC K w C2 cu F BLVD. 65TH zi x _ C 2 O k l civi = CIA ENN. AN OUBRARY Q 3536 0 T Z 2 +1 __ 3 i 74 W 1 X in n m 0 N E -0 BOWLING ALLEY a 1" ev _ r _1 VI- n 1 I i i ' 1 '� `. R ,NN�HOO: R.R. No �o• � ^?�Po 14I i ` 6� � � _.... _... - -- - - -I --�_ v J t� � _ _ ,.. .. J PROPOSED STREET 1. ^ i r , ♦ �\ P PRAY W/ f LTER_I a rvr y (^ - `` � � I BLANKET— CRUSHED C .R SK R AC MroER D SCHARGE / OCK P i5 , STRUCTURE ISEE MM LE.:IfN INFORMATION • ®* DETAIL) y � ^ )VI7 E . ' COVER IS NOT MANI D fNervcvcr ov[.rLm. r,es 6.� v Ise ll DRAINAGE PLAN J � J 1= le LWAY — i74 BOWLING 1'i I I fc �• I I I F BOWLING ALLEY ....::..... . � � i I• I lei' � (/` .:. /� � / BITUMINOUS OANKINO OT O I � y I ' I 60 � F PROPOSED STREET �o / \ E.ar `D ° ° 'r c �°r; , ^ 1 (�l � b�-♦ l °sed d z en' en C 1' a5 e /� � . l 1 •, . � I I r o9 �r � V , O AS h - �' // O "r •' ••. ~� b y l �1 n. ,, �, I _ - \� e °n�rris tp tol �p ^rOf3 V' A V •> _ \ .�\. /.. \ - d eg' �, yd . Fo/ ` �� \ �l \��:r l 3 I /. / �•"' I � Ah Re. 1 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting oate 19/88_ Agenda item Number C- / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * *S * * *�,*P * * DIRECTOR *O * * * * *B * * ** *WORK MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation Mr. Al Beisner, representative of the developer of the above referenced plat, has applied to the City Council to approve the final plat of Richardson Park. The land is located north of I -94 between James Circle and Humboldt Avenue North. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat on December 8, subject to .,the following conditions: - 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The drainage plan for the plat shall be reviewed and approved by the - West Mississippi Watershed Commission prior to final plat approval. 4. The owner of the property shall execute an easement to protect the ponding area and the overflow swale on Lot 3, Block 2 prior to final plat approval. 5. The owner shall execute, prior to final plat approval, a Subdivision Agreement covering at least the following items a) Submission of a subdivision bond to ensure completion of required improvements within public right -of -way. . b) Construction of Irving Avenue North and 64th Avenue North including storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water mains, sidewalk, curb and gutter and street paving. c) A maintenance and inspection agreement for the drainage system. d) A hook -up agreement for the water main. e) Limitation on sanitary sewer flow generated by development within the plat. Recommendation Condition No. l and Condition No. 2 have been met. Accordingly we recommend approval of the final plat subject to the following conditions:, 1. Receipt of title opinion from the City Attorney confirming the appropriate parties responsible for signing the plat. 2. The developer shall pay all attorney fees incurred in the review of the final plat prior to release of the final plat for filing at the County. 3. The drainage plan for the plat shall be reviewed and approved by the West Mississippi Watershed Commission prior to final plat approval. 4. The Owner of the property shall execute an easement to protect the ponding area and overflow soil on Lot 3, Block 2, prior to final plat approval. 5. The Owner shall execute prior to final plat approval a Subdivision Agreement covering at least the following items: a) Submission of a subdivision bond to ensure completion of required improvements within public right -of -way. b) Construction of Irving Avenue North and 64th Avenue North, including storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, sidewalk, curb and gutter and street paving. c) A maintenance and inspection agreement for the storm drainage system. d) A Hook -up Agreement for water main. e) Limitation on sanitary sewer flow generated by Lot 1 and 2, Block l and Lot 2 and 3, Block 2 to 185 gallons per minute peak flow. • I y 6 T�. 4VE7N. I FP Wil. AVE. N. i x � w, I \ �I FREEVA.Y BLV I ,� FREEWAY BLVD. 65 AVE k �• I Z Z Z H G 64TH .AVE N c it s. \\< 0 Y . >: CITY NA LL \ y O �1V iN SUMMIT DR - ----- i 1 1 ?• t� VICINITY MAP RICHARDSON PARK 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET PREPARED BY ULTIMAR SHEE? 1 OF 3 RT DOC. NO. " = C.R. DOC. NO. N89 °33 07" 260.08 ' C H A R ®S O N 74.11 '�� �, R PARK N� f O ` a � Z ( \ N SIN N p�Il SCALE IN FEET 0111 W � �, i ;. ,I S 86°26'50 "W �k 0 60 120 180 / 198.70 !• Q ` I �� O Denotes lit inch by la inch iron pipe. , \j / Q i - F D' J " Denotes Minnesota Department of Transportatinn w` �' `J ro Monument. �? `. If) - pl ''/^� W \ I The basis o oari f ng. is 9ritl north Minnesota / `"'l• M ' Ir V 0 State Plane Coordinate System South Zona. WI Z I L = 100.95 -------- - - - --- S \ ___ - -- -- i D \ 2 A = 77 °07'12 " 14� �' 163.27 I S 89 °2035 "W h/ m C = 93.50 _° >t ` 8 S 86 °27'09 °W 259.66 L =26.71 32.10 `\ °h 2� q "�ofy� �_ d a 69 52 CBrg. N55 °32 441.93 � C °10'0 1 ( b r l =07 E S86 5s 'os °27'09 "w i $ R=17.o0 . 559 °0804 "W _74 '2'W °5g "2s e� 1 64 TH STREET , ` 52� a2 /15.74 42 A o cer R= 660.96 4J 4 ;3 1 03 866 586 °2 - 1. c 180.59 ';1 r,. G s3 ` - NOT TENT �� 00'11,. / 63.15 / 286.08 `\ V � ♦�1 , q6 •��„ ;J l$ 2 i z � � AI 66, - -- - -------- S cl r • / ` y �' Warty and dralna9e easement: are sh °wn thus: 2! E I ?72 23!51 4z2. C_ I (./ (� 21'5 ---�� - - iJ 3" 0 Gc� \NOT Ta L =6 W _ - 1 ` NOENr � 43 4.57 I r J N N J. ho f / c C. 6 65. 4 = 6 2 n ,o Irve, n wmn a , adinn,.,,,; .o� ��,,.: , r r C &9 '' S78.62' S S,, E 56 09.58 unless Ot M1rvrwise inOca ted On :he . - - -- % 'I Hansen Thorp �, Pellinen Oison Inc CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12 Agenda Item Number G / G - 2-- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING PART OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN LOT 3, BLOCK 1, RICHARDSON ADDITION DEPT. APPROVAL: SY Kl4PP RECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) Explanation The replat of Richardson Addition moves an existing lot line. An existing easement is along that lot line and should be moved so that its location corresponds to the new location. The property is completely undeveloped so there have been no known utilities installed in the easement. Nevertheless, the attached notice has been mailed to Northern States Power, U. S. West, Northern Cable Television, and Minnegasco. The notice gives the utility companies time to notify us if the easement should , not be vacated. The vacation is desirable because it eliminates site restrictions that would limit the development of the lot. Future Action by City Council If the attached ordinance is adopted on first reading, City Council will hold a public hearing to receive public input relative to the vacation. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached ordinance. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , , at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility Easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Richardson Addition. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING PART OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN LOT 3, BLOCK 1 RICHARDSON ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The westerly 10.00 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, Richardson Addition Hennepin County Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof, lying northerly of the southerly 10.00 feet of said Lot 3 and lying southerly of the northerly 10.00 feet of said Lot 3, is hereby vacated Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ]j BR00 0 K ' LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C E NTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 December 13, 1988 Mr. Larry Benson Mr. Greg Sothern Northern States Power U. S. West 4501 68th Avenue 6540 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Mr. Steve Von Bargen Mr. Jim Morrison Minnegasco Northern Cable Television P.O. Box 1165 6901 Winnetka Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Re: Easement Vacation Lot 3, Block 1 Richardson Addition Brooklyn Center, MN On December 19, 1988, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will consider adoption of the attached ordinance. The ordinance vacates part of a utility and drainage easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Richardson Addition. I have highlighted the proposed vacation on the enclosed map. Please review the description and determine whether you need this easement to construct, maintain, or access your existing or proposed facilities. We need your written reply by January 2, 1989, if the easement should not be vacated. If you need any additional detail, please call me at 561 -5440. Since ely, 1 r H.R. Sp rrier City Eng* eer HRS:sr Enclosure - Proposed Ordinance - Vicinity Map - Detail Map cc: Vacation 35 File �' roae uiu�te�u rn� � ^�z G � � G � won .., 1200 SCALE IN FEE PRE BY ULTIMAP I I I I I I I I I I � I I NEW LINE OF LOTS 1 8 2 RICHARDSON PARK i 10' DRAI AGE 8 U7ILI7Y EASEMENT TO BE VA ATED ,DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION RICHARDSON ADDITION �/n �v/M 0 133 266 MoOW if w SCALE IN FEET o PREPA BY ULTIMAP SHEET 3 OF 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/19/88 Agenda Item Number C:. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING THE STREET EASEMENT IN TRACT D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1482 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy KNIPP RECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • The replat of Richardson Addition changes the right -of -way requirements. The existing right -of -way which covers all of Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482 should also change, if the proposed subdivision of Richardson Park is approved.' This proposed vacation is appropriate if Richardson Park is filed because that proposed plat contains a dedication of Irving Avenue which would replace the street easement. There are provisions in the 'proposed ordinance that prevent the inadvertent vacation of the new right -of -way. Vacation is desirable because it eliminates site restrictions related to set back. At the present time the easement has no known improvements within it. Nevertheless, the attached notice has been mailed to Northern States Power, U. S. West, Northern Cable Television, and Minnegasco. The notice gives the utility companies time to notify us if the easement for right -of -way should not be vacated. Future Action by City Council If the attached ordinance is adopted on first reading, the City Council will hold a public hearing to receive public input relative to the vacation. If at the time of the public hearing there is no comments specifying that the easement should not be vacated and if the plat of Richardson Park has been filed, the ordinance could be approved on second reading. • City Council Action Required Adopt the attached ordinance. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereb r y given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating the Street Easement in Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE STREET EASEMENT IN TRACT D, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1482 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The street easement filed as Document No 1329670 over, under, and across all of Tract D. Registered Land Survey No. 1482, Files of Registrar of Titles. Hennepin County, Minnesota, is hereby vacated Section 2. The street easement vacated in Section 1 of this ordinance applies only to the easement conveyed in said Document 1329670 and shall not affect any subsequent right -of -way dedications. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 December 13, 1988 Mr. Larry Benson Mr. Greg Sothern Northern States Power U. S. West 4501 68th Avenue 6540 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Mr. Steve Von Bargen Mr. Jim Morrison Minnegasco Northern Cable Television P.O. Box 1165 6901 Winnetka Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Re: Street Easement Vacation Tract D Registered Land Survey No. 1482 Brooklyn Center, MN On December 19, 1988, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will consider adoption of the attached ordinance. The ordinance vacates the street easement over, under and across Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1482. I have highlighted the proposed vacation on the enclosed map. Please review the description and determine whether you need this easement to construct, maintain, or access your existing or proposed facilities. We need your written repl'y by January 2, 1989, if the easement should not be vacated. If you need any additional detail, please call me at 561 -5440. Si de Ci HRS:sr Enclosure - Proposed Ordinance - Vicinity Map - Detail Map cc: Vacation 35 File IQ J,L�cF� p neemuueivan =� I O 11111 :AAA r 1 �111r�r�1f�•�1A♦ f�11111� X11111/111♦ ♦11�i11111/1♦ v!1•i1iiii1�•ii±•i �•isii1i1iili /iaili!i1� � �� �� 1 , I R0© Y RIM - ' 1 ♦1 2 • 0 133 _ .. r I mm sm mm SCALE IN F E E7 D RE F ARED BY UL: IMAP BROOK YN • M `N* Ia. Ir • . ,�" w " 1 .f' i - . ■....�.. one rd lw �!- ■�i ■ ■11 11111 . ■ �,./►,,.,. , '�; . - 1111 1 11■tlfrl�� ■� � ♦ .• • •• � � ■r ■■111111.. 1���� �"� . • . �;; ;. . . M illi ill 1. ...::. .., I • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Dat (DDDRCC) Agenda Item Number QJ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROPOSAL FROM MOORE, COSTELLO & HART AND DCA, INC. TO IRS SECTION 89 COMPLIANCE SYSTEM DEPT. APPROVAL: @�W , Di re ctor of Finance Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report. Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental , sheets attached _) EXPLANATION The 1986 Tax Reform Act established a new section in the Internal Revenue Code. Section 89 sets forth basic qualification standards and nondiscrimination tests with which certain types of employer- sponsored health and welfare benefit plans must comply. The section seeks to discourage employers from maintaining benefit plans that discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. The standards apply to following plans or programs: (1) accident and health; (2) group term life insurance; (3) qualified tuition reduction; (4) cafeteria plans; and (5) other fringe benefit programs. The standards are very complex and the penalties for non - compliance are very severe. The law firm of Moore, Costello & Hart and the benefits administration firm of DCA, Inc. have joined together to offer a proposal to address the Section 89 standards for the City of Brooklyn Center. The law firm of Moore, Costello & Hart would: (1) Help us to identify those employee benefit plans which are, or may be, subject to Section 89 (2) Furnish us with an opinion as to the qualification of those plans