HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 09-15 CCP Special Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SPECIAL SESSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 1986
(following adjournment of the HRA meeting)
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Resolution:
a. Giving Final Approval to Earle Brown Commons Mortgage
Revenue Bond
4. Approval of Specified Licenses:
a. Amusement Device License - Plaza Investments
b. On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Ramada Inn
5. Reconvene Public Hearing on Annual City Budget
6. Adjournment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, Ci Ma
P , y Hager �
FROM: Brad Hoffman, HRA Coordinator g 1 `
�
DATE: September 12, 1986
SUBJECT: Earle Brown Commons Issues
Monday evening the Council /HRA will be asked to take two actions.
First, the City Council will be asked to give final approval to
the Earle Brown Commons Bond Issue; preliminary approval was
given last December. Second, as the HRA, approval must be given
to a subordination agreement to the Development Agreement with
Earle Brown Commons. The agreement is subordinated to the
mortgage (Bond). A subordination is standard rocedure '
in
P any Y
development financing package.
e.
g
Earlier we (the staff ) raised the issue ue of the a it position � Y P of
the Earle Brown Commons Partnership. Since that time, we have
reviewed the matter with Bob Pulscher of Springsted. Our primary
concerns were twofold. First, we needed assurance that the
equity level of the Partnership was significant enough so as to
be acceptable to an underwriter. As you know, Al Beisner and
Miller & Schroeder disagreed on this point and Al went to a new
underwriter. We needed to know that Al was not able to shop for
an underwriter that would simply write the deal on his terms.
Bob Pulscher's review indicates that while the Partnership's
equity position in minimal(8.2 percent), the bonds themselves are
protected by the development and the equity level does not pose a
significant problem. Second, we wanted to be assured that the
equity position of the general partners (Al Beisner and John
Parsinen) was adequate to keep them from walking from the deal if
problems should arise. The two are personally guaranteeing the
bond or the deal in the amount of $3,000,000. That amount
represents a personal financial commitment that we would not be
able to secure from another developer.
Overall, the equity level of the partnership (approximately
$880,000) is not what one would consider vast, but it is
adequate. At a personal level, their respective financial
commitments are significant. Because Al is a known developer, we
feel comfortable that the project will come together in a
successful manner.
At the time I am writing this memo, several issues remain open
relative to the subordination agreement. I have yet to receive a
response to concerns and issues raised about the subordination
agreement. Several requests are "deal killers" or points from
which I feel we cannot negotiate. We cannot waive the deed
restriction on the Earl Brown office building. The preservation
of those buildings is a primary reason for our involvement in the
project and the deed restriction and contract represents our only
-2-
control over the future of the buildings. For the second phase
of the development (residential), we hold a contract for deed on
the property. The underwriter of Phase I wanted the right to
review and approve any development on the Phase II property
should we take over the property. It assumes that Phase II does
not occur. At
that of
p nt, we cannot accept any restraints on its
development outside of the zoning ordinances.
Last, there is a provision in the contract that the HRA provides
the developer with a letter or certificate of completion which
fulfills the contract. They wanted the right to submit such to
the architect to provide the same should the HRA refuse to
provide the certificate for some insignificant reason.
Other issues were also raised but were substantially handled in a
meeting with their attorney on August 29th. I am assuming that
these issues will be clarified by Monday evening and at that
time, staff will request the HRA to approve the subordination
agreement. You should note that the mortgage holder takes the
property subject to the assessment agreement meaning they will
pay at a minimum an agreed tax levy.
I will be at the meeting Monday to update you on these issues.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER, MINNESOTA MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
ENT
REVENUE BONDS (EARLE BROWN COMMONS PROJECT), IN THE
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,800,000;
PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST, A LOAN AGREEMENT, A
REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION AND SALE OF THE BONDS AND DIRECTING
DELIVERY THEREOF; AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE
CONTRACT OF PURCHASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BONDS;
CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY
OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND A FORM OF FINAL OFFICIAL
STATEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITIES, RIGHTS, AND
REMEDIES OF THE OWNERS OF SAID REVENUE BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City ") is a home rule charter city
duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
particularly Minnesota Statutes Chapters 462A and 462C, as amended (the "Acts "), the
City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated
thereby by issuing its revenue' bonds to defray, in whole or in part, the development costs
of a rental housing development, and by entering into any agreements made in connection
therewith and pledging them as security for the payment of the principal of and interest
on any such revenue bonds (the "Program "); and
WHEREAS, to provide a means of financing the cost of a rental housing
development that will provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for residents of the City
at rents they can afford, and further (1) to provide for and promote the public health,
safety, morals and welfare; (2) to provide for efficient and well - planned urban growth
and development, including the elimination and prevention of potential urban blight, and
the proper coordination of industrial facilities with public services, mass transportation
and multifamily housing developments; and (3) to assist persons of low and moderate
income in obtaining safe and sanitary housing at rents which they can afford, which
constitute valid public purposes for the issuance of revenue bonds under the Acts, the
City has developed a program with respect to (i) the issuance by the City of its
Multifamily Housing Development Revenue Bonds (Earle Brown Commons Project) (the
"Bonds ") in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $8,800,000 and (ii) the use of the
Bond proceeds by the City to make a mortgage loan (the "Loan' , to Earle Brown
Commons Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Owner ") in
accordance with the provisions of the loan Agreement between the City and the Owner
dated as of September 1, 1986 (the "Loan Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City developed a Housing Plan pursuant to and in conformit with
the Acts and y
on September 20, 1982, held a public hearing thereon after one publication
of notice in
a newspaper circulating generally in the City on August 16, 1982,
preliminarily approved the Housing Plan and forwarded the same to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment pursuant to the Acts; and
RESOLUTION No.
i WHEREAS, the City by the passage of Resolution No. 82 -189 adopted the Housing
ousmg
Plan on September 20, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Plan was reviewed , by the Metropolitan Council, which
reviewed the Housing Plan and forwarded its comments to the City, which comments
were reviewed and discussed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Earle Brown Commons Project Program (the "Program ") is an
individual component of the Housing Plan for which the Bonds were proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City adopted the Program as a part of the
adoption of the Housing Plan, by the passage of a resolution on December 30, 1985
adopted after conducting a public hearing on the program after publication of notice
thereof in a newspaper circulating generally in the City at least fifteen (15) days before
the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Acts require approval of the Program by the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency (the "Agency "), which approval was given on March 27, 1986 by reason of
the Agency's failure to notify the City of its decision within 30 days; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Acts, and the Indenture of Trust dated September 1,
1986 by and between the City and National City Bank of Minneapolis (the "Trustee ") (the
"Indenture "), the City proposes to undertake the Program, and for the financing thereof,
to authorize, issue and sell the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds and the interest thereon will not constitute an indebtedness
of the City or a loan of the credit thereof within the meaning of any constitutional
provision or statutory limitation and shall never constitute or give rise to a pecuniary
liability of the City. Neither the State of Minnesota nor any political subdivision thereof
nor the City shall be obligated to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the
Bonds or other costs incidental thereto except from the revenues and other amounts
pledged therefor, and neither the general credit nor the taxing power of the State or any
political subdivision thereof or the City is pledged to the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds or other costs incidental thereto. No
Bondholder shall have the right to demand payment of the principal of, premium, if any,
and interest on the Bonds out of any funds to be raised by taxation; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the requirements of Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982, the City Council held a public hearing on December 30,1985,
after publication of notice thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at
least fourteen days before the hearing, and the City Council gave preliminary approval to
proceed with the financing for the Project and issue the Bonds.'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA:
Section 1. The City Council of the City acknowledges, finds, determines, and
declares that the preservation of the quality of life in the City is dependent upon the
maintenance, provision, and preservation of an adequate housing stock, that
accomplishing this is a public purpose, and that many would -be providers of housing units
in the City are either unable to afford mortgage credit at present market rates of
interest or are unable to obtain mortgage credit because the mortgage credit market is
severely restricted.
-2-
RESOLUTION NO.
Section 2. The City Council of the City further finds, determines, and declares
that the purpose of the Program is to issue the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be
loaned to the Owner pursuant to the Loan Agreement, to finance the construction of a
rental housing development consisting of 140 rental units to be located on Summit Drive
North and Earle Brown Drive in the City of Brooklyn Center, as more fully described in
the Loan Agreement (the "Project "), for occupancy primarily by persons of low and
moderate income.
Section 3. For the purpose of financing the Program there is hereby authorized the
issuance of the Bonds of the City in an amount equal to $8,800,000. The Bonds shall be in
such principal amount, shall mature, shall be in such denomination, shall be numbered,
shall be dated, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, shall be in such form,
and shall have such other details and provisions as are prescribed by the Indenture and
the Official Statement hereinafter referred to. The Bonds shall bear interest as set forth
in the Official Statement.
