HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 10-09-1987n
C IT Or
PLYMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
October 9, 1987
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. HRA PUBLIC HEARING -- Tuesday, October 13, 6:30 p.m. The Housing
and Redevelopment Authotity will meet in the City Council conference
room. Agenda attached. (M-1)
2. BOARD OF ZONING -- Tuesday, October 13, 7:30 p.m. The Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals will meet in the City Council
chambers. Agenda attached. (M-2)
3. PARK & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION -- Wednesday, October 14, 7:30
p.m The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will meet in the
City Council conference room. Agenda attached. (M-3)
4. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, October 14. The Planning
Commission Forum will begin at 7:15 p.m., with the regular Planning
Commission meeting following at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council
chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4)
5. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, October 19, 7:30 p.m.
6. MEETING CALENDARS -- Meetings calendar for October and November are
attached. M-6
FOR YOUR INFORMATION...
1. TOWN MEETING AGENDA -- The tentative agenda for the November 9, 1987
Town Meetingfor rea 8 is attached for Council review. If the
Council has recommendations for the agenda, please let Laurie know
by October 20 in order that we can complete the invitations for the
meeting. A City map outlining Area 8 is also attached. (I-1)
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
October 9, 1987
Page two
2. MINUTES:
a. Planning Commission, September 22, 1987. (I -2a)
3. DEPARTMENT REPORTS -- The following department activity reports for
September are attached:
a. Police Department (I -3a)
b. Fire Department (I -3b)
4. PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION PROVIDED TO APARTMENTS & CONDOMINIUMS:
a. Apartment Security -- The attached handout on apartment security
and crime prevention was developed specifically for Four Seasons
Villa apartment residents by Darrel Anderson, Community
Relations Officer. Darrel reports that the apartment management
had requested the material and is pleased with the final
results. The management plans to distribute the handout at
upcoming meetings with its residents. (I -4a)
b. Ordinance Amendment on Barbecues -- Letters have been sent to
Plymouth apartment condominium owners and managers requestinq
their assistance in distributing to their residents a notice on
the change in the City's ordinance concerning the use and
storage of barbecues. A copy of the letter is attached. (I -4b)
5. MLC PROPERTY TAX BOOKLET -- Attached is a draft of the Municipal
egis ativeommission s tax booklet, "A Guide to Minnesota's New
Property Tax System". The MLC Operating Committee is looking for
comments on the booklet. Any comments the Council may wish to
make, I will forward to the Committee. (I-5)
6. SIM RAMSTAD -- The October issue of Money magazine included a
special report on family estate planning in which dim Ramstad and
his family were featured. A copy of the article is attached. (I-6)
7. COUNCIL FOLLOW-UPS:
a. Begin Salvage Yard -- On October 7, Frank Boyles, Tom Saba and
Dick Cariquist met with Larry Begin to discuss the progress
to date of the salvage yard cleanup. Attached is a letter sent
to Mr. Begin from Frank Boyles which confirms future cleanup
timelines agreed to at the October 7 meetinq. (I -7a)
b. County Road 61 Park -- The attached letter from Merilee Riley,
President, Her tage Highlands HOA, declines the City's
invitation to participate in a dedication ceremony for the C.R.
61 park because of a number of safety concerns the Homeowners
Association has with the new park. The concerns raised by the
Homeowners Association relate to the park path and play
equipment placements, and park access. Ms. Riley requests a
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
October 9, 1987
Page three
meeting with the City to discuss these concerns. After
receiving Ms. Riley's letter, Eric Blank prepared the attached
memorandum recommending further discussion and review of the
concerns expressed by the Homeowner's Association. (I -7b)
c. Highway 101 Retaining Wall -- Mayor Schneider was recently
contacted by Mrs. Margaret Crowder, 17720 - 6th Avenue No.,
to request improvements to the appearance of the Highway 101
retaining wall. As the Council will recall, several years ago
in response to resident complaints of graffiti, the City planted
ivy along the wall. However, the ivy was unable to establish
itself, and many of the plantings died. Mrs. Crowder has
recommended that a brick veneer be applied to the wall, or in
the alternative, the City fill in the ivy planting area with
concrete. Attached is my letter to Mrs. Crowder responding to
the recommendations. (I -7c)
d. Fire Apparatus Bid -- Attached is a letter to Luverne Fire
Apparatus Company advising of the Council's decision to defer
the awarding of bid for fire apparatus to the October 19
meeting. (I -7d)
e. Police Activities/Response Time -- In 1986, the Council
prioritized police activities requiring a response time of five
minutes of less. Attached is a memo from the Public Safety
Director which provides statistics for the period August 1, 1986
through duly 31, 1987 on the activities identified by the
Council. (I -7e)
8. PLYMOUTH EMPLOYEES -- I have received the following correspondence
on City employees:
a. Letter of congratulations to Susan Mauderer, Appraiser, on
receiving the Residential Evaluation Specialist designation from
the International Association of Assessing Officers. Sue is
one of only twelve assessment personnel in the State of
Minnesota to attain this designation. (I -8a)
b. Letter from Ms. Peggy Violet thanking a Plymouth police officer
for assistance in unlocking her vehicle. (I -8b)
9. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. M. R. Risberg, 710 Cottonwood Lane, to
Councilmember Crain, regarding the Prime Development shopping
center plan adjacent to their property. (I -9a)
b. Letter from Alan Perlman, Jr., 2820 Medicine Ridge Road,
providing further comment to his letter of September 26 on the
City's parking ban ordinance. (I -9b)
CITY COUNCIL INFORNATIONAL MEMORANDUM
October 9, 1987
Page four
C. Letter from Dan Scherer, Scherer Sanitation, to City Council,
commenting on organized collection. (I -9c)
d. Letter from Sohn Griffith, Trammell Crow Company, thanking City
staff for assistance in the approval process for the Carlson
Center 8th Addition. (I -9d)
e. Letter from Fred Moore thanking Hennepin County Transportation
Department officials for their prompt action in modifying the
traffic signal at County Road 10 and Zachary Lane. (I -9e)
James G. Willis
City Manager
0GW: Jm
attach
A G E N D A
PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
PUBLIC HEARING/SPECIAL MEETING
October 13, 1987
6:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes for September 24, 1987
III. Public Hearing on Unexpended CDBG Funds for Year XII
IV. Section 8 Program Management Review Update
V. Elderly Housing Site, Draft Request for Proposal Responses
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjournment: 8:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
Tuesday, October 13, 1987
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. NEW BUSINESS
Y' \ —
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
Council Chambers
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota
7:30 P.M.