under the rules of Section 89(k) (3) Recommend actions which will help those plans qualify under the rules of Section 89(k) which do not currently so qualify (4) To furnish us with an opinion as to the federal income -tax implications of the test results determined by DCA, Inc. (REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 89 SERVICES CONTINUED) The benefits administration firm of DCA, Inc. would: • (1) Consult with us in -re and to the application of Section 8 to our health and g pp 9 other welfare benefit plans a. Specifically to help us identify the data we are to collect in connection with Section 89 b. After a preliminary review of our employee benefit plans which are, or may be subject to Section 89, recommend actions which will help us meet our benefit plan objectives within the context of Section 89 c. Perform certain initial tests to project the application of the nondiscrimi— nation rules of Section 89(d) and (e) to our benefit plans. For these services, the City would agree to pay an amount to both firms which would be determined by the attached fee schedule. The minimum fee is $2,000 and based on the number of City employees and benefit plans currently in use, our total cost would be estimated to be approximately $4,000 to $6,000. Mr. Ardy Prekker, DCA, Inc., will be present at the Council meeting to further explain Section 89 compliance and both firms proposals. I have attached an engagement letter and the firms'" proposals. I have also attached a recent article from "Minnesota Cities" which discusses Section 89. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (1) Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Moore, Costello & • Hart and DCA, Inc. for professional services in connection with Section 89 compliance. (2) Authorize the expenditure of funds from the City Council professional services account within the 1989 General Fund Budget for the professional services. • T0: Moore, Costello & Hart and DCA, Inc. Attorneys at Law 400 DCA Center 1400 Norwest Center 13100 Wayzata Boulevard 55 East Fifth Street Minnetonka, MN 55343 St. Paul, MN 55101 We hereby request the services of your respective firms in connection with your Section 89 Compliance Systemsm. With respect to Moore, Costello & Hart, we engage you to advise us in regard to the application of Section 89 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to our health and other welfare benefit plans. Specifically, you are engaged to: (1) help us identify those employee benefit plans which are, or may be subject to Section 89; (2) furnish us with an opinion as to the qualification of those plans under the rules of Section 89(k); (3) recommend actions which will help those plans qualify under the rules of Section 89(k) which do not currently so qualify; and (4) if we engage the consulting firm of DCA, Inc. to perform certain initial tests to project the application of the nondiscrimination rules of Section 89(d) and (e) to our benefit plans, then to furnish us with an opinion as to the federal income tax implications of the test results. With respect to DCA, Inc., we engage you to consult with us in regard to the application of Section 89 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to our health and other welfare benefit plans. Specifically, you are engaged to: (1) help us identify the data we are to collect in connection with Section 89; (2) after a preliminary review of our employee benefit plans which are or may be subject to Section 89, recommend actions which will help us meet our benefit plan objectives within the context of Section 89; and (3) perform certain initial tests to project the application of the nondiscrimination rules of Section 89(d) and (e) to our benefit plans. We agree to pay for each of your services on the basis of the fee schedule you have provided. We understand that retainer fees totalling $1,000 ($500 for DCA, Inc. and $500 for Moore, Costello & Hart) are due upon our return of this agreement to you, and our check payable either to DCA, Inc. or to Moore, Costello & Hart in the amount of $1,000 is enclosed. We agree to pay all remaining fees upon receipt of your statement(s) at the conclusion of your services. —over— We may request services in addition to those described above, such as annual testing and reporting or legal advice relating thereto, or additional "snapshot" testing based on changes in the law or regulations and we understand that you will charge for those services at your normal hourly rates or pursuant to other fee arrangements. We further understand that you will not provide any of these additional services without our prior consent. You are not expected to begin your services until you have received this signed agreement, the required retainer fee, and all data you request, in your specified format. Dated: Print Business Name By Signature [Title) Business Address: Telephone: ( ) - MOORE, COSTELLO & HART Moore, Costello & Hart is a medium -sized firm engaged in general civil practice. Founded in 1856, it is one of the oldest continuing firms in the State of Minnesota. Moore, Costello & Hart has an active practice in employment and employee benefits law. At least six attorneys regularly advise clients on issues related to employment law and employee benefits. The firm regularly works with clients in the design, drafting and implementation of health, welfare and retirement plans, including cafeteria plans. The firm also has a diversified practice which includes work in the areas of commercial and residential real estate, business and non - profit corporations, tax, family law, labor and employment law, hospital law, college law, insurance law, banking law, surety bonds, plaintiff personal injury, general civil litigation and arbitration, probate and estate planning. The firm currently has thirty -three attorneys. It employs approximately an additional thirty -five people in office administration, accounting, secretarial, paralegal and other administrative and support capacities. A substantial portion of the firm's business is comprised of representation of clients outside of Minnesota. The firm has lawyers licensed in seven states, and both the commercial and litigation sides of the firm have worked on several matters around the country. The attorneys in the firm comprise an experienced and distinguished group. Its lawyers teach, publish, and lecture on a regular basis. The current presidents of the Minnesota State Bar Association and the Ramsey County Bar Association are among its current partners. References, consistent with rules of professional ethics, are available upon inquiry. PROCESS FLAW SHEET - SECTION 89 COMPLIANCE SYSTEM Step Service Fee Basis 1. Contracting with Moore, Costello & Hart/DCA, Inc. Plan sponsor executes engagement letter and Schedule submits $1,000 retainer fee payable to DCA, Inc. or Moore, Costello & Hart. 2. Data Collection • Plan sponsor submits to DCA two copies of all Schedule existing plan documents, master contracts, SPDs, employee booklets, etc. in accordance with instructions received. • Plan sponsor collects required employee data in Schedule accordance with instructions, submits to DCA via tape or disk. DCA provides a PC based data entry software program to assist in this process. • Alternatively, plan sponsor submits hard copy to DCA. Additional $1 per employee 3. Initial Overview • Each plan is "eyeballed" to identify obvious Schedule pass /fail situations. If "pass; the plan moves to Step 4. • Broad based plan design changes are suggested to Schedule aid compliance. • Specialized consulting is requested, e.g., doing Time "what if" testing of plan design changes, resolving and problems of controlled groups or separate lines of Expenses business, providing other services not mentioned in engagement letter. 