Section 4. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the City payable solely from
the revenues of the Program, in the manner provided in the Indenture. The Bonds do not
constitute a debt of the City, nor does the City pledge its full faith and credit in regard
to the issuance of the Bonds. The City Council of the City hereby authorizes and directs
the Mayor of the City (the "Mayor ") and the City Manager (the "City Manager ") to
execute, under the corporate seal of the City, the Indenture, and to deliver to the
Trustee (the "Trustee ") the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of
the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall
provide the terms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties, and agreements
of the bondholders, the City, and the Trustee as set forth herein.
All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be
deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated
verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and
delivery thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the City
Clerk of the City (the "Clerk ") on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such
necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as so not materially
affect the substance of the transaction and as the Mayor and City Manager, in their
discretion, shall determine; provided that the execution thereof by the Mayor and City
Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
Section 5. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
accept and execute the Bond Purchase Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement ") from
Miller Securities, Incorporated (the "Underwriter"). All of the provisions of the Bond
Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed
to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim
herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery
thereof. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the
Clerk on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate
variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the
transaction and as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine;
provided that the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager (and the release
upon the approval of the City's attorney) shall be conclusive evidence of such
determination.
Section 6. The
Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Loan Agreement and, when executed and delivered as authorized
herein, the Loan Agreement shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to
-3-
RESOLUTION NO.
the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force
form the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement n hall be
substantially in the form on file with the Clerk on the date, hereof, and is hereby
approved, with such necessary variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially
affect the substance of the transaction and as they Mayor and the City Manager, in their
discretion, shall determine; provided that the execution thereof by the Mayor and City
Manager (and the release upon the approval of the City's attorney) shall be conclusive
evidence of such determination.
Section 7. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
accept and execute the Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement ") between
the City, the Trustee and the Owner and,, when executed and delivered as authorized
herein, the Regulatory Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the
Clerk on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary variations,
omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the transaction and
as the Mayor and the City Manager,.in their discretion, shall determine; provided that
the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager (and the release upon the
approval of the City's attorney) shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
Section 8. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements
of the City contained in this resolution or contained in the Indenture, Loan Agreement,
Regulatory Agreement, or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be the
covenants, stipulations, 'obligations, representations, and agreements shall be binding
upon the City. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights,
powers, and
privileges conferred, and duties and liabilities imposed upon the City or the City Council
members thereof by the provisions of this resolution or of the Indenture, the Loan
Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement or other documents referred to above shall be
exercised or performed by the City, or by such members, officers, board, body, or agency
as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such
duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or Agreement herein
contained or contained in the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement
or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation,
obligation, representation, or Agreement of any officer, agent, or employee of the city in
that person's individual capacity, and neither the members of the City Council of the
City nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the
Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance
thereof.
Section 9. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution
or in the Indenture, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon
any person, firm, or corporation other than the City, the owners of the Bonds, the
Trustee, and the Owner to the extent expressly provided in the Indenture, any right,
remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any
provision hereof or of the Indenture or any provision thereof, this resolution, the
Indenture and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and
exclusive benefit of the City, the owners from time to time of the Bonds issued under the
provisions of this resolution and the Indenture, and the Owner to the extent expressly
provided in the Indenture.
Section 10. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution or of the
Indenture or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or
invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution
or of the Indenture or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the Indenture, and the Bonds shall
be construed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. The
-4-
RESOLUTION NO.
terms and conditions set forth in the Indenture, the pledge of revenues derived from the
Program referred to 'in the Indenture, the creation of the funds provided for in the
Indenture, the provisions relating to the application of the proceeds derived from the sale
of the Bonds pursuant to and under the Indenture, and the application of said revenues,
and other monies are all commitments, obligations, and agreements on the part of the
City contained in the Indenture, and the invalidity of the Indenture shall not affect the
commitments, obligations, and agreements on the part of the City to create such funds
and to apply said revenues, other monies, and proceeds of the Bonds for the purposes, in
the manner, and according to the terms and conditions fixed in the Indenture, it being the
intention hereof that such commitments on the part of the City are as binding as if
contained in this resolution separate and apart from the Indenture.
Section 11. All acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of
Minnesota, relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and
to the execution of the Indenture and the other documents referred to above to happen,
exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and
precedent to the issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the Indenture
and
the other documents referred to above have happened, exist, and have been
performed as so required by law.
Section 12. The City Council of the City, officers of the City, and attorneys and
other agents or employees of th
g a City re hereby authorized o
Y ed to d all acts
y and things
required of them by or in connection with this resolution and the Indenture and other
documents referred to above for the full, punctual„ and complete performance of all the
terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the Indenture and the other
documents referred to above, and this resolution.
Section 13. The City hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary
Official Statement relating to the Bonds, substantially in the form on file with the Clerk
on the date hereof. The City hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter in
connection with the sale of the Bonds of the Final Official Statement, substantially in
the form of the Preliminary Official Statement on file with the Clerk; provided that the
City Manager may consent to such variations, omissions, and insertions as are not
materially inconsistent with the form on file with the Clerk on the date hereof. The
Preliminary Official Statement and the Final Official Statement are the sole materials
consented to by the City for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The
City has consented to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and Official
Statement, but has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement, made
an independent investigation
Y P or review of
the e same or approved the Official Statement
PP t
or information contained therein and assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency,
or
P Y iciencY,
accuracy completeness such Official Statement of information.
Section 14. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to
execute and delivery any and all certificates, agreements or other documents which are
required by the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement or the
Regulatory Agreement or an
g Y g y other certificates or documents which are deemed
necessary bon
y y d counsel to evidence the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, the
Indenture or the other documents referred to in this Resolution, or to evidence
compliance with Section 103(b)(4)(A) or Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended; and the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby designated as Officers
of the City for the purposes of executing the Officer's Certificate; and all such
. agreements or representations when made shall be deemed to be agreements or
representations, as the case may be, of the City.
-5-
RESOLUTION NO
Section 15. If for any reason the Mayor of the City is unable to execute and deliver
those documents referred to in this Resolution, any other member of the City Council of
the City may execute and deliver such documents with the same force and effect as if
such documents were executed by the Mayor. If for any reason the City Manager or the
Clerk of the City is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this
Resolution, such documents may be executed and delivered by any other member of the
City Council or the City Clerk with the same force and effect if such documents were
executed and delivered by the City Manager of the City.
Section 16. All costs incurred by the City in connection with the issuance, sale and
delivery of the Bonds and the execution and delivery of the Indenture, the Loan
Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, or Zhe Bond Purchase Agreement or any other
Agreement or instrument relative to the Bonds, whether or not (1) actually issued or
delivered or (ii) the Project is actually completed, shall be paid by the Owner or
reimbursed by the Owner to the City.
Section 17. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
Section 18. The Council of the City hereby finds that the Project is designed to be
affordable by persons and families with adjusted gross income not in excess of the limits
set forth in Section 462C.03, Subdivision 2 of the Act.
Section 19. The Council of the City hereby makes the following findings:
(a) The City is a home rule charter city organized and existing
under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
(b) The City has full legal right, power and authority under the
Indenture and the laws of the State of Minnesota (i), to enter into the Loan
Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement and
the Indenture; (ii) to issue, execute and delivery the Bonds; and (iii) to
consummate all other transactions contemplated by the Bond Purchase
'Agreement and such other documents, including, without limitation, the
deposit of the proceeds of the Bonds with the Trustee.
(c) The City has taken all official actions necessary to authorize
(i) the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase
Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement and the Indenture; (ii) the issuance,
execution and delivery of the Bonds; and (iii) the consummation of all
transactions contemplated by the Loan Agreement and such other
documents. Provided this finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping
the City from denying the validity of the Bonds, Bond Purchase Agreement,
Regulatory Agreement, Indenture, or Loan Agreement by reason of the
existance of any facts contrary to this finding.
(d) To the best knowledge of the City, the execution and delivery
of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Regulatory
Agreement and the Indenture, the issuance, execution and delivery of the
Bonds, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and
thereby do not violate any law, rule, regulation or ordinance, or any order,
judgment or decree of any federal, state or local court, and do not conflict
with or constitute a breach of or a default under a resolution or under the
terms and conditions of any Agreement, instrument or commitment to which
-6-
RESOLUTION NO.
the City is a party or by which the City or any of its property is bound.
Provided this finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City
from denying the validity of the Bonds, Bond Purchase Agreement,
Regulatory Agreement, Indenture, or Loan Agreement by reason of the
existance of any facts contrary to this finding.