September 8, 1987
A. Barry Rohweder. Variance from the minimum front yard setback for property
located at 10015 26th Avenue North. (10-01-87).
B. Larry Totman. Variance from the minimum side yard setback for property located
at 15510 9th Avenue North. (10-02-87).
C. Harbor Lane Properties. Variance from the minimum sign setbacks for property
located at 3200 Harbor Lane North. (10-03-87).
D. John Billman. Variance from the minimum front yard setback for property
located at 2770 Evergreen Lane North. (10-04-87).
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
October 14, 1987, 7:30 p.m.
Council Conference Room
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations
b. Staff
C. Others
4. Report on Past Council Action
a. Approved Going Out for Bids - Parkers Lake Pavilion
5. Unfinished Business
a. Parkers Lake Pavilion - Review Bids (Del Erickson)
1) Update Phase II Construction
b. Neighborhood Parks Update (Amhurst, Rolling Hills, County
Road E1)
C. 1987 Trail Projects Update
d. Lions Park Play Equipment
e. Review Trail and Sidewalk Standards
E. New Business
a. Neighborhood Park Siting - Northwest Selection (Co Rd 9 &
494)
b. Petition from District 284 Youth Hockey
c. West Medicine Lake Drive Trail Study from Strgar-Roscoe
d. Letter from Heritage HOA - County Road 61 Park
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communication
9. Adjournment
Next Meeting - November 12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1987
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning
Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on
the agenda.
1.
PUBLIC FORUM
7:15
P.M.
2.
CALL TO ORDER
7:30
P.M.
3. ROLL CALL
4.* CONSENT AGENDA
5.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes, September 22, 1987
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Mary Schlenz. Conditional Use Permit to operate a soup and sandwich shop with
take-out service in the Cottonwood Plaza Center at the southeast corner of
County Road 9 and Vinewood Lane. (87104)
B. John Stencel, Mutual Investment Properties. Site Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for the construction of an 18,825 sq. ft. office/warehouse building at
the northeast corner of 28th Avenue North and Ranchview Lane. (87103)
C. Amoco Oil Co. Rezoning, General Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, Final
Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Site Plan for property located at
the southeast corner of I-494 and County Road 9. (87062)
D. Zoning Ordinance Textual Amendments
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. George Daniels, Boulder Properties, Inc. Site Plan and Variance for the
construction of a bank facility located on the southeast corner of County Road
9 and Vinewood Lane North. (87100)
B. Robert and Mary McAuliffe. Lot Consolidation/Lot Division and Variance of two
platted lots at the northwest corner of County Road 18 and 18th Avenue North.
(87065)
*C. Michael McNeely, Pheasant Trail Townhouses. Site Plan for the construction of
a 24 -unit townhouse development south of 53rd Avenue North and east of Ximines
Lane. (87107)
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
9. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 P.M.
TT�
0
U
W
cd'
LL:
c
cc
cz
M
O
W
H
W
W
cd
'--�
00N
N
H
cz
c�
'b
oa
oC
00 U
-ti
� o�zto-,
O U
u
a
z U
z U
"C2Zc:>
ago
�w ••Ow
o
0..0
a U
a � U
o
H
00
Z
C <
W Q
" CO
cz
E
x
M"
z
w
�a ow
N
U
N
N
o y3
` L
�
C. ? L
P4
ao0zoz
Cl. r -r
zjh3
W
M
Q M a
O ••
x�f-1wt�U
O
�
U
" �
�''H
(f)M
w
� w
z
z00 r
cn
w
p
i
.b
,
N
w
>+O
H.00w
z
N
a.
ooax
z
`^
oa
pq �N
U
UOU
p
UOU
�i�/
UOU
F,zQt��
o �No
z N�ol�.,a
N N
00
E-1
z
U U p
pp
04u
z
C.:)
zzOU
z O
z
W C3 .'7
O
o
o
W E-• o
O" ••
R. O
UQQ'U
w
fxU
UC]�OCn
U
N N
00 LL ^ 00 N
w
w
M
cz
it
N a
I
' 00 N N
N N N
.fir
cn
10
�M
W
Cn
N
N
00
`p
N
Ul
n3cnrnon
o
o
n3z�"n
0 M0
nDa
0 0
0��
CG)CT70ZC
CCC)77
Cm
Z. C
Z. nozz
Z. CC
CZ>
H J D
C
H �] D
"Cy "A H
H �] D
H Oo .moi
N
r z
v
~
r m
n a
non
►+
0
non•
novo
�.
:�z
2:W
z"v
m0
v73 n
rrl
C)rC
m
[27 H
;a r
H
;a
n v ro
C)v p7
n v
ro
0wa
�
A
o
�;,
o
wa
o
n
z
H ro r i
Z
r -i d
n
tm-.
r• z
F-+
r n �
r 4
n.