4. Snap Shot Testing • Each plan is tested for compliance with Sections 89(d) Schedule and (e). • Discrimination problems are identified and Schedule communicated to plan sponsors, along with implications of non - compliance. • Broad based plan design changes are suggested to Schedule aid compliance. • Specialized consulting is requested, e.g., doing Time "what if" testing of plan design changes, resolving and problems of controlled groups or separate lines of Expenses business, providing other services not mentioned in engagement letter. -over- . PROCESS FLOW SHEET- SECTION 89 COMPLIANCE SYS'EKSM (continued) Step Service Fee Basis 5. Qualification Analysis • Each plan is checked for compliance with Section 89(k) Schedule qualification standards. • Plan sponsor is informed of the requirements to Schedule ensure compliance. • Specialized consulting, e.g., drafting, amending or Time restating documents as required. and Expenses 6. Legal Opinion Plan sponsor receives a legal opinion as to the Schedule compliance of its plans with Section 89. 7. Annual Testin and Reporting (for actual plan years ginning a ter December 31, 1988) . New or additional plans which were not previously Additional tested under the Moore, Costello & Hart/DCA, Inc. fees per Section 89 Compliance Systemsm. Schedule Plans previously tested under the system. See note below Specialized consulting services requested. Time and Expenses NOTE: Fees for on -going testing, reporting, and legal opinion as to Section 89 compliance will be determined on a time and expenses basis. However, we expect that these fees -on a r� lean tested basis, will not exceed 50% of the fees from the current schedule. Section 89 Compliance Systemsm is a service of Moore, Costello & Hart and DCA, Inc. FEE sammu - SECTION 89 COl4pLa= sYSTENh (Effective October, 1988; fees subject to change) This fee schedule applies to the services specified in the engagement letter you received. For these standard services, the amount of the fee is based on the number of plans and the number of employees Additional legal, consulting and administrative services, if requested, may be purchased on a time and expense basis. The minimum fee is $2,000 for each plan sponsor. Fees will be billed at the rate of $800 per plan plus $5.00 for each of the first 500 employees and $4.00 for each of the next 1,500 employees. (The portion of the total fee payable to the law firm of Moore, Costello & Hart is $400 per plan plus $1.00 per employee, with the remainder payable to DCA, Inc.) Fees for more than 2,000 employees will be quoted on request. The following chart illustrates how the fee is calculated for various plan sponsors. By referencing the entry which corresponds most closely to your own situation, you may estimate the amount of your total fee. Number Number of Employees of Plans 50 100 150 200 300 400 500 1000 1500 2000 2 $2,000 $2,100 $2,350 $2,600 $3,100 $3,600 $4,100 $6,100 $8,100 $10,100 3 2,650 2,900 3,150 3,400 3,900 4,400 4,900 6,900 8,900 10,900 4 3,450 3,700 3,950 4,200 4,700 5,200 5,700 7,700 9,700 11,700 5 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 8,500 10,500 12,500 6 5,050 5,300 5,550 5,800 6,300 6,800 7,300 9,300 11,300 13,300 7 5,850 6,100 6,350 6,600 7,100 7,600 8,100 10,100 12,100 14,100 8 6,650 6,900 7,150 7,400 7,900 8,400 8,900J 10,900 12,900 1 14,900 NOTES: (1) You should count as a separate "plan" each employer- sponsored welfare benefit or group life insurance plan which is made available to some or all employees. For example, a group term life insurance plan and a medical insurance plan from the same carrier are two plans. However, different benefit levels under the same medical plan do not constitute separate plans for the purpose of calculating the fees. (2) "Employees" includes all employees, including part -time, partners and proprietors. (3) Standard services include a data entry software program and instructions which will be supplied for your use. If DCA, Inc, is required to do data entry from hard copy, an additional $1.00 per employee will be billed. (4) A retainer fee of $1,000 is due and payable with your signed engagement letter. The balance of the fee is due upon completion of the engagement services. Section 89 Compliance Systemsm is a service of Moore, Costello & Hart and DCA, Inc. y ou Did U E ca M a c R )9%1 Peter Tritz Is your benefit plan discrinunatory? What must cities do to make sure be in writing. (A resolution of the city apply to group health and group life their employee benefit plans are not council specifying who is eligible for the benefit plans, Section 125 cafeteria discriminatory? Under Section 89 of benefits, what portion of the premium plans, and dependent care plans. the IRS Code, some employees may is to paid by the employer and what Essentially, any benefit plan will be be taxed on health and life insurance portion by the employee, and referring presumed to be discriminatory unless and other fringe benefits. to an employee booklet or to the the city formally determines that it is When Congress was working on tax insurance policy, HMO contract, etc. not, by following the procedures reform in 1986, one of the questions that specifies the precise benefits pro- spelled out in Section 89. they considered was whether vided would probably be sufficient.) The non - discrimination requirements employee fringe benefits such as group Second, the employees' rights under are intended to assure that an employ - health insurance should remain tax- the plan must be legally enforceable. er's benefit package doesn't discriminate exempt- They concluded that these Third, the employer must notify in favor of the more highly -paid employ - benefits should continue to b tax- . If the plan is discriminate the city e employees of then benefits. (The city ees p discriminatory, exempt provided that the employer's should give each employee something will have to report the "discriminatory benefit plan 1) is a "qualified" plan; in writing explaining the benefits avail- excess" that the highly compensated and 2) does not discriminate in favor of able. The employee booklet the insur- employees receive as taxable income on higher -paid employees. The require- ance company provides won't in itself those employees' W -2 forms. If the city ments take effect January 1, 1989 and be sufficient. While an oral explanation doesn't report it, the city is liable for a are found in Section 89 of the IRS to each employee might meet the stat- penalty equal to the highest individual Code. It is extremely important that ute's requirements, the problem is that income tax rate times the total value of cities be aware of these provisions. it's hard to prove later that you did it benefits — not just the discriminatory Not meeting the requirements can and that you covered all the important excess — paid to the highly compensated result in the premiums paid by the city