(e) To the best knowledge of the City, there is no formal action,
suit, roceedin inquiry or investigation P g, q y pending or threatened against the
City by or before any court, governmental agency or public board or body
with jurisdiction over the City (nor is there any basis therefor) which (i)
affects or questions the existence of or the territorial jurisdiction of the
City or the title to office of any member of the City Council of the Issuer;
(ii) affects or seeks to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the execution and delivery
of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Regulatory
Agreement or the Indenture, or the issuance, execution or delivery of the
Bonds; (iii) affects or questions the validity or, enforceability of the Loan
Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the indenture or the Bonds; (iv)
questions the tax - exempt status of the Bonds; or (v) questions the powers of
the City to carry out the transactions contemplated by the Loan Agreement,
the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Indenture or the Bonds. Provided this
finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City from denying the
validity of the Bonds, Bond Purchase Agreement, Regulatory Agreement,
Indenture, or Loan Agreement by reason of the existence of any facts
contrary to this finding.
(f) The information contained in the Official Statement is
complete and accurate and at the Closing Date (as hereafter defined) will be
true and accurate. To the best knowledge of the City, neither the Official
Statement, nor any amendment or supplement thereto, includes any untrue
statement of a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in
order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under
which they are made, not misleading, provided, however, that these
representations and warranties of the City shall apply only to the
information contained in the Official Statement under the caption "THE
ISSUER."
(g) The City will cause the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds to
be paid to the Trustee as specified in the Resolutions and the Indenture. So
Tong as any of the bonds are outstanding and except as may be authorized by
the Resolution, the Agreement or the Indenture, the City will not issue or
sell any bonds or other obligations, other than the Bonds sold thereby, the
interest on the premium, if any, or principal of which will be payable- from
the payments to be made under the Agreement or the Indenture except as
provided in the Indenture.
(h) The issuance and sale of the Bonds will not be subject to any
issuance, transfer or other documentary stamp taxes imposed by the City.
(i) Any certificates signed by an authorized officer of the City -"
delivered pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement,
the Regulator Agreement, Y t the Indenture
g , or any document contemplated
thereby shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the City as to the
statements made therein.
-7-
RESOLUTION N0.
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.
CC
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT AND CONSENT AND
ESTOPPEL AGREEMENT AND APPROVING ASSIGNMENT
OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (City) has entered into
an agreement with Earle Brown Commons Partnership, dated July 1,
" C "
1986 and entitled n Private Development" providing
"Contract for ri ate a elopment pro i ing
for the development of certain real property within the Earle
Brown Farm Redevelopment District; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of such agreement and consistent
therewith, Earle Brown Commons Partnership wishes to assign its
interests and obligations under the agreement to Earle Brown
Commons Limited Partnership; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that such assignment is appropriate
and in furtherance of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment
District; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City have presented to the
City a proposed agreement entitled "Subordination Agreement" by
and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
• the City of Brooklyn Center (HRA) , the City and National City
Bank of Minneapolis and a proposed agreement entitled "Consent
and Estoppel Agreement" by and between the HRA, the City, Earle
Brown Commons Limited Partnership, and Miller Securities
Incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed such agreements and finds
that, the same are appropriate and in furtherance of the Earle
Brown Farm Redevelopment District;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn
Center as follows:
1. The assignment of the interests and obligations of
Earle Brown Commons Partnership to Earle Brown Commons
Limited Partnership under the Contract for Private
Development is hereby appre< red.
2. The proposed Subordination Agreement and Consent and
Estoppel Agreement are hereby approved.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute such agreements in the name of and on behalf of
the City and are hereby authorized to take such steps
h"
as are necessary to carry out the objectives of the
City thereunder.
DATED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Manager
0007RE02.C41
•
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR
COMMEMORATION OF U.S. CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, September 17, 1986, marks the one hundred
ninety -ninth anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of
the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention;
and
WHEREAS, said resolution declared an intention to
appoint a bi- partisan committee to appropriately commemorate the
event
WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to accord official
recognition to this memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic
exercises that will commemorate the occasion; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dean Nyquist by virtue of the
authority vested in me as (Mayor) of the (City) of Brooklyn
Center (in the State of Minnesota) do hereby proclaim the week of
September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week, in the (City) of
Brooklyn Center, and urge all our citizens to pay special
attention during that week to our Federal Constitution and the
• advantage of American Citizenship.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Council
hereby ratifies the appointment of William Lakotas as Chairman of
a local committee to plan an appropriate celebration an
commemoration and urges that the remaining committee members be
selected at the earliest possible time.
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.
YA
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patti Page, Administrative Aid
FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief df Police
DATE: September 8, 1986
SUBJECT: Amusement Device License for
Plaza Investments Limited Partnership
We received an application for an operator's license for amusement
devices for Plaza Investments d /b /a Ramada Hotel. As a background
investigation is being completed for their liquor license applica-
tion, no background is required for this license.
At this time, we find no reason to deny application for this
license. If you have any questions, please contact me.
p
y6
i
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: September 9, 1986
SUBJECT: On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Ramada Inn
Attached please find a resume done by Investigator'Spenn for
Lombard Investment Limited Partnership d /b /a Ramada Inn in appli-
cation for a Class D On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. We
can find nothing which would preclude issuance of this license.
The Ramada intends to open on Monday, September 22, 1986. They
would, however, require their license earlier in order to obtain
a State buyer's card. They need this card and number to order
their stock of liquor in time for their opening.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
r
t
LIQUOR LICENSE - RAMADA INN
Section I Purpose and Scope
Section II Applicant & Corporate Structure
Section III Financial Background
Section IV Individual.Backgrounds &
Character References
Section V Summary
SECTION I - Purpose and Scope
The following is a background investigation conducted by Investigator
Donald Spehn of the Brooklyn Center Police Department concerning an
application for On -Sale Liquor License submitted on behalf of the
Ramada Inn. The Ramada Inn is a large hotel complex located at 2200
Freeway Boulevard within the City of Brooklyn Center. The anticipated
Grand Opening date of the Ramada Inn is scheduled for September 22,
1986.
It should be noted at this time that the Ramada Innis a developmental
project with interim financing. As such, the corporate structure is
quite involved and composed of several corporations. The primary de-
veloper is Lombard Properties.
The developers have retained a hotel management company for the actual
operation of the hotel, including the restaurant and bar. This manage-
ment company is Brock Hotels. It is noted Brock Hotels also manage
the Holiday Inn in the City of Brooklyn Center and hold a liquor lic-
ense from the City of Brooklyn Center for that location.
In that regard, the developers have formed a separate company to hold
the liquor license for the Ramada Inn. This company is Plaza Invest-
. P Y
ments Limited Partnership`. The primary officer of Plaza Investments
Limited Partnership is Charles Peers BENSON, Mr. BENSON is President
of Plaza Real Estate, Inc. and Vice - President of Finance for bombard
Properties.
The other principle individuals concerning this background investiga-
tion are employees of Brock Hotel Corporation.
SECTION II Applicant and Corporate Structure
Applicant
PLAZA INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, Suite #200
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Telephone 566 -8022
Primary Officer
Charles Peers BENSON
DOB: 03 -03 -47
7704 West 84th Street Circle
Bloomington, MN
Corporate Structure
The following are companies and /or corporations involved in the develop-
ment and /or operation of the Ramada Inn. A short explanation of each
will be noted to attempt to clarify the structure. An organizational
chart is also attached.
#1 - Plaza Investments Limited Partnership This company is the tenant
of the building and will hold the liquor license The only officer of
4 Y
the company is Charles Peers BENSON.
#2 - Plaza Real Estate, Inc - A eneral partner. In essence the same
g p ,
as Plaza Investments Limited Partnership. Its primary officer is also
Charles Peers BENSON,
#3 - Plaza Real Estate Partners - A limited partner. The owner of the
building and land and operator of the hotel through Brock Hotel Manage
ment . There are no officers in this company.
#4 - Shingle Creek Lodging Limited Partnership - A general partner.
This company was set up to deal with 10 of the tax benefit of the prof -
its of the company and to cut down on the tax losses and to protect the
liability assets of the hotel. There are no officers in the company.