Z
0~rrl
nC
W
>
ofr�
�+
W
V)
H
O
�)
n
C
H
C37
H r,
�
n 4
C!'i jJ Cn
�
N
m a
F -r
o W
-<
n
oCm
�
N
r n
-o rrn
pr
_
H
��'H
A)
co
m-<
v
D
O
i
z
"v
7—i)..
n
�.
UR
co E
m
m In �-+
m -n o
`^
moi/
n
z
N
rn
_
10N ncD_.1
d't7
I
Wp w `O N T
10
00
H G
n
VJ
�T7
lO`/
owo``oNE.
Vl O _V l
m l '
_ _
!
"n
C
=ao W -�
z
O
H
vN OD
O
n
m
U O N vi fn
(n
I
'
I
I
I V J
�M
W
TOWN MEETING AGENDA
AREA EIGHT
November 9, 1987
7:00 p.m.
I. THOROUGHFARES
A. County Road 6, I-494 Interchange
B. Highway 55, I-494 Interchange
C. County Road 6, Xenium Lane to Highway 101
D. County Road 9, Vicksburg Lane to I-494
I. PARKS
A. Park and Trail System Plan
B. Plymouth Creek Park
C. Amhurst Area Neighborhood Park
D. Parkers Lake Playfield and City Park
I. HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT
A. Kingsview Heights
B. Creekside of Plymouth
C. Downtown Plymouth
D. Parkers Lake Planned Unit Development
V. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Police/Fire Report
B. Neighborhood Watch Program
V. OTHER ITEMS
A. Public Transportation feedback - Plymouth Metrolink
B. City Council meetings on cable television channel 37
C. Solid Waste Recycling
1
W
Y
tr
�
�
V
Z
N
0
u
POMERL E.4CI ,
TH
AVE
>
LAKE
Io
AND
I SAUL 7
E NO
PLYkC
BAPTit
W
LU
Z
qx x
l
i
CH t
■
Z
a
ASCEHSioN
�{
i
Q
J
LUTHERAN
x
9?
J
CHURCH
< a ¢
J O
6
J
x
Cif T/.S
>E
J
S•
RA O
N
LA W
0
i
A
45TH ;
�
ROCKFORD
ROAD
PLY
TURTL E
COVE
L AKE
S
CHU
Z
?
0
41SAVE. N0.
<
1
a
f.
•
� z
Z
w
�
--
- ---
-
/6
SAI
Q
__ _
AVE
0
�o
A
CO.
—
CO.
iAV Iq
TH
Y'
A C.
Y
Z
T
T. JOSEPH
A!LE-
37TH
V
PKMOUTH
J
�Z
�
�
L
J J
38TH AVE
TH
AVE.
L
00
H AV
H
O L,
1��V�� to
H a
a
35THAVE'
o---
9y CITY HALL
Z
.VE.
55
a
�lD�4W �sT a
" 0
4
x 34 TH AVE�,NO
a
2A
�UFFICEQ
Z
` R
z
O0
3 Q
i
D
t
BAPTIS C
CH.
W J
Z t
A AVE ■
AVE. N a 32
a a
t'0 40 P-
20
r
3
11 yf a
a
J
c y
-
30 T AVE
T
4
w
o
F
r
gyp.
9TH
w
z H AVE.
S
H
Y W
J 20 ~
R
a
x
p 0 TH AVE. N
TH
�AVE H
28 W
tel•
J
w
Y 27TH
N t
w Z
�: h
E�
L
-
A E
AY
i a
J
3
27 TM
AVE. N
6 T/
TM
AV
�H
Y
6 A 24T
H'
AVE. ¢
p 7T.�
V -
_ ~ _ _
_
_
Y y
V OF .4
a
V
E
0eP
m 25TH `
g
H
�6
PUBLIC
Z AVE _
�a�m
WORKS
W a
■ GARAGE
LL 4 TH
AVE
NO.
'_ Y
OCK s
a 23 RD
AVE N0.
27R
E. u°�
Lr
I
KE ME ] [�% o� P T
a
INDUST JAL
PARK BLVD.
[]
E
arra
Z
21ST
PN
a
a
srH aC
- R LN
--
:�
PARKER
AVE w R OW R CJR -
Z
LAKE
Q
6
f�LtKY
♦ ,
J.
7TH
Jj
= SCHOOL N0_ \
I
C
w
x
5.
R I TH AVE
MI
__V'
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 22, 1987
The Special Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Steigerwald and Commissioners
Wire, Stulberg (arrived at 8:30 P.M.),
Zylla, Marofsky, and Pauba
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Plufka
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Blair Tremere
Community Development Coordinator
Ray Anderson
Assistant City Engineer John Sweeney
Planning Secretary Grace Wineman
*MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marofsky to approve the September 9, 1987 Planning Commis-
sion Minutes as submitted with a modification and correction
to page 212, MOTION to Amend should read: "Fencing shall be
installed along the lot lines for Lots 16 and 17, Block 2,
to the north line of Outlot E."
VOTE 4 Ayes. Commissioner Pauba abstained. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Marofsky to approve the Site Plan for Robert Worthington,
Opus Corporation for an office/warehouse located east of
Niagara Lane and north of 28th Avenue North, subject to the
conditions listed in the September 16, 1987 staff report.
VOTE 5 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that the Lot Consolidation/Lot
Division and Variance application (Item 6-B) requested by
Robert and McAuliffe is deferred at the request of the
petitioner. Mr. McAuliffe was out of the country and had
not had sufficient time to respond to the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Craig
Scherber for "Meadows of Bass Lake". An overview of the
September 11, 1987 staff report was provided by Coordinator
Anderson. He explained the requests and noted the require-
ment for dedication of all rights-of-way with the initial
final plat.