points in the oral explanation.) employees. and/or the benefits received by the Fourth, the plan must be for the There doesn't seem to be any simple employee being taxable to the exclusive benefit of the employees. "safe harbor" approach that will employee, and the city being liable for (That is, the benefit plan can't be a assure that the city is in compliance. substantial penalties. money- making proposition for the Even a simple and straightforward The requirements are extremely employer.) approach like paying the same dollar complex and lengthy. There isn't space Fifth, it must be intended to be amount toward the premiums for every in this article (or in this magazine for permanent. employee won't necessarily guarantee that matter) to cover all the ins and If a benefits plan does not meet all that your plan isn't "discriminatory." outs of Section 89. But, hopefully this five of these criteria, the benefits Nearly every city that has more than article will give cities an idea of what received are taxable income to the one employee and provides health or they need to do to comply. employee. In that case, the city must life coverage will have to perform the report it as compensation on the formal non - discrimination tests. Qualification employees' W -2's. If the city fails to The first step is to determine how do so, the city is subject to a penalty many employees the city has. The city In order for health, life, and other equal to the highest individual income is generally permitted to exclude fringe benefits to be exempt from tax - tax rate times the total value of benefits employees with less than six months of ation as income, the first question is paid under the plan. service; those who work less than six whether the plan is "qualified." Estab- Note that if the plan is not qualified, months per year; and employees under fishing that a plan is "qualified" is fairly it is benefits received — not the prem- age 21. Under some circumstances, simple but is extremely important. The iums paid by the employer that become the city can also exclude employees tax consequences and penalties for hav- taxable income for the employee. In covered by a collective bargaining ing a non - qualified plan are very other words, if a non - qualified health agreement. Part-time employees must severe. The qualification rules apply to insurance plan paid for a $50,000 heart be included unless they work less than group health and life plans; cafeteria operation for an employee, that 17.5 hours per week. But employees plans; dependent care plans; employee employee would have another $50,000 in any of these categories may be discounts; other services employees of taxable income. And if the city failed excluded only if no employee in the receive at no cost; and employer -oper- to report that $50,000 on the employ - category is eligible for benefits. ated eating facilities. These rules do ee's W -2, the city would also have to The next step is to determine who not apply to other fringe benefits such pay a penalty of as much as $16,500. are the city's "highly compensated as sick leave or vacation leave. employees" (HCEs). An HCE is any In order to be qualified, a plan must Non- discrimination employee who either 1) is paid more meet five requirements. First, it must The non - discrimination requirements than $75,000; or 2) is paid more than 1 { 14 Minnesota Cities $50,000 and is in the top 20 percent of age test if at least 80 percent of the plan with another plan and meet the all employees in compensation; or 3) is non -HCEs are enrolled under the plan, requirements that way. an "officer" and is paid more than Note that if the city has more than one It is quite possible, though, that $45,000. "plan," it would seem to be impossible some cities may have plans that are Unfortunately, you may not be off for both plans to pass the 80 percent considered "discriminatory" under the hook even if none of the city's coverage test. Section 89. This could easily occur if employees earn that much. In that The "three-part eligibility and bene- the city employs a number of part-time case, whichever "officer" is the high- fits" test actually has four parts. First, workers who don't receive benefits. If est paid is an HCE, regardless of his at least 50 percent of the employees a city's plan is "discriminatory," there or her actual pay. It isn't clear whether eligible for the plan must be non -HCEs, are really two basic ways to deal with for example a city clerk or city council or the percentage of HCEs eligible to the problem. members would be "officers" for pur- participate cannot exceed the percent- One option, obviously, is to amend poses of Section 89. Some testimony age of non -HCEs eligible. Second, at the benefit package to eliminate the indicates that Congress intended that least 90 percent of all non -HCEs must problem. This could mean either every employer would have to have at be eligible for a benefit that is at least increasing benefits and /or eligibility for least one officer, and therefor at least 50 percent as valuable as the greatest the non -HCEs, or decreasing benefits one HCE. employer-provided benefit available to for HCEs. o Whether or not the city clerk, city HCEs. Third, the average benefit The second option is to concede that treasurer, council members, etc. are received by non -HCEs must be at least the plan is discriminatory. The conse- "officers" for purposes of Section 89 75 percent of the benefits received by quence of having a discriminatory plan turns out to be a very important ques- HCEs. Fourth, the plan must not con- is that the discriminatory excess that tion for smaller cities who don't have tain any other provision relating to the HCEs receive are included in the any employees paid more than eligibility which discriminates in favor gross income which the city must $50,000. In effect, this will determine of HCEs. report on the W -2 and on which the whether or not these smaller cities In these tests, "benefit" means the employee must pay taxes. It may turn have any "highly compensated employ- net value provided by the employer. out to be cheaper in some cases for ees." If the city doesn't have any The "benefit" the employee receives the city to make an agreement with the HCEs, the city obviously can't be equals the percentage of the premium HCEs to increase their taxable com- discriminating in favor of HCEs. But if that is paid by the employer times the pensation enough to make up for their these positions are "officers" for pur- plan's "total value." benefits becoming taxable, rather than poses of Section 89, then every city by The Section 89 discrimination tests to increase the benefits which the other definition has at least one HCE. do allow the city to provide proportion- employees get. While this seems a Another point to note concerns ately lower benefits to part -time rather perverse result in light of the employees who are related to high -paid employees working between 17.5 and apparent intent of Section 89, never employees. If any employee is a rela- 30 hours per week without necessarily theless it would apparently be perfectly tive of one of one of the top ten highest creating discrimination problems. Spe- legal and might be the cheapest way paid employees, those two employees cifically, for purposes of the testing out for the city. are