#5 - Westchester Hotel Corporation - A general partner. This is a
Texas Corporation that is guaranteeing the loans.along with Lombard In-
vestments, a Nevada corporation. The officers of Westchester Hotel
Corporation are:
President
Louis Garfield REESE, III
DOB: 07 -21 -49
8626 Douglas Avenue
Dallas, Texas
ti
-2-
Vice - President, Secretary & Treasurer
Reggie Leroy SCHLEISMAN
DOB: 10 -22 -42
7130 South Jarman
Dallas, Texas
#6 - Lombard Investments Inc. - A Nevada corporation that is also
guaranteeing the loans. The officers and directors of Lombard Invest
ments are:
George Thorbjorn RICHARDSON
DOB: 09 -22 -24
484 Wellington Cresent
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Director
Donald Powell LEANEY
DOB: 07 -29 -29
141 Thatcher Drive
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Charles Edwin SAMELUK
DOB: 07 -20 -45
7609 Stonewood Court
Edina, Minnesota
President
Hartley Thorbjorn RICHARDSON
DOB: 10 -16 -54
484 .Wellington Cresent
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Vice- President
Robert William DUNBAR
DOB: 01 -26 -42
3181 Assiniboine Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
John Keith KNOX
DOB: 06 -12 -33
300 Cordoua Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Secretary
Charles Peers BENSON
DOB: 04 -03 -47
7704 West 84th Street Circle
Bloomington, Minnesota
Vice- President of Finance and Administration
-3-
Pamela Marie WENDT
DOB: 10 -21 -59
15615 Territorial Road
Maple Grove, Minnesota
Controller
i
SECTION III Financial Background
The following is a background of the financing for construction of and
operation of the Ramada Inn.
#1 - Plaza Real Estate Partners (borrower) has a promissory
note to Shingle Creek Land Company (Tender) in the amount
of $ 1,078,000. This note was for the purchase of the
land. The terms are 12% interest per annum. The principle
and interest on this note are due and payable in full on
the earliest of the following dates.
A. Upon the sale of the property.
B. Upon refinancing of any debt excluding the
$13,500,000 construction loan by Cargill or
the $10,000,000 permanent mortgage loan by
Citicorp:
C. July 1, 1995.
#2 Plaza Real Estate Partners (borrower) has a construction
loan with Cargill Financial Services (lender) in the
amount of $13,500,000. The interest rate is 1/2 of 1%
per annum over the rate - publicly announced by First
National Bank of Minneapolis as its reference rate A
principle payment of $10,000,000 is to be paid upon the
funding of the $10,000,000 permanent mortgage loan from
Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. The remaining unpaid balance
and interest is due and payable in full on July 11, 1989.
(It might be -noted that the Citicorp loan has been ap-
proved, at this time.)
#3 Plaza Real Estate Partners (borrower) has a permanent
financing secured term loan in the amount of $10,000,000
and a secured working capital loan in the amount of
$1,000,000 from Citicorp Inc. Real Estate, lender The
P (lender).
$10,000,000 is the amount payable to Cargill. The base
interest rate on the loan is 13.35% fixed rate. This
loan is due and payable in full on July 1, 1995._ Loan
agreements containing terms, etc., are attached to the
file.
• J
SECTION IV - Individual Background and References
Criminal history hecks were run un on the officers and directors of the
Westchester Hotel Corporation and Lombard Investments, Inc. These
criminal histories were run both in the United States and Canada. None
of the officers or directors of the companies had any record of criminal
history. Complete backgrounds were conducted on the individuals in-
volved in the daily operations of the Ramada Inn. These include Charles
Peers BENSON, Stephen Hayes ANDERSON, Charles Gene PONCZOCH, III, and
Jeffrey Albert STRAND. These are as follows:
. Charles Peers BENSON was born in Duluth, Minnesota, on :April 3, 1947.
His current address is 7704 West 84th Street Circle, Bloomington, Minne-
sota. He has resided at that address from February of 1980 to the pre-
sent. His previous address was 1829 East Manor Boulevard, Burnsville,
Minnesota. Mr. BENSON is married. His wife's name is Bonnie. He is
currently employed by Lombard Properties and has been since 1982.- His
prior employment was with Knutson Construction Company from 1980 through
1982 where he was a Controller and from 1976 through 1980, for Napco
Industries, Inc. His background is in accounting and finance.
Mr. BENSON has a valid Minnesota driver's license. He has no criminal
history n NCIC or
BCA H
Y e is also clear of Hennepin County warrants.
The following references were checked with their comments indicated.
#1 - Pamela WENDT, P.O. Box 22746, phone number 420 -6309,
who indicated that she has worked for Mr. BENSON for
the past six (6) months and had also worked for him
previously at the Knutson Company. She indicated
that she knows Mr. BENSON both through work and per -
sonally. She indicated she is also acquainted with
his family. She describes Mr. BENSON as personally a
very fantastic person. She indicated Mr. BENSON is
always above -board in his dealings and that she has
no qualms at all about his business ethics.
#2 - Tricia GIOVANAZZO,_5200 West 106th Street, phone number
893- 9141. She indicates that she has known Mr. BENSON
for approximately four (4) years as he is a neighbor
and she has also worked on a semi - temporary basis for
Lombard Properties and knows him through that associa-
tion. She indicated Mr. BENSON is a good family man,
he has two (2) children, is a good neighbor and she
described him as a wonderful person. She indicated Mr.
BENSON is highly thought of both by his neighbors and
by his employees and work associates.
#3 - Michael WINGERT, 9879 Brighten Lane, phone number
941 -6828. Mr. WINGERT indicated that he has
known Mr.
BENSON for approximately seven (7) or eight (8) years,`
both personally and professionally. He described Mr.
-2-
BENSON as a very professional person, a straight-
shooter, a person who is accounting oriented and
indicated that he had nothing but good to say about
him. He indicated he knew of nothing negative con -
cerning Mr. BENSON. He indicated Mr. BENSON is a
nondrinker and just a "super" person.
Stephen Hayes ANDERSON will be the General Manager of the Ramada Hotel.
He is an employee of Brock Hotel Corporation. Mr. ANDERSON was born on
February 24, 1929, at Mt. Kisco, New York. He is married. His wife's
name is Mary. He has been married for 31 years. His current address is
1543 Humboldt Place, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Mr. ANDERSON has no
criminal history with BCA or NCIC and he is clear of Hennepin County
warrants. Mr. ANDERSON's entire employment background is in the hotel
industry. Prior to being employed by Brock Hotels, he worked for an
organization called Cox Hotels which was another hotel management firm.
The following references were checked with the responses indicated.
#1 - Jack KRAVER, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, phone number
(717) 560 -0223. Mr. KRAVER indicated that he had known
Mr ANDERSON since June of 1983 and knew of him M
as r.
KRAVER is the vice- president of Cox Hotels and Mr.
ANDERSON worked for them for a number of ;years. He
described Mr. ANDERSON as a very competent person, -a
very honest and trustworthy person and one who knows
his business. He indicated, in addition, that Mr.
ANDERSON is an outstanding citizen and is a good fam-
ily man who is devoted to his sons. Mr. KRAVER in-
dicated that he had no qualms about Mr. ANDERSON
whatsoever.
When questioned as to why ANDERSON left the employment
of Cox Hotels, Mr. KRAVER indicated that Mr. ANDERSON
was terminated because the company did not see things
happen that they wanted. He indicated primarily this
was not Mr. ANDERSON's fault, but was more the fault of
the Food and Beverage Managers, etc., but in the hotel
game, it is the General Managers that generally are re-
placed first_
#2 Rodney J. FAUBEL, of Clay, New York, phone number (315)
699 -3373. Mr. FAUBEL indicated he has known Mr.
ANDERSON for 30 years and lived across the street from
him. He described Mr. ANDERSON as a person having
good morales, a very honest and capable person, one
having a good upbringing, one having a good family
and raising a good family, one who is involved in the
community, who has been involved in the Jaycees and
Kiwanis, one who is a good hotel man, a real pro and
. one who knows his business.
R�
-3-
#3 - Kenneth SEWELL, of East Hampton, New York, phone num-
ber (561) 267- 8803. Mr. SEWELL indicates he has known
Mr. ANDERSON for ten (10) years. He `stated he is a
good family man and a good guy. He indicated Mr.
ANDERSON is very competent, he is well thought of by
his employees, he is honest and is a wonderful per-
son. Mr. SEWELL indicated he could think of nothing
negative concerning Mr. ANDERSON.
Charles Gene PONCZOCH, III will be the Food and Beverage Manager of the
xamada Inn. He is also employed by Brock Hotel Corporation. Mr.