-216-
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
CRAIG SCHERBER
REZONING, COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
(87059)
Page 217
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Commissioner 7ylla inquired about the issue of lot width
requirements for Lots 9, 10, and 11 and the combination of
R -1A and R -1B Zoning. Coordinator Anderson explained that
one option suggested by staff would be that these three lots
be reduced to two lots to meet the minimum R -1A standards
for lot width. The Ordinance does indicate a unit of R -1A
and R -1B lots is appropriate.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Tom Loucks, Loucks &
Associates, representing the petitioner. Mr. Loucks intro-
duced Mr. Craig Scherber, Mr. Todd Rapp, legal counsel, and
Dave Putnam, engineer.
Mr. Loucks provided background information on the project,
noting specific concerns the petitioner is requesting the
Commission to address, including his exception to some of
the requirements which seem inconsistent or not based on
Ordinance requirements.
Regarding Lots 9, 10, and 11, they met with staff and indi-
cated their choice for R -1B (low density residential) zoning
because this property does not lend itself to a Planned Unit
Development status. They were certain they were eligible
for the R -1B zoning classification.
Their development plan was prepared and submitted prior to
the City's amending the Ordinance in 3uly of this year; and,
they believe the request should be reviewed under the Ordin-
ance standards in effect at the time of submittal. They
stated that deleting one lot would constitute a significant
dollar loss. Twenty of the lots exceed the R -1A Ordinance
standards for lot size of 18,500 sq. ft.; 5 lots do not meet
the R -1A standards.
Mr. Loucks explained the petitioner's concern regarding
compliance with the Engineer's Memorandum; objections per-
tain to the special conditions required under No. 24., (A.
B., and D) regarding grading and seeding for Northwest
Blvd. and Schmidt Lake Road; and, the ponding requirements.
He explained that a rezoning request has not been made for
the LA -3 guided area of the property. They understood they
would not be held responsible for the ponding; however, the
City required the pond design to be shown on graphics for
this development proposal.
Director Tremere stated the Engineering Department is
firm regarding these requirements; and, from a planning
perspective, the conditions are appropriate and consistent
with City Policies.
Page 218
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Mr. Loucks stated it is unreasonable to ask the petitioner
to grade for roads that will not be constructed for many
years, and the pond will also require redesign on future
development plans.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired if the petitioner would
consider an R -1B zoning classification for the entire
project; except for Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 1 which would
be zoned R -1A, with a variance granted for lot width? Mr.
Loucks stated they would find this acceptable.
Commissioner Wire inquired whether all other lots would be a
minimum width of 110 ft. width? Mr. Loucks stated the
interior lots have 90 ft. width and the end lots are 110
ft. in width.
Mr. Loucks introduced Todd Rapp, Attorney. Mr. Rapp, 100
So. 5th St., stated that he Engineer's Memorandum raises
several issues regarding dedication. He noted particularly
the dedication required for Schmidt Lake Road, a minor
arterial; and riqht-of-way for Northwest Blvd./County Road
61, also designated a minor arterial.
He reviewed the requirement to construct a storm water hold-
ing facility. He presented copies of the District Court
Findings of Fact for the case, Robert E. Middlemist, Jr.,
and Merry J. Middlemist versus the City of Plymouth.
Mr. Rapp discussed the Transportation Element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan relative to traffic projections noting
that the proposed for single family dwellings will con-
tribute less than 1% to estimated traffic volumes. He said
Mr. Scherber does not object to the 50 ft. right-of-way for
Schmidt Lake Road; there is an objection to dedication of
right-of-way for County Road 61 which would be in excess of
three acres; and, which is not needed now nor will itbenefit
his development.
The required grading seems to be out of proportion to the
size of the development and questionable in light of City
Assessment Policy. Mr. Rapp cited a court finding in
another case, Mendota Inc., versus the City of Plymouth,
about requiring improvements prior to development.
Mr. Rapp stated these requirements will place a tremendous
financial burden on the petitioner; the costs are out of
line. Mr. Dave Putnam, Engineer for the petitioner, has
reported that all of the storm water drainage needs are
taken care of by the gravity drainage facilities provided on
site. The only reason to adjust the drainage facility would
be the prospective grading suggested by City staff.
_=_ Q___'I
Page 219
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1997
Mr. Rapp cited court decisions and State law reiteratingthat
the City's requirements as set forth in the Engineer's
Memorandum are unreasonable.
Chairman Steigerwald stated that the Planning Commission
has no authority to make decisions regarding financial or
legal considerations of a planning application. The City
Council considers and acts on these issues.
Mr. Tom Loucks suggested that as these issues are included
in the report to the Commission; the Commission's recom-
mendations should relay their "feelings" to the Council on
these matters. Chairman Steigerwald stated that City staff
acts for both the Commission and Council; the report
includes information pertinent to each application for
review by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
Sohn Cochran, 5415 N. Norwood Lane, not present.
Rodney Dallin, 12400 50th Avenue North, inquired about the
schedule of construction for County Road 61 and Schmidt Lake
Road. Chairman Steigerwald stated that as a City project it
is not under consideration with this application; the
discussion relating to this application is only for rough
grading.
Mr. Dallin inquired about the proposed multi -family units.
Chairman Steigerwald explained this property would be
rezoned and final platted in the future when utilities are
available to the property; and, that the property is guided
for higher density.
Mr. Dallin stated concern that the larger lot size be main-
tained to protect property values. He further stated that
it is his opinion that the drainage in this area "is a
shambles". He has had standing water on his property and he
wants something done to assure there will be no creek over-
flow as has happened on many occasions.
Mr. Dave Putnam, consulting engineer, presented graphics for
the drainage plan for this proposal.