considered to be one employee for formulas, the city can double the value Unfortunately, the Section 89 purposes of these tests. of the benefit actually received by requirements may also turn out to have The next g step is to test each "plan" employees workin between 17.5 and another even more perverse effect. the city offers, to determine whether it 22.5 hours per week. For employees Some employers may just decide that discriminates in favor of the HCE working between 22.5 and 30 hours the hassles that are now involved in group. A plan is separate if coverage per week, the city can multiply the providing health and life benefits to varies in any way. Employee coverage actual benefit received by 1.33. their employees simply aren't worth it. and dependent coverage are separate One problem is that so far there isn't These employers might simply decide plans. If the city offers a choice of an any way to figure out the plan's to stop providing health and life bene - HMO and a fee - for - service plan, those "value." The IRS is supposed to fits, give their employees a one -time would each also be separate plans. A develop a table that will give the raise equal to the premiums the city offering both an HMO and a fee - "value" of a plan, but the table doesn't employer used to pay. for- service plan, and a choice of single exist yet. For now, cities should prob- As city officials begin to struggle or family coverage under each has at ably just assume that the "value" of a through the task of complying with this least four plans. The city must test plan equals the total premium cost. section, it will be worthwhile to make each of those four plans separately. If sure that Minnesota's congressional the city provides retiree coverage, the What if one of our plans delegation is kept informed about just retiree plan must also be tested sepa- how much work they've created for rately. is discriminatory. cities. There are two options for testing a Under certain circumstances, the (Thanks to Rick Vanek of Coopers plan: the "80 percent coverage" test, city can "aggregate" two or more and Lybrand for reviewing this article and the three -part eligibility and ben- "comparable" plans, and treat them as and helping sort through the implica- efits" test. The "80 percent cover- one plan for testing purposes. The first tions of Section 89 for cities.) ■ age" test is the easiest. thing to look at is whether you'd be A plan passes the 80 percent cover- able to aggregate the discriminatory December 1988 15 f SECTION 89 COMPLIANCE SYSTEM Questions & Answers Concerning IRC Section 89 Moore, Costello & Hart joins DCA, Inc. in presenting the following introduction to key provisions of Section 89 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Please be aware that this introduction is not intended to answer all your questions concerning Section 89 nor deal with its technical details. Furthermore, interpretations contained herein are subject to legislative changes as well as the issuance of rulings and regulations by the IRS. Section 89 Compliance System sm P is a joint effort of the law firm of Moore, Costello & Hart and DCA, Inc., a benefits consulting, administration and management firm i 1. What is the general impact of IRC Section 89 The 1986 Tax Reform Act established a new section in the Internal Revenue Code. Section 89 sets forth 1) basic qualification standards, and 2) nondiscrimination tests with which certain types of employer- sponsored health and welfare benefit plans must comply. It seeks to discourage employers from maintaining benefit plans that discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. The qualification standards apply to these plans or programs: - accident and health - group term life insurance - qualified tuition reduction - cafeteria plans - fringe benefit programs - section 505 plans, such as VEBAs The nondiscrimination tests apply to these plans: - accident and health - group term life insurance In addition, the qualification standards and nondiscrimination tests may, by employer election, apply to: - qualified group legal services plans educational assistance plans - dependent care assistance programs 2. What must I do to pass the qualification standards The employee welfare benefit plans subject to the qualification standards must pass the following five tests effective with the plan year beginning in 1989. While interpretations are always subject to additional IRS guidelines, in general the qualification standards require: a. The plan must be in writing Health and welfare benefit plans are being "ERISAfie d.' plan document will have to specify additional provisions such as funding policies, allocation of administrative responsibilities, procedures for amending the plan and other terms that are not commonly found in the usual insurance contract or policy. The plan will also have to include the rights and obligations of both employees and employers. b. Employee's rights must be legally enforceable Many discretionary plans will no longer be permitted under this requirement. C. Employees must be given reasonable notification of the benefits available. You will probably have to distribute a complete -2- summary of the plan's benefits -- and not merely notify employees that the plan exists. d. The plan must be maintained for the exclusive benefit of employees Although plans which include dependents and former employees may still pass this test, the distinctions are technical and require close scrutiny. e. The plan must be established with the intention that it be maintained for an indefinite period of time. You are going to need a good business reason to terminate a plan once benefits have been provided. 3. What is the penaltX for noncompliance with any one of these five qualification standards The penalty for noncompliance with any of the standards is severe. The value of the employer - provided benefit actually paid to a participant under the plan must be reported to that participant as income on his /her W -2. (For example, a $45,000 medical claim would be fully taxable to the participant who incurs the claim in a noncomplying health care plan.) Note that it is the value of the benefits provided, not just the insurance premiums, which must be reported as income to the participant. In addition, you may have to count salary reduction amounts and reimbursements if you have a cafeteria plan. 4. What must I do to pass the nondiscrimination tests All employers must collect eligibility and benefit data concerning those benefit plans which are subject to the nondiscrimination tests (see question number one above). In very general and non - technical terms, these tests compare the benefits and eligibility requirements for highly compensated employees and nonhighly compensated employees. Many of the clients with whom we have met have found that the necessary data is not readily available. And, chances are good that your organization will also have some difficulty generating the following information from scratch: a. Identify highlZ om ensated employees. In brief, you must name 5% owners, emp oyees paidmore than $75,000 per year, employees paid more than $50,000 who are among the highest -paid 20 %, and officers of the company who are paid more than $45,000. These dollar limits are subject to cost of living adjustments. b. Determine separate lines of