PONCZOCH was born in Marshfield Wood, Wisconsin, on 11- 29 -56. His cur -
rent address is 6824 Fremont Place North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
telephone 560 -8874. Mr. PONCZOCH is married. His wife's name is
Belinda. Mr. PONCZOCH's entire prior work background is also in the
food and beverage industry. He worked from 1975 through 1980 for
Sirloin Stockades at various locations throughout the country. This
company went bankrupt in 1980 and in 1980 through 1985, Mr. PONCZOCH
worked at various other food and hotel establishments. MR. PONCZOCH
has been employed since 1985 by the Brock Hotel Corporation and comes
here from the Holiday Inn in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Mr. PONCZOCH
has a valid Wisconsin driver's license, he has a clear record with NCIC
(that is he has no criminal history) and he is also clear with BCA and
Hennepin County warrants.
The following eferences were c t
J contacted with their responses indicated.
#1 - Mrs. Leroy SCHILLINGER, Stratford, Wisconsin, phone number
(715) 687- 4986. She indicated she is a former neighbor
of Mr. PONCZOCH and has known him since high school. She
describes bes him as a real nice fellow, a good family man, a
responsible person and a hard worker. She indicated he
comes from a good family, a strong Christian background
and is a very honest person. She indicated Mr. PONCZOCH
has been involved in restaurant work since high school and
that he is very good in dealing with people.
#2 - Ron MULARSKI, of Walo, Texas, phone number (817) 753 -4370.
Mr. MULARSKI indicated he has known Mr. PONCZOCH for ap-
proximately five (5) years and they lived and worked to-
get' in Casper, Wyoming, and Elk City, Oklahoma.. He
indicated Mr. PONCZOCH is an excellent person, a good
family man and a good hotel manager. He indicated Mr.
PONCZOCH is a hard worker, he gets along well with his
employees and he is "super" with the public. He indicated
PONCZOCH is absolutely honest and he knows of no negative
qualities. He indicated that, to his knowledge, Mr.
PONCZOCH is only a social drinker and does not have any
type of problem.
-4-
#3 Dave BURKHART, Marshfield, Wisconsin, phone number
(715) 387- 4882. Mr. BURKHART indicated he has known
Mr. PONCZOCH all his life and that they were former
neighbors. He indicated that Mr. PONCZOCH is a very
nice guy, very honest, very friendly and gets along
well with everyone. He indicated he didn't know
what else he could say and just felt that Mr. PONCZOCH
was an excellent person and he knew of no problems than
Mr. PONCZOCH had.
Jeffrey Albert STRAND who will be the Bar Manager of the Ramada Inn, is
also an employee of Brock Hotel Corporation. Mr. STRAND was born in
Bemidji, Minnesota, on 06- 07 -52. His current address is 6936 Polaris
Lane North, Maple Grove, Minnesota. He is married and his wife's name
is Lynn. Mr. STRAND's background is also all in the food and beverage
industry and since 1978, has been involved with food and beverage posi-
tions at various locations in the Minneapolis area. Those include the
First Edition in Columbia Heights, the Ground Round in Brooklyn Center
and Roseville, Nicklow's Restaurant in Robbinsdale, the Holiday Inn in
Plymouth, the Boulevard Restaurant in Golden Valley and the White House
in Golden Valley. Mr. STRAND has no criminal history record with BCA
or NCIC. He is also clear of Hennepin County warrants. He has a valid
Minnesota driver's license.
The following references were checked.
#1 Mr. Dave FRUEHAUF, 3341 Yukon, New Hope, Minnesota,
phone number 544 -5806. Mr. FRUEHAUF indicates he has
known Mr. STRAND for five (5) or six (6) years. Mr.
FRUEHAUF indicates that he is a career specialist for
the Robbinsdale School District and met Mr. STRAND and
worked with him on career development. He indicated
Mr. STRAND apparently came to him because of the fact
that two (2) of Mr. STRAND's previous employers had
gone bankrupt and STRAND wanted to further develop his
career in the food and beverage industry. He described
Mr. STRAND as a very honest person, a sales -type, one
having an outgoing personality and who goes after what
he wants. He indicated Mr. STRAND certainly would be
able to handle the job and indicated further that since
the time he has known Mr. STRAND, he seems to have
settled down through the years and is not quite as ag-
gressive as he used to be.
#2 - Doug WESTLUND, 394.1 Xylon North, New Hope, Minnesota,
phone number 544 -2900. Mr. WESTLUND indicated he has
known Mr. STRAND for seven (7) or eight (8) years
He describes him as an excellent individual. Mr.
WESTLUND indicated that Mr. STRAND is married to a
close friend of WESTLUND's daughter. He indicated
that he felt MR. STRAND's character was above re-
proach and he indicated that he knew that he is
r ,
-5-
successful in his line of work. He indicated that
he knew of no reason that Mr. STRAND would not be
successful in the position he is now in.
#3 Carl GAARDSMOE, who is assistant manager of the Ground
Round located in Brooklyn Center. Mr. GAARDSMOE 'in-
dicated that he is familiar with Mr. STRAND in that
Mr. STRAND was a former assistant manager of the Ground
Round in Brooklyn Center. He indicated that Mr. STRAND
is a straightforward, honest, mild mannered type of per-
.
son and that he was an excellent employee. He indicated
Mr. STRAND has no problems that GAARDSMOE was aware of.
He indicated MR. STRAND left the employment of the
Ground Round ound on his own to take a position with the First
Edition Restaurant in Columbia Heights. He indicated
that particular operation has since closed down.
a y „
r
SECTION V - Summary
This investigation has revealed nothing detrimental concerning the
application for liquor license for the Ramada Inn. It appears that
none of the principals involved nor any of the officers or directors
of the various companies have any criminal history records. It is
further indicated that the employees dealing with the operations of
the establishment on a daily basis have an established background in
the industry and are highly thought of. It is also noted that the
management company retained for the operation of the hotel has, in
fact, been involved with the operation of another hotel in the City of
Brooklyn Center and no serious problems have been noted to this in-
vestigator's knowledge.
The investigator can see no reason why the application for liquor lic-
ense for the Ramada Inn should not be considered, at this time_
PLAZA INVESTMENTS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
General PLAZA REAL ESTATE PLAZA REAL ESTATE Limited
Partner INC. PARTNERS Partner
I
"'General SHINGLE CREEK WESTCHESTER HOTEL General
Partner LODGING LIMITED CORPORATION Partner
PARTNERSHIP
I
General LOMBARD INVESTMENTS
Partner INC.
M & C No. 86--14
September 11, 1986
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: 1987 Departmental Proposed Budget Cuts
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
At your first review of the City Manager's Proposed 1987 Budget,
Council requested that I highlight some of the approximately
$140,000 in cuts I made from departmental requests. Attached
please find a memorandum from Paul to myself which enumerates the
individual cuts.
'i
I would like to highlight a couple of the more prominent cuts
that were made. In the City Council budget my staff had proposed
a Civic Handbook which would have been a promotional piece of
literature that could be given to new citizens of the community
and be used for other handout purposes. Because it was just too
expensive given other needs, it was cut. Also cut was $4,000
from a $5,000 request from Brooklyn Center Mediation Project. I
believe I adequately explained that cut in my budget message.
In the Police Department I cut the full $10,000 of a Bureau of
Mediation Services requested funding level because I believed it
was more closely related to a court function than a municipal
function.
I cut a Planning Department request in the amount of
approximately $6,600 for funding to change an approximate half to
two- thirds time clerk to a full -time clerk. This was, I believe,
a needed personnel increase to cover the end of the day when
there is heavy phone calls and heavy activity in this department.
I chose not to recommend the appropriation because I felt the
_need for the police officers was greater and the loss of federal
revenue sharing already pushed the mill levy increase higher than
I would liked to have had it.
In the Parks and Recreation Department I cut the requested
program coordinator for the sports area. The Recreation
Department has been using part -time people to attempt to do the
sports and other programming. That has proved to be a very
difficult situation as the part -time people have not been that
t
reliable This was
another needed personnel request, but again
in light of the need for the police officers and the loss of
federal revenue- sharing, cuts had to be made somewhere. It is
not going to be easy for this department to handle the increased
programming activity, which would have been alleviated by the
addition of this full -time person. However, they somehow figured
M & C No. 86 -14 -2- September 11 1986
out a way to do it last year and, I am sure, they will make it
through. I am sure also I will be requested to consider this
Position again in 1988.
Most all of the other cuts enumerated in Paul's memo were ones in
Which I looked at the past performance of that account and in
reviewing the departmental justifications, basically substituted
-my judgment for the department heads' and made a reduction. If
you will recall, I have always mentioned before that about every
two to three years I go through the Budget and look for
inadvertent contingencies which may have built up in departmental
budget accounts. This was one of those years in which I went
through the Budget and made those kind of changes and substituted
my judgment for theirs. That was one of the rationale behind
raising the Contingency Fund $10,000 from its previous level
because I am not so sure that I am going to be right on all of
these accounts. If I am wrong there should be contingency funds
in the Budget to cover if my estimates are inaccurate.