Mr. Dallin stated he is in favor of the requirements for the
ponding area. He inquired to whom he should speak regarding
safety factors for a railroad crossing? Director Tremere
stated he should contact the Public Safety Department.
Page 220
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Jim Dewey, 5025 Norwood Lane, stated his concern with the
multi -family dwellings and inquired about the zoning for the
area north of the railroad tracks.
Director Tremere explained that the land along Pineview is
guided LA -1 and will likely have single family residences;
the land to the west of proposed County Road 61 which
includes part of the property for this development, cannot
develop at this time. It is a higher density classifica-
tion. With the extension of sewer and water, the zoning
will allow multiple housing, but type and style will depend
on the design at the time the property is ready for develop-
ment, the allowable density would be 6 units per acre. He
explained the significance for this area for future plan-
ning, such as the anticipated road alignment. He explained
Planned Unit Developments, (40 acres or more) which by
desiqn may have smaller lots.
Debbie Jones, 12464 54th Avenue North, stated increased
density is a concern, especially the impact on neighbohood
streets and traffic volumes. The streets in this area are
busy now and safety for children should be a major concern.
She inquired if approval for this proposal would set a
precedent allowing rezoning that would increase density?
Chairman Steigerwald explained that approval for this
development plan would include only one additional lot in
the LA -1 portion of the development; and, that the develop-
ment must meet the criteria for the R -1A and R -1B Districts
as stated. The rezoning consistent with the guiding would
take effect with the filing of the Final Plat.
Lee Miles, 5420 Norwood Lane North, stated he is less
concerned about the people who will live in these develop-
ments; but, is concerned about the people who are building
"for profit". He requested an explanation of the FRD
(future restricted development) District; this was provided
by Director Tremere. Mr. Miles stated the people living
there now want to maintain the character of the existing
neighborhoods.
Chairman Steigerwald explained that R -1B zoning would allow
lots that would be slightly smaller; however, it would not
necessarily mean that smaller homes would be built. Mr.
Miles stated that higher density on the same amount of land
is not in the City's best interest. He expressed his
concerns regarding construction of Schmidt Lake Road.
Paqe 221
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Carla Miles, 5420 Norwood Lane North, stated it is obvious
that the residents' main concern and the reason they are
here is because of the proposed multi -residential units. It
seems to her that the 12-plexes are being "conveniently
tabled?" Chairman Steigerwald explained that the property
for the multi -family dwellings is unserviced and will not be
developed until such time that utilities are available; it
is required, however, that the developer show conceptually
how this property can develop in the future.
Ms. Miles stated the residents want to maintain their
property values; she has called the City reqarding the FRD
Zoning District; and, she checked with the construction
company and the real estate company regarding undeveloped
property in the area and was told it would be single
family. Now we are getting smaller lots, more density, and
12-plexes; the residents do not want multi -family dwellings.
The Land Ilse Guide Plan was reviewed. Approved Planned Unit
Developments near this site were described and it was
explained that these lots are less than the required minimum
lot size for conventional development.
Wallace Urbanski, 12515 52nd Avenue North, stated he
received a "flyer" that contained information that the whole
site is to be rezoned, and he is also concerned that this
issue is being "tabled". Chairman Steigerwald again
explained the requirement that the developer show a plan
with proposed present and future development, including that
property which has no public utilities; and will be platted
in the future. Mr. Urbanski stated he was "misled" by the
notice.
Frank Crowley, 5125 Pineview Lane, states he owns 5 acres on
the west side of Pineview Lane. He stated water has backed
up onto his property and inquired if the ponding required
for this development will affect his property once again?
Mr. Putnam, consulting engineer, stated the work to be done
on this project will control the flow rate to the creek, the
water will be stored and released at a slower rate.
Assistant City Engineer Sweeney confirmed the storage would
be required on site per the plans.
Mr. Crowley stated he is concerned about the multi -family
development and wants to keep children off his property.
The developer should be required to install fencing.
Page 222
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Zylla, seconded by Commissioner Wire MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval of the Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, and Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions
listed in the September 11, 1987 staff report, modifying
Condition No. 11 to grant variances from the R -1A Zoning
District Ordinance standards for lot width for Lots 9, 10,
and 11, Block 1. The reasons for the variances include
consistency with lot widths in the area, and good planning
of the overall site.
Roll Cal?. Vote. 4 Ayes. Commissioner Marofsky, abstained. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried.
Chairman Steiqerwald introduced the request by Trammell Crow JOHN GRIFFITH
Company. An overview of the September 9, 1987 staff report TRAMMELL CROW CO.
was provided by Coordinator Anderson. REZONING, REVISED
PRELIMINARY PLAT,
Commissioner Marofsky inquired about the access drives to REVISED GENERAL
Cheshire Lane rather than to 1st Avenue North. Assistant DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City Engineer Sweeney stated the Engineerinq Department had SITE PLANS
reviewed this issue; there is a cul-de-sac at the end of 1st CONDITIONAL USE
Avenue North and extension of 1st Avenue North to the east PERMIT AND VARIANCE
is not proposed now, so no problems are foreseen. FOR CARLSON TECH
CENTER (87092)
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Linda Fisher, Attorney,
representing the petitioner. Ms. Fisher introduced the team
of consultants who have worked on this project. She
explained the history of the proposal; that Trammell Crow
Company is now the developer for Carlson Center. Ms. Fisher
stated they had conducted neighborhood meetings for both the
residents of Plymouth and Minnetonka. She explained the
"triangle" piece of land shown on the plans which is not a
part of the development area at this time, but acquisition
of the land is being considered. She explained the revised
general development plan which includes less total square
footage (222,500 sq. ft. vs 247,500 sq. ft. originally
approved) with a higher percentage of office space.