business A plan established by a separate line of business is a separate plan for testing purposes. A line of business or operating unit generally includes all employees necessary for the preparation of property for sale to customers or for the provision of services to customers. A separate line of business must have at least 50 employees. The employer must notify the IRS of its separate status and -3- receive a favorable determination letter or satisfy a "safe harbor" rule. The safe harbor rule involves a comparison of ratios of highly compensated employees inside and outside the i ea s p rate line of business. C. Determine excludable employees An employee m be excludable from testing if %she . . . - is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, - has less than 6 months of service, - normally works less than 17 -1/2 hours per week, - normally works less than 6 months a year, or - is under age 21. Special rules apply if any benefits are provided to employees who would otherwise be excluded by these rules. d. Determine the number of separate plans In general, every plan or arrangement offered by an employer that is not substantially the same is considered a separate plan for purposes of Section 89 and must be tested as such. Examples of separate plans are those which have different benefits, employee contributions, coinsurance levels or deductibles. Employee-only lans are p considered separately from family coverage plans. Plans for former employees must also be tested separately. In other words, one insurance carrier's "plan" may include different "Plans," each of which must qualify and be tested under Section 89. e. Locate employees and family members with other Qrou cove There may be cases where you will need to ex em yees with other group coverage in order to pass the benefit tests. If so, you will want to determine which employees, spouses and dependents are covered by another employer plan for core accident and health benefits. Either sworn statements must be obtained from these people or a statistically valid sampling must be conducted by an independent third party. However, if the benefits provided to highly compensated employees exceed 133 -1/3% of the value of coverage provided to nonhighly compensated employees, the highly compensated may not be excluded from the testing even if they have other coverage. f. Determine the number and status of ark t -tim employees Employees who are over age 21 and work 17-1/2 hours per week for more than 6 months must be included in the tests. Special rules apply if any benefits are provided to employees who would otherwise be excluded by these rules. However, you may reduce their benefits proportionately. For example, the benefit tests will be met if employees working between 17 -1/2 and 22 -1/2 hours per week receive a benefit worth 50% or more of the full -time f' d if employees between 22 -1 benefit, an working 2 and 30 hours / per week receive a benefit worth 75% or more of the full -time benefit. -4- g. Determine the number of former employees with employer -paid benefits. Post retirement health care plans must be tested separately. • h. Determine when employees are includable during the year. Employees who leave an employer in the last three months of the plan year may be treated as employees for the whole year. Employees who leave during a month may be treated as having left at the end of the month. 5. Once I have collected the data, how is the nondiscrimination testing done First, plans are measured against the 80% coverage test. Plans in which all or almost all employees are participating (including part- timers at or above 17 -1/2 hours per week) should pass this test. In general, the 80% coverage test requires at least 80% of the employees who are not highly compensated to be covered under the plan during the plan year. Comparable plans (whose benefit values are all within 5% of each other) may be aggregated for purposes of testing. Health care plans with family coverage may be tested separately to see if 80% of the nonhighly compensated employees with families are covered under the aggregate of comparable plans. 6. What if a plan does not pass the 80% coverage test If a plan does not pass the 80% coverage test, or is otherwise _discriminatory as to eligibility, it must pass a series of eligibility and benefit tests: - 50% Eligibility Test -- At least 50% of the employees eligible to participate in a plan are not highly compensated employees. Alternatively, the percentage of highly compensated employees eligible to participate in a plan must not be greater than the percentage of nonhighly compensated employees eligible to participate. - 90 %/50% Eligibility Test -- A plan will meet this test if at least 90% of the nonhighly compensated employees are eligible for a benefit that is at least 50% as large as the largest benefit available to any highly compensated employee in the plan. - 75% Benefits Test -- A plan which passes the eligibility tests must also pass this test. It calls for the average employer- provided benefit for nonhighly compensated employees to be at least 75% of the value of the average employer - provided benefit for highly compensated employees. - Facts and Circumstances Test -- Even if a plan passes the 80% test or, alternatively, the series of numerical tests listed above, it must pass this final test. If the IRS looks at a plan and determines that the plan in fact discriminates as to eligibility, the plan would still fail the Section 89 -5- discrimination tests. This "catch all" is an unlikely occurrence, but must be considered. 7. What is the penalty for plans that do not pass the testing procedure? If a plan fails to meet the 80% coverage test or the eligibility and benefits tests, the gross income of each highly compensated participant will be adjusted to include an amount equal to his /her discriminatory "excess benefit" under the plan for the plan year. To determine the discriminatory excess benefit, you reduce the benefit levels of all highly compensated employees until the tests are passed. Then, the difference between the employee's actual benefit level and the benefit level at which the plan passes the tests is the discriminatory excess benefit. The Code prescribes an order in which the tests must be passed as well as an order in which your highly compensated employees must be tested. If a benefit plan is found to be discriminatory, you must report the discriminatory excess benefit on the W -2 form of each affected highly compensated employee. Employers who fail to report these excess benefits will be subject to an excise tax penalty. The penalty will equal the total value of benefits under all plans of the same type provided to those highly compensated employees as to whom the employer failed to report, multiplied by the highest applicable individual income tax rate. 8. I just don't believe our organization has a problem. Why should I worry? Even if your plans don't discriminate, you must . . . - still comply with the qualification standards, and - be prepared to prove that you don't discriminate. 9. Can't my insurance agent or carrier handle this problem for me? Not all plans subject to Section 89 involve insurance carriers. For example, cafeteria plans. Even in the case of insured plans, your carrier will more than likely be unable to provide complete help. For example, while the insurance contract sets forth coverage levels, benefits provided, eligibility requirements and other plan provisions, it probably doesn't include all the necessary provisions required for either a formal plan document or a notification of benefits. Furthermore, your insurance carrier and agent are not in a position to offer you advice on the legal complexities, and no one carrier will be positioned to advise you concerning the interrelationship of all of your benefit plans. -6- 10. I may have a problem some day, but not yet. Why can't I deal with it later? Section 89 applies to covered plans starting with the first plan year beginning in 1989. (Certain collectively bargained plans may enjoy delayed effective dates.) To be sure that your plans will be in compliance, you should begin the process of qualification analysis and plan drafting today. 11. Isn't it true that the IRS really won't pay much attention to this? The IRS looks upon Section 89 as a revenue producer and, for this reason, we believe that they will follow up aggressively. In addition, as with qualified retirement plans, Congress wants to stop taxpayer subsidy of benefits for highly compensated employees. Therefore, we expect the same high level of enforcement as in the area of qualified retirement plans. Enforcing the qualification standards is really not such a difficult job. In an audit, the IRS examiner could ask you to produce written plan documents and to prove that you have made written notification of benefits available to your employees. If you cannot do so, you can be penalized. Likewise, if you do not collect the required data and do not perform the nondiscrimination tests, you will have a difficult time meeting your burden of proof. .12. I do have a problem, and there is a penalty. But why can't I handle compliance myself? Few companies will be able to ascertain whether or not their health and welfare plans meet Section 89 requirements without the help of a professional benefit administrator and the advice of qualified legal counsel. The Moore, Costello & Hart /DCA Section 89 Compliance System sm provides both. It is a computer- assisted, relatively low -cost compliance package which is ready to work for you. If you are like most employers, you probably do not have the time, personnel or expertise to handle Section 89 comp Uance entirely by yourself. With the Section 89 Compliance System , you receive coordinated services designed to provide guidance throughout all standard steps of the compliance process, including: - data collection, - an overview of your current status, - preliminary recommendations, - snap shot testing, - qualification analysis, and - compliance opinions. The complete Section 89 Compliance System is offered on a fixed fee basis. However, various services may be unbundled; and additional consulting, legal and /or administrative services may be contracted on an -7- Y hourly fee basis for special circumstances, annual testing and more complicated situations. 13. How do I sign up for the Section 89 Compliance System Accompanying these Questions and Answers are an Engagement Letter, a Fee Schedule, and a Process Flow Sheet. To begin the process, you must review and sign the Engagement Letter, returning it to DCA, Inc. or to Moore, Costello & Hart along with your check for the $1,000.00 retainer fee. Refer to the Process Flow Sheet and the Fee Schedule for important information on the services to be provided as well as the total fees you may expect. Upon receipt of your signed Engagement Letter and retainer fee, we will contact you on a timely basis to begin your compliance work. Section 89 Compliance System Moore, Costello & Hart DCA, Inc. Attorneys at Law 400 DCA Center 1400 Norwest Center 13100 Wayzata Boulevard 55 East Fifth Street Minnetonka, MN 55343 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -8- l Licenses to be approved by the City Council on December 19, 1988: BOWLING ALLEY � Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. City Clerk CIGARETTE Best Products Company, Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center American Legion #630 4307 70th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Service 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Green Mill Inn 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard Jerry's New Market 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Dr. Minnesota Viking Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. Schmitt Music Center 2400 Freeway Blvd. Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N. Service America 7490 Central Ave. N.E. Dayton's Brookdale Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. MTC 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Snyder Bros. Drug 1296 Brookdale Center Wes's Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. Yen Ching Restaurant 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy. C C' COURTESY BENCH y Clerk z z L, U.S. Bench Corp. 3300 Snelling Ave. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT City Clerk Minnesota Viking Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. U.S. West Telecommunications 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy Sa i a ian GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE Walz Bros. Sanitation Inc. P.O. Box 627 Sa'i aiian GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Post Office 6848 Lee Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Service "76" 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Service Center 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Christy's Auto Service 5300 Dupont Ave. N. Howe Company 4821 Xerxes Ave. N. Humboldt Ave. Service 6840 Humboldt Ave. N. Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N. o Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company 4435 68th Ave. N. Wes's Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. Ci Clerk ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - B.C. Lioness 5324 Oliver Ave. N. San ian LODGING ESTABLISHMENT �-- -�� Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard S 'tarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Milton Witzmann 2500 Longview Dr. P & H Services Co. Inc. 208 73rd Ave. N. /. 22 Building' f icial POOL AND BILLIARDS TABLE Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard City Clerk PUBLIC DANCE Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. D /il //� X2 k RENTAL DWELLINGS City Clerk Initial. Michael Adkins 6315 Brooklyn Blvd. Robert & Marilyn ashman 5622 Emerson yn r n Ave. N. Lai Phuoc Ngo 4512 63rd Ave. N. Renewal: • James Ferrara 6031 Brooklyn Blvd. Gary.Zimmerman 6527 Brooklyn Blvd. Fred Johnson 5324 Bryant Ave. N. Patrick Menth 5302 Fremont Ave. N. H.E. Homes 6804 Fremont Place H.E. Homes 6809 Fremont Place Joe Semler, Jr. 6820 Fremont Place Joe Semler, Jr. 6824 Fremont Place H.E. Homes 6831 Fremont Place Walt Halberg 6835 Fremont Place Julia Paulson 5315 Knox Ave. N. Vernon Vendel 5651 Knox Ave. N. Gary Scherber 4708 Lakeview Ave. N. Henry Johnson 6736 Scott Ave. N. Gregory M. Ray 3713 Urban Ave. N. Donald Kutz 6837 York Place Eugene Hess 3218 63rd Ave. N. H.E. Homes 1323 67th Lane Walt Halberg 1326 67th Lane Dir ctor of Planning and TAXICAB LICENSE Inspectio Suburban Taxi 9614 Humboldt Ave. S. Lj �) Ch' of of�P 'Ace GENERAL APPROVAL ' D. K. Weeks, City Clerk i