In the Public Works /Street Maintenance budget I cut out $25,400
which had been requested by Sy for consideration of a new
material in our sealcoat program. As I stated in my budget
message, because of the pressure in other areas of increased
costs, I cut this program. I do believe it is a valid one which
we should consider in future years. By using granite chip in
place of the pea rock that we now use, we should get a longer
term of life expectancy out of our sealcoat on our residential
streets. We currently use the granite chip on our major
thoroughfares, and it does last longer there and is less "messy ".
This program called for increased expenditures early in the life
of a proposed program, and the savings come later on down the
Tine. In the long term the cost of either program will be equal.
I am of the opinion that we can defer this program and start it
next year at a time when our costs may not be as high and we
could more easily accommodate the early years of cost increases.
If we hadn't lost the revenue sharing money, which results in
about 70% to 80% of our mill levy increase, I would have
recommended this program for consideration in the 1 87 Budget.
We anticipate that between the hearing next Monday night on the
Budget and when you finally adopt it later in September or early
October, you can anticipate hearing from the following
organizations for additional funding: The band, Harmonettes,
Children's Chorus, the Senior Chorus, Brooklyn Center Mediation
Services, and an agency which serves senior citizens in the
northwest communities, Senior Community Services.
When I approach the Budget in terms of eliminating appropriations
I try to develop a general rationale and proceed, as much as
possible, consistently through the Budget. I may make one or two
or sometimes three or four passes through the Budget, each time
cutting more as I am attempting to hold down total overall costs.
M & C No. 86 -14 -3- September 11,_1986
I generally use as my first criteria the need to continue our
basic mandated services and then a secondary priority is to
continue the current level of other traditional services which
the City has carried on for sometime. After these two
priorities, then I consider things new and additional.. For a
number of years I haven't reached the "things new and additional"
area. The only item in the 1987 Budget that I can consider that
falls into this category is the $1,000 for the Brooklyn Center
Mediation Project requested in the City Council budget. This is
a new service area that I do believe warrants some funding as it
does have direct cost savings to the City. The point I am trying
to make is that there aren't any of these cuts I have made to
departmental requests that could not be considered legitimate
requests. I am sure the same could be said of the requests you
will probably be receiving from the above mentioned sources.
However, it is my responsibility in preparing a Budget to do the
best job I know how of balancing all the legitimate needs and
requests, and making judgments about them and prioritizing them.
In 1987 we are losing approximately $200,000 in federal revenue
sharing, and I believe there is a need to add additional police
officers to our force to get us sufficient manpower where we can
get back to a level of proactive activity and flexibility that we
had a few years ago. Increased numbers of police activity and
complexity and time consumed by each of these incidents has
eroded our capability of being proactive. I consider the top two
priorities of this Budget being the covering of the $200,000 loss
in revenue and the increasing of the police officers staff
complement, and all other priorities, though not unimportant,
fell in line behind these and I didn't believe could be addressed
for financing in the 1987 Budget.
Also attached please find a copy of a memo from Pete Koole
regarding tax impacts of new developments.
Respectfull submitted,
Gerald G. S inter
City Manager.
9
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 10, 1986
To: Paul Holmlund
From: Peter M. Koole"
Subject: Tax Estimates - New Developments
You have asked for tax projections into 1987 and 1988 on several
new developments: Target, Shingle Creek Center, Ramada Hotel,
and the Brookview Plaza Shopping Center.
I have made the projections based upon several assumptions:
1. I used the actual tax rates in effect for taxes
payable in 1986.
2. We used valuation estimates applicable during 1986.
3. We assumed the City's portion of the total tax is
• 16.08 percent, or proportionate to the City's mill
rate and the total local mill rate.
Of course, legislative changes in Commercial- Industrial tax
rates and /or legal challenges to the valuations and taxes
g q
cannot be predicted, while they remain real possibilities.
We also must consider the effects of fiscal disparities on
our new C & I developments. For taxes payable in 1986, we
contributed $22,990,819 in assessed value and received back
in distribution $20,983,286, or 90.9 percent of what we contributed.
Since we receive back ninety percent of what we contribute
to fiscal disparities, and the effective tax rates we used
for our estimates are our actual 1986 rates which have the
effects of fiscal disparities factored in, no further adjustments
to our estimates are necessary.
•
TAX E STIMATE TABLE
85 Pay 86 Actual 86 Pay 87 Est. 87 Pay 88 Est.
Total City Total City Total City
Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax
0
Shingle Creek Center $ 22,626.38 $ 3,638 $ 27,700 $ 4,450 $101,50 $16,300
02- 118 -21 -12 -0012
Target 46,261.23 7,438 64,165 10,300 154,300 24,800
35- 119 -21 -43 -0009
i
Ramada Hotel 39,060.95 6,281 164,400 26,400 243,000 39,100
35- 119 -21 -13 -0012
Brookview Plaza 32,322.18 5,197 36,100 5,800 165,200 26,600
02- 118 -21 -12 -0013
Totals $140,270.74 $22,554 $292,365 $46,950 $664,000 $106,800
z
(HHMBC)
MEMORANDUM
• TO : - - - - -- Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Paul W. Holmlund, Director of Finance g�
DATE: September 9, 1986
SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S CUTS TO DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS
IN THE 1987 PROPOSED BUDGET
11 COUNCIL 33 PLANNING AND INSPECTION
Civic Handbooks $ 10 Full -time Clerk, net $ 6,614
Brooklyn Center Mediation Project 4 Printed Forms 50
- - - - -- Microfilming 6
$ 14 Microfilm Reader 5,000
13 CITY MANAGER $ M 18,414
Video Tape Recorder $ 650 - - - - -- -
---- -- 34 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
19 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS Telephone $ 1
Cleaning Supplies $ 100 Comm. Van Mobile Phone 2
Repairs & Maintenance Supplies 100 - - - - --
Grounds Maintenance 200 $ 3
Equipment Repair 1,000
- --- 42 STREETS MAINTENANCE
$ 1 Safety Supplies $ 300
--- - - ---- Sealcoating 25,400
20 DATA PROCESSING Streetscape Improv. 5,000
• Portable Micro Computer $ 4 - - - - -_
Miscellaneous Software 1 $ 30
$ 5 61 REC. & PARKS ADMIN. - -- p--
--- --- Sports Coordinator $ 23,235
31 POLICE DEPARTMENT Use of Personal Auto 300
Operating Supplies $ 219 Employment Advertising 100
Clothing & Personal Equipment 740 Equipment Repair 100
Medical Services 641 Dues & Subscriptions 100
Use of Personal Auto 50 Copy Machine 7
Employment Advertising 200 --------
Investigation 200 $ 30,835
Dues & Subscriptions 1 -- - --
Juvenile Mediation Program 10 64 CHILDRENS RECREATION - - - - --
Towing Charges 200 Soccer $ 1,500
$ 13,250 66 COMMUNITY CENTER — - - - - - --
- - - - ---- Building Repair $ 3,000
32 FIRE DEPARTMENT -
Printed Forms $ 400 69 PARKS MAINTENANCE
Use of Personal Auto 200 Parks Courts Repairs $ 500
Communications Systems Maint. 351 Equipment Parts 600
Training 1 Small Tools 200
Books and Pamphlets 600 Lions' Pk Shelter Roof 10,500
Camera and Monitor 3,500 -- - - --
Jump Seats (4) 1 $. ~11,800
$ N 7 TOTAL CUTS $ 141,545
NOTE: In addition to the above cuts, Community Center improvements requests in the
amount of $159,700 were transferred to the Capital Projects Fund Budget to
be considered there.
i
M & C No. 86 -15
September 11, 1986
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: Comparative Review of Suburban Park and Recreation
Programming
To the Honorable Mayor and City - Council:
Attached please find, copies of a series of tables from a 1984
study by the City of Minnetonka regarding_ recreation programming.
Minnetonka was reviewing its own program as it relates to a joint
effort they have with the City of Hopkins. However, it's the
first analysis of recreation programming of suburban communities
that I am aware, and it is a very good piece of work.
Figure 1 indicates the ranking and number of adult sports
programs and other her. adult ro rams and youth sports is o r ams
P g r and
Y P programs
a
other youth programs. I have always been told y 1 that Brooklyn
Center has a heavy on sports programming both in the
adult and youth area, and these figures indicate that's not so.
We have a reasonable level of sports programming for adults and
youths, but in terms of ranking with other communities we are
sort of in the middle ground ranking about 8th for both youth and
adult sports programs. However, if you take a look at other
adult programs and other youth programs, we are ranked 1st with a
considerably higher - number of program availability in the
nonsports area than any of the other communities surveyed.
Figure 3 indicates the ratio of community participation. Again
we are about the middle of the
ranking it h about 43%
art'
g
ici ation
P P when compared with the population.
Figure 5 indicates the number of participants in our major adult
sports programs, and Brooklyn Center ranks 2nd in artici a
p tion
Y
in these type
programs.
rams..
P
P
Figure 7 indicates the fee support of recreation programs. In
other words, these figures indicate how much of the total cost of
a re ,
creation: program am .
is
P supported to
g d b fee
PP y s for services. You will
note that we are ranked in the upper percentiles of fees for
services and there are about five communities clumped very close
around the 60% mark. However, I would like you to take a close
look at the total dollar figures in terms of budget and revenue.
We collect in revenue from fees approximately $486,000 and the
total budget is $821,000. There are a number of communities that
approach us in terms of costs and budget, but there aren't many
that approach us in terms of revenue dollars collected. One of
the
reasons that our total cost of $821,000 is as high as it is
M & C No. 86 -15 -2- September 11, -1986
is that we have the community enter complex and swimming Y p g pool
costs in that figure and most other communities don't have those
kind of facility costs. The variation in the budgets is
accounted for by the fact that some communities do not include
ice arenas, swimming pools, in either the budget column or the
revenue column.
I believe the results of this study indicate that Brooklyn Center
does have indeed a balanced recreation program. It also does a
good job of generating revenue to support that program, and if
you consider the whole program is run by four full -time staff
members, one full -time clerk and additional part- time clerical
people, it is a very effective and efficient operation.
Respectfully submitted,
erald !cr inter U City Ma
FIGURE 1
DISTRIBUTION
OF
RECREATION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES (1983)*
ADULT OTHER YOUTH OTHER
SPORTS ADULT SPORTS YOUTH
PROGRAMS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS
COMMUNITY NO. RANK NO. RANK NO. RANK NO. RANK
Roseville 31 l.. I 14 7 1 14 .1 1 16 10
I
Minnetonka/
(Tie)
Hopkins 29 2 1 17 A
9 (Tie) 18 (Tie)[
New Brighton 16 3
I 14 7 1 fi 9 118 7 I
(Tie) I (Tie) I (Tie) 1 (Tie)I
Plymouth 16 3 1 .16 5 ( 4 12.
(Tie) I (Tie) I 118 (Tie)I
Golden Valley is 5 I 18 3 ( 6 9 i 15 11 1
i (Tie) I i
Maplewood 14 6 I 11 11 i 9 3
22 3
(Tie) I (Tie) 1 1
Eden Prairie 13 71 1 19 2 1 it 2 1 19 4 1
1 (Tie 1
Brooklyn Center 11 8 1 41 1 1 7 8 1 44 1
(Tie)
Crystal 11 8 1 11 11 - I 8 6 1 12 12 1
(Tie) I (Tie) I (Tie)
Edina 11 8 I 7 14 1 6 9
5
(Tie) 1 I (Tie) 1 (Tie) j
Mounds View 11 8 I 10 13 I 8 6 i 23 2
(Tie) 1 i (Tie) 1
Richfield 11 8 13 9 1 14 ) 5 13 1
(Tie) i (Tie) (Tie)1
Brooklyn Park 10 13 1 16 5 1 3 13 ( 19 4 1
(Tie) 1 - I (Tie))
Robbinsdale 9 14 1 13 9 1 9 3 1 19 4 1
(Tie) I (Tie) i (Tie)I
Mean 15 1 16 1 7 118
Median 12 1 14
7,5 ( 18 1
*For a variety of reasons the information.in this table is only generally
accurate. It does indicate the general magnitude of activity on each cate
gory of programs but should not be assumed to be more accurate than that.
It should also be noted that the Listing f sports activities g p es in particular
is not an accurate indication of the degree to which programs are available
in a particular city. Many cities have large sports programs run by pri-
vate athletic associations.
6
FIGURE 3
ESTIMATED RECREATION PARTICIPATION (1983)
RATIO OF
PARTICIPANTS
COMMUNITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 1983 POPULATION TO COMMUNITY RANK
Robbinsdale '.8,600 14,070 61 1
Crystal 14,000 24,890 .56 2
Eden Prairie 10,700 +(23,000
swim lessons) 19,700 .54 3
Maplewood 13,500 +(10,500
r Puppet Shows) 27,780 .49 4
Roseville 17,200 35,920 .48 5
Mounds View 5,900 12,800 .46 6
Brooklyn C 13,200 30,840 .43 7
Plymouth 14,800 +(3,800
Puppet Shows) 35 .42 8
,*den netonka /Hopkins 20,424 55,170 .37 9
Valley 7 22,380 .32 10
Minnetonka Only 11,588 40 .29- 11
New Brighton 6,100 +(3,400
Puppet Shows) 23,360 26 12
Edina 10,700 45,340 .24 13
Richfield 8,300 37,240 22 14
Brooklyn Park 6,800
46,910 .14 -15
Mean .40
Median .425
9
FIGURE 5
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
IN
MAJOR ADULT SPORTS PROGRAMS (1983)*
COMMUNITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RANK
Minnetonka /Hopkins 7870 1
Brooklyn Center 5730 2
Roseville 5150 3
Eden Prairie 4140 4
Plymouth y 3940 5
Maplewood 3020 6
Edina 2670 7
j New Brighton 2300 g
Golden Valley 2070
9
Brooklyn Park 1670 10
Mounds View 1
1470 11
Crystal 1170 12
Robbinsdale 1040 13
Richfield 590 14
Mean: 3059
Median 2485
* For a variety of reasons the information in this table is only
generally accurate. It does indicate the general magnitude of par-
ticipation but should not be assumed to be more accurate than that.
It should also be noted that many communities have large adult sports
programs run by private athletic associations.
11
FIGURE 7
FEE SUPPORT OF RECREATION PROGRAMS (1983)
COMMUNITY BUDGET REVENUE % RANK
Mounds View $ 77,425 $ 81,971 .106% 1
New Brighton 170,200 130,000 76% 2
Roseville 320,000 205,152 64% 3
Plymouth 256,874 153,014 60% 4 (Tie)
Robbinsdale 272,479 164,681 600 4 (Tie)
Minnetonka- Hopkins 437,069 250,081 57% 6 (Tie)
Brooklyn Center 821,661 468,533 57% 6 -(Tie)
Eden Prairie 154,560 79,604 52% 8
Golden Valley 270,000 101,000 37% 9
r 246,455 77,548 31% 10
Brooklyn Park 800,000 213,000 27% 11
Richfield 233,000 36,000 16% 12
Maplewood 720,000 95,000 13% 13
Edina 358,000 38,000 11% 14
v
Mean 47/0
Median 52.5%
15
TO: JERRY SPLINTER � c youz .fin fozma1ion
FROM: ANN WALLERSTEDT
C011 DATE: September 10, 1986
M ,,.r w RE: REVISED FUNDING REQUEST FOR MEDIATION SERVICES IN THE
Rojec t AMOUNT OF $6, 000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987 FROM THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN.
The Brooklyn Center Mediation Project (BCMP) is a non - profit, community -based
organization offering dispute resolution services to residents and businesses
of the north suburban Hennepin County. It was established in April, 1983.
Volunteer mediators were trained and a community awareness program was launched.
BCMP began mediating cases in June of that same year, just three months after
it was established.
The mission of the organization is to serve north suburban Hennepin County by
(a) providing means t
om
g snags and resolve conflict b e ..
enhancing and ( ) n supple
g pp
menting the area legal system, (c) educating the general population about medi
ation and the BCMP as a community resource, and (d) promoting mediation as an
acceptable approach to problem solving.
Mediation services are available at this time without charge to clients. Medi
ation is a bipartisan process for the resolution of juvenile crime, community
concerns and neighborhood problems. In this process, parties must voluntarily
, agree to meet with a neutral third -party mediator (for BCMP, this is a trained
volunteer) to discuss the problem and explore options for settlement. The
volunteer's role is to facilitate the negotiation, remain impartial at all times,
and to help create options if nemessary. The parties take responsibility
themselves for the outcome of the mediation conference. Mediators work with
i parties to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions. In 1984, 76% of mediations
5136 North Lilac Drive • Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 • Telephone: (612) 536 -1121
page two
held resulted in,a settlement; in 1985, 87.7 %. Of those mediated and settled,
there was compliance with the agreement in 9 out of every 10 cases. Volunteers
are providing respectful, significant services to persons who learn problem
solving skills that have application to other areas of 'their lives.
The organization seeks to attract a variety of case from a wide range of sources.
Cases include conflicts between neighbors, interpersonal disputes, problems
between consumers and business, between landlord and tenant, friends and acquain-
tances. The police departments of several municipalities in the BCMP service
area (including the Brooklyn Center Police), and department heads of the same,
refer cases to BC's where there is clearly no legal or enforcement issues.
Most of these complaints do not require the specidif expertise of police officers
or city staff, but generally demand significant time; time - that could be otherwise
spent in productive management and enforcement activities. A referral to BCMP
ensures prompt attention to arties from rom an organization specializing in issue
identification and resolution and at the same time recognizing and addressing
resident's needs. Another benefit of using BCMP services is to resolve troublesome
issues without placing the City in the position of establishing precedence in
particular situations. An effective referral arrangement with BCMP has resulted
in savings of staff and officer time which might have been invested without
positive result. BCMP adds to the present resources of Brooklyn Center to
effectively meet the needs of area residents and to offer the option of s
non- adversarial resolution process.
In addition to the services explained about, BCMP offer a unique program in
conjunction with the Brooklyn Center Police Department. This is referred to
as the Juvenile Mediation Program. The BCPD uses the program as a source of
court diversion for first -time juvenile shoplifting offenders in the Brookdale
area. Brooklyn Center Police Chief has commented that he believes first -tine
page three
juvenile offenders who are made accountable for their actions are less likely to
become repeat offenders. One could draw the conclusion that eventually there would
be a reduction in juvenile crime in the area. BCMP brings together the you, his or
her parents, and the injured party into an informal setting to resolve the problem
and deal with the violation of a community standard and code of conduct. Ninety-
.
nine percent of the cases referred were actually mediated and have all resulted
in a settlement. Dispositions for juvenile cases have been agreements to seek
individual or family counseling; to establish rules for reasonable conduct; to
perform an agreed upon number of hours of community service in the community
where the offense was committed; to make restitution; or to apologize. BCMP,
data shows that most youth offenders do not go far from home to commit their
first shoplifting offense. BCMP draws the conclusion that this kind of juvenile
delinquency is a community problem. BCMP also sees a need for a program in the
community like mediation for children and adolescents which address ethics,
morals and values at a level they understand; a program that allows them to
make decisions for positive action/consequence experiences; a system that can
respond quickly; and a need for a program that encourages productive parent/
child interaction. The juvenile and parents must come face -to -face with the
victim, acknowledge the .crime and account for it in a constructive way. The
local.community is impacted positively by individual who through mediation
acknowledge concern for the welfare of others, participate in positive
decision- making, learn life skills and are willing to assume responsibility
ad commitment to community standards and values.
PERSONNEL
The BCMP is staffed by a part -time paid director. The BCMP program and services.,
however, has a bulwark of volunteers. On an annual basis, these volunteers contri-
bute nearly 5,000 hours of service to the community. (At $5.00 an hour, the
contribution approaches $25,000.)
page four
The paid staff is primarily responsible to raise funds; recruit, trd n and
supervise volutneers; promote the organization and to develop program and
services. It is the volunteer who provides the strength of this community-
based organization and the professional quality of the volunteer's service
which provides the credibility for BCMP. Support from the City of Brooklyn
Center will keep these volunteers at work.
SOURCES OF INCOME
The BCMP is supported by private business contributions, donations from
individuals, foundation grants and corporate giving programs. BC1 is
seeking funding for its 1987 budget from additional sources. BCMP has
approached municipalities for funds where mediation can be seen to reduce
burdens upon city staff and police officers. BCMP is seeking funds from
Hennepin County as it has the capacity to relieve court calendars and to
reduce court costs. BCMP is developing policy and procedures which allow
for the contracting of services and fees on a per case basis.
Income of in -kind services is difficult to value. We have received offers
of office space use, equipment and staff support time, free advertising as
well as free service for plumbing needs, electrician services and air
conditioner maintenance.
ATTACHMENTS
1985 Case Summary
1986 Caseload Statistics
Annual Summary of Volunteer Hours
1987 Projected Budget
JANUARY, 1985 - DECEMBER, 1985
% of Cases
of Cases of Cases Mediated
1. Case File Opened 100 _100%
2. Mediation Conference Held
a. Settlement agreement reached 36 36% 87.7%
b. No agreement 5 5% 12.3%
3. Reconciliation 9 9%
4. Information or Referral 4 4%
5. Parties Unwilling 24 24%
6. Unable to Contact 8 8%
7. Cases tending 10 10%
8. Other 4 4_
100 100% 100.0 % -
Relationship of Parties
Domestic Neighbor Landlord Business Employer Agency Juvenile
Tenant Consumer Employee_ - Client
9-% 27% 11% 23% 3% 1% 18%
Property Business Friends Inter- -
Settlement Partners Personal
3% 1% 2% 2 %
Note: The reason there are 99 numerical cases, but 100 actual cases is
because Case #198 had two OP's and were mediated seperately_ but ' had
one file.
BROOKLYN CENTER MEDIATION PROJECT
Mid —Year Statistics
January 1, 1986 - June 30, 1986
NEIGHBORHOOD JUVENILE TOTAL
Cases Fending 12/31/85 2 12 14
Cases Opened 1/1/86 — 6/30/86 49 54 103
Case Development
Mediated 14 56 70
Settled /SA 12 56 68
No Settlement - Agreement 2 0 2
Information only 9 0 9
Conciliation after information but without 7 0 7
mediation
Unwilling party 9 1 10
Other 4 12
Awaiting mediation 6/30/86• 8 7 15
Closure after survey and compliance 31 4 35
Cases Open 6/30/86 2 18 20
JULY 1986
Neighborhood Juvenile Total
1. Cases Open 7/1/ 2 18 20
2. New Cases 6 18 24
3. Case Development
mediated & settled 3 10 13
mediated /not settled 3 - 3
reconciliation - - _-
information/referral
refusal to mediate 1 _
other (unable to contact) - 1 1
4. Open 7/31,86 8 36 44
AUGUST 1986
Neighborhood Juvenile Total-
1. Cases open 8/1/86 $ 36 44
2. New Cases 7 3 10
3. -Case Development
mediated settled 4 7 11
mediated /not settled -
reconciliation 1 _ 1
information /referral _
refusal to mediate 4 _ 4
other _
4. Open 8/31/86 15 39 54
ANNUAL SUMMARY OF VOLUNTEER HOURS — BROOKLYN CENTER MEDIATION PROJECT
1986
Mediators 146 mediations x 3 hrs. 438 hrs.
Case Development 201 cases x 5 hrs. = 1025 hrs.
Staff Support 1 volunteer x 2 hrs. x 52 104 hrs.
Directors 15 volunteers x 3 hrs, x 12 = 540 hrs.
Representatives to 1 volunteer x 2 hrs. x'12 = 48 hrs.
organizations 3 volunteers x 1. hrs. x 6 =
5 27 hrs..
Committees 10 volunteers x 2 hrs. x 2 = 40 hrs.
Newsletter 10 volunteers x 10 hrs. x 9 = 900 hrs.
Trainers 1 volunteer x 45 hrs. plus 12 volunteers x 3 hrs = 81 hrs.
Training 17 volunteers x 25 hrs. = 425 hrs.
29 volunteers x 8 hrs. = 232 hrs.
Juvenile service 109 volunteers x 10 hrs. = 1090 hrs.
Court Referred 4 volunteers x 20 hrs. = 80 hrs.
Misc. 52 volunteers x 2 hrs. = 104 hrs.
TOTAL 5134 hrs.
Valued at $5.00 per hour, volunteers provided $25,670.00 service to the community.
These hours are the equivalent to 2.46 full time staff people.
BROOKLYN CENTER MEDIATION PROJECT
Projected Budget
1987
EXPENSES
Staff
Director* $10,000.00 #.50 employee
Admin. Asst.** 7,000.00 # #1.0 employee
Secretary* 4,000.00
Employee Benefits 2,520.00
Rent 2,000.00
Telephone 1,000.00
Training
Initial 1
Ongoing 00.00
� g
5
Office Supplies 900.00
Postage 1,100.00
Photocopy 600.00
Forms 500.00 1
Brochures 1,000.00
Insurance 1,000.00
Accounting & Tax Service 400.00
Staff Mileage 400.00
Capital Expense 500.00
Promotion 500.00
Technical Assistance 2,000.00
Staff Development 500.00
Misc. 500.00
TOTAL EXPENSES $37 5 920.00
INCOME: SOURCES
State - - ----
County 12,000.00
Municipal 10
Fee for Service 3,000.00
Grants 6,920.00
Business
Major 3 ,500.00
Small 2,000.00
Local Organizations & Individuals 500.00
TOTAL INCOME $37,920.00