Ms. Fisher explained the master planning for the property in
Plymouth and Minnetonka; the City of Minnetonka's concern
with increased traffic on County Road 61; and, the future
phases of development.
An architectural rendering for Building A was shown. Ms.
Fisher explained the variance proposal for a 32 ft. setback
between the parking lot and the front property line which
makes it possible to have a 30 ft. setback to the ajoining
residential area to the north and emphasized the aesthetics
and formal site planning. She stated the proposal meets the
Variance criteria. She showed an alternate plan which was
fully in compliance with the setback standards, but which
had a reduced yard area at the residential area.
Page 223
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Ms. Fisher stated the conditions of approval have been
reviewed and are acceptable to the petitioner. Condition
No. 12 for the approval for Building 'A' requires screening
of rooftop equipment. They have no problem with this, but
propose that this be deferred to the time that each tenant
occupies a space in the building rather than at the time the
entire building is constructed.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed that the intent regarding
Condition No. 12 for the approval of the Site Plan for
Building 'A' is to allow exact placement for rooftop equip-
ment to be established before the necessary screening and
painting are accomplished. Chairman Steigerwald inquired
about City procedure in these matters; Director Tremere
stated the condition is based on the Ordinance standard
which applies for this building which abuts a residential
neighborhood. The Ordinance requires adequate screening and
noise abatement techniques for rooftop equipment; and, those
measures can be accomplished in stages.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed the request for the setback
variance provides additional screening and an additional 10
ft. between the site and residential neighborhood to the
north. The petitioner believes the buffering and landscap-
ing would be an advantage to the community.
Sohn Griffith, Trammell Crow Company, stated there are two
issues: The micro -issue of the site itself to accommodate
the building and parking; and the macro -issue of the
relationship of the boulevard throughout Carlson Center.
In response to the Chairman, Director Tremere explained that
yard setbacks to drive aisles are different than those to
parking stalls and this generates a dimensional difference.
Chairman Steigerwald inquired, aesthetics aside, isn't there
some other way for this plan to reflect the Ordinance stand-
ards? Mr. Griffth stated that to strictly conform to the
Ordinance standards creates a "poorer development" for the
City, Trammell Crow, and the residents to the north. This
adjustment creates a boulevard setting with better
aesthetics.
The "proof -of -parking" plan was discussed. Chairman
Steigerwald inquired about accessibility for semi -trailer
trucks and stacking. Mr. Griffth explained the lineup with
a maximum area for six or seven trucks. He noted the build-
ings are not designed for distributers. Chairman
Page 224
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Steigerwald inquired about consideration for a plan for a
one-way entrance and angular doors? Mr. Griffith stated
this would be cost prohibitive; and, that this building is
"top of the line" in what they are building today.
Director Tremere stated that this project is not a Planned
Unit Development but a conventional site plan. The building
size is not a given; and, all the Ordinance setbacks can be
met. If additional yard area is proposed it can be provided
without variance; the building size might have to be
reduced, however. The issue is whether the petitioner
demonstrated that there is merit for a variance.
Chairman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing.
James P. Bremer, 302 Zinnia Lane North, stated he attended
the neighborhood meeting. He is concerned about changes to
the approved General Development Plan. He noted, for
example, that when plans were initially reviewed by the
City, old County Road 15 was to be a through street, wisely,
the City did not leave it as a through street. Now, a dif-
ferent company is proposinq development of the property
which does not follow the initial plans by Carlson Companies
and the promises made by Carlson Companies to the residents.
Chairman Steigerwald confirmed with Engineer Sweeney that
the City of Minnetonka has been and is concerned with
increase in traffic volume on County Road 61.
Director Tremere reviewed the original plan and roadway con-
nections.
Mr. Bremer stated .this design is inappropriate with the cul-
de-sac so close to County Road 61 and believes it should be
redesigned so there is no opportunity for an intersection.
He stated concern with the dock area for Building W. The
building elevations were reviewed with Mr. Bremer who stated
he will be looking at the backside of the building and the
screening and berming is not adequate; and, it is not a good
design for the neighbors to the north. Noise levels are
also a concern, including construction noise. He wanted
assurance that there will be reasonable working hours
established for the construction companies and that work
would not begin prior to 7:00 A.M.
Mr. Dave Nygren, 420 Berkshire Lane, is a neighbor to the
north but he is representing Christ Memorial Church. He is
concerned about the visual impact, but also would like to
know if there will be pedestrian access through this area.
The church was led to believe there would be further resi-
Page 225
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
dential development, it appears now, there will be none.
Initial plans were touted as having people living and work-
ing in this development and now this is not being
considered.
Chairman Steigerwald explained that this proposal has more
office flavor with less of an industrial look; there is un-
developed residential land in this area as well. However,
there are no plans for walking paths with these plans except
for the streets themselves. He advised Mr. Nygren to review
the City-wide plans for parks and trails.
Ms. Fisher explained that Carlson Center is 328 acres within
two cities and the plans do reflect pedestrian access and
unification of the sites; however, these are mostly within
the City of Minnetonka; they were not planned for this site.
Mr. Nygren concurs with Mr. Bremer's statements concerning
construction noise and would like assurance of protection
from extended hours of construction noise which could create
friction between the developer and the residents.
Sohn Griffith, Trammell Crow, invited concerned residents to
visit their office to review the master plan and architec-
tural renderings.
Commissioner Zylla stated he supports the variance; however,
the berming on the north side of the site between the resi-
dential/commercial areas and the treatment of the building
from that side is a concern. According to the grading plan
and proposed building height, the berms appear to be rela-
tively low or non-existent because of the elevations. The
residents will see 19 ft. of building. He expressed concern
that the architectural style should be the same treatment
and materials for the front and back of Building 'A'.
Chairman Steigerwald closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for Rezoning, Revised Prelimin- REZONING, REVISED
ary Plat, and Revised General Development Plan for Trammell PRELIMINARY PLAT
Crow Company, subject to the conditions listed in the REVISED GENERAL
September 9, 1987 staff report. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Commissioner Wire stated concern with the sensitivity of
this area to its residential neighbors; and, that the plan
does not reflect the original intent of Carlson Companies'
initial plans.
Page 226
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION by Chairman Steigerwald, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Wire to recommend approval for the Site Plan and Conditional SITE PLAN AND
Use Permit for Building 'B', subject to the conditions CONDITIONAL USE
listed in the September 9, 1987 staff report, stating the PERMIT BLDG 'B'
actual approved percentage of office space within Building
'B', i.e., 50%.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Chairman MOTION TO AMEND
Steigerwald to Amend the Main Motion to change Condition
No. 14 to read: "Appropriate legal documents for shared
drives and access shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney . . . . "
Roll Call Vote on Amendment. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as once Amended. 6 Ayes. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
MOTION carried.
MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for the Site Plan and Variance SITE PLAN AND
for Building 'A', subject to the conditions listed in the VARIANCE FOR BUILDING
September 9, 1987 staff report and citing that the Variance 'A'
Criteria have been met.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner
Zylla to Amend the Main Motion by adding Condition No. 13.,
to read: "The berm shall be 6 ft. above the floor elevation
of Building 'A'."
Linda Fisher stated the berming as proposed is adequate.
They had considered a more substantial berm with some of it
on the adjacent site to the north which is owned by Carlson
Companies. City staff had advised that was inappropriate.
She showed a rendering of that berming.
Director Tremere stated this would involve a separate piece
of property; the site is neither within a Planned Unit
Development, nor is it being developed at this time. Direc-
tor Tremere stated there is no legal tie between these
properties at this time and suggested that this might be
resolved later through an amended plan that would include
draft covenants and the like, assuring preservation and
maintenance of the berm by the owner of the adjacent site.
The Ordinance requires the developer to bear the burden of
transition on his site.
Roll Call Vote on Amendment. 5 Ayes. Commissioner
Stulberg, Nay. MOTION carried.
Motion by Commissioner Zylla to add Condition No. 14, re-
quiring the north face and elevation of Building 'A' to be
designed and finished with comparable and compatible mater-
ials. The Motion died for lack of second.
MOTION TO AMEND
VOTE ON AMENDMENT
NOTION CARRIED
Page 227
Planning Commission Minutes —
September 22, 1987
Sohn Griffith stated the design is aesthetically "coordin-
ated" with like -colors and like -style and the buildings wrap
around 15 ft. to the backside with brick; and, financial
considerations make it infeasible to have the entire north
face finished like the south face.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO AMEND
Marofsky to Amend the Main Motion to change Condition No.
12. as follows: "The rooftop equipment on Building A shall
be visually screened to effectively buffer noise so that it
is not transmitted beyond the boundaries of the property so
to be perceptible in the abutting residential zoning
district.
Roll Call Vote on Amendment.
6 Ayes.
MOTION
carried.
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steiqerwald called a
Recess
at 10:10
P.M.
RECESS
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Hamel Build- VARIANCE FROM THE
ing Center. Reading of the September 16, 1987 staff report URBAN DEVELOPMENT
was waived. POLICY AND TO EXPAND
A NON -CONFORMING USE
Chairman Steigerwald introduced Mr. Russel Bouley who stated FOR HAMEL BUILDING
he would answer any questions for the Commission. Mr. CENTER (87051)
Bouley stated the building will be for storage of building
supplies only. There is no need for water or sewer to the
building.
Commissioner Wire inquired if this were an open -sided shed.
Mr. Bouley stated the building is fully enclosed, there will
be some exposed storage area under the overhang.
Commissioner Marofsky confirmed that the Commission would
review the site plan if this variance is approved.
Commissioner Stulberg confirmed that when this property was
rezoned to FRD (future restricted development) from I-1
(planned industrial), this business became a non -conforming
use.
Director Tremere stated that the zoning was changed to con-
form to the fact that the site is not served by public sewer
and water.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Stulberg to recommend approval for the Variance from the
Urban Development Policy; and Variance to expand a Non -Con-
forming Use, subject to the conditions as listed in the
September 16, 1987 staff report and on the basis as cited in
Condition No. 1, striking the words: "and the non -conforming
land use provisions, as stated in Section 12 of the Plymouth
Zoning Ordinance" in Condition No. 1.
Commissioner Marofsky stated this plan is beneficial to the
City by improving the site.
VOTE 6 Ayes. MOTION carried. 1VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Page 228
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Lot Consolidation/Lot Division and Variance for Robert and
ROBT. & MARY
Mary McAuliffe deferred at the request of the petitioner and
MCAULIFFE/DEFERRED
agreed to by consensus of the Commission at the beginning of
(87065)
the meeting.
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Lorraine E.
LOT CONSOLIDATION
Mayer. Reading of the September 9, 1987 staff report was
LOT DIVISION AND
waived.
VARIANCE FOR
LORRAINE MAYER
Jim Gamble, 400 Pineview Lane, is a party to the Lot
(87074)
Consolidation/Division and inquired about Item No. 12-A of
the Engineer's Memorandum. Chairman Steigerwald stated this
is a question of safety measures as noted by the Engineerinq
Department.
MOTION by Commissioner Pauba, seconded by Commissioner Wire
MOTION TO APPROVE
to recommend approval for the Lot Consolidation/Lot Division
and Variance for Lorraine E. Mayer, subject to the
conditions listed in the September 9, 1987 staff report.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald introduced the request by Begin
BEGIN DEVELOPMENT
Development for Site Plan and Variance for Berkshire Office
SITE PLAN AND
Park. Reading of the September 9, 1987 staff report was
VARIANCE (87098)
waived.
Mr. David Peterson, introduced himself as the vendor of the
property and the representative for Hew -Lyn Inc.
Greg Begin, petitioner, stated his concern regarding the
additional 20 ft. of right-of-way the City is requiring,
since the plat has already been approved.
Engineer Sweeney stated that the plat was approved a number
of years ago and utilities were partially installed but not
accepted by the City for maintenance and the street has not
been constructed to plan. Since the plat approval, the re-
quirement for the additional 20 ft. of right-of-way was
identified by a traffic study authorized in 1986 with a re -
guiding application from this property owner. It was
confirmed at that time there was not sufficient right-of-
way. The traffic study contemplated the office park uses,
including this site.
The study was later reviewed again by the City's traffic
consultants with another development proposal. The proper-
ty, if developed as zoned, would make the improvements
necessary and full right-of-way would be required for the
intersection. The traffic consultant pointed out the neces-
sity that the traffic lanes on Annapolis Lane, south of
County Road 9, align with traffic lanes north of County Road
9 on Berkshire Lane.
_T!- CQ� .
Page 229
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Mark Dohrmann reviewed the development proposal. They are
concerned with the impact of the additional 2.0 ft. easement;
it will reduce the number of parking spaces, thus requiring
a reduction in building square footage. This would be
economically detrimental to the plan.
Gregory Korstad, Attorney, representing the property owner,
stated the property was platted in 1980 with an evaluation
of the traffic issues at that time. There was a difference
in right-of-way required for the north and south sides of
County Road 9. The City Engineer has pointed out that there
was a 20 ft. variance where the easements line up. There is
no fault or blame to be placed, from the property owner's
perspective, the City Council approved the plat and executed
the initial development agreements. Future developers must
be able to rely on those actions. There is a question of
the City's authority to impose these requirements.
He suggested that with these significant features, the issue
of how the road will be provided should be passed on to the
City Council with a request for reconsideration by the
Council, developer, and City staff.
Mr. Korstad requested that Condition No. 1 be modified to
reflect that Item No. 28-F in the Engineer's Memorandum can-
not be addressed without additional review.
Mr. Greg Begin said the petitioner would have to acquire 20
ft. from the site to the east if this is approved as
recommended.
Chairman Steigerwald stated the Commission would make their
recommendations to the City Council who would determine the
issue of additional right-of-way.
MOTION by Chairman Steigerwald, seconded by Commissioner NOTION TO APPROVE
Wire to recommend approval for the Site Plan and Variance
for Begin Development, subject to the conditions listed in
the September 9, 1987 staff report, noting the concerns and
objections to the Engineer's Memorandum; and, noting that,
regarding, Condition No. 9. the City Council should deter-
mine the necessity for additional right-of-way for Berkshire
Lane.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION
carried.
VOTE - NOTION CARRIED
Chairman Steigerwald
introduced the request
by Laukka
LAWRENCE LAUCKA
Development. Reading
of the September 16, 1987
staff report
LAU KA DEVELOPMENT
was waived.
PUD FINAL PLAN/PLAT
AND VARIANCE FOR
Chairman Steigerwald
introduced Peter Jarvis,
representing
PARKERS LAKE NORTH
the petitioner.
3RD ADDITION AND PUD
FINAL PLAN/PLAT FOR
Mr. Jarvis stated the
objections to three of the
conditions:
PARKERS LAKE 4TH
ADDITION/87036/87084
Page 231
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
Mr. Jarvis stated a revised detailed Site Plan can show all
the corrections discussed.
Director Tremere confirmed for Chairman Steigerwald that,
regarding the 3rd Addition, Condition No. 19 of the prelim-
inary plat approval required the addition of private open
space and the City Council's intent was that the tot lot
would be located east of the ponding area. There is land
other than the traffic island area for the tot lot.
Mr. Jarvis disagreed with Director Tremere's statements that
this was the intent of the Council, as he recalls it.
Commissioner Marofsky stated his concern about relocating
the tot lot closer to County Road 6 (on the east side of the
drainage pond) that seems to be as dangerous as putting it
at the end of the cul-de-sac. Relocatinq the tot lot
further to the south does not make it central or safer.
MOTION by Commissioner Marofsky, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO APPROVE
Pauba to recommend approval for the PUD Final Plat for PUD FINAL PLAT
Laukka Development for Parkers Lake North 3rd Addition, PARKERS LAKE 3RD
subject to the conditions related to the Final Plat with the ADDITION (87036)
deletion of Condition No. 26.
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried.
Discussion ensued about the 4th Addition regarding the yard
setbacks and drainage utility easements. Concern was
expressed that the final plat and plan as submitted were not
totally consistent with the approved preliminary plat mater-
ials for the 4th Addition.
Director Tremere explained that the Engineering Department's
concerns, and the reason for Condition No. 14. Approval of
the proposed plat with the lot lines will create multiple
parcels and entirely new relationships concerning structural
setbacks and easements.
Mr. Larry Laukka stated they could work with staff to
resolve these concerns, by developing language in the Home-
owner Association documents that would assure the common
ownership of the development.
MOTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner
Stulberg to recommend approval for the PUD Final Plat for
Laukka Development for Parkers Lake North 4th Addition,
subject to the conditions in the staff report; there should
be further review by the staff and the developer to clarify
the second sentence in Condition No. 14, and Item No. 7 in
the Engineer's Memorandum.
NOTION TO APPROVE
PUD FINAL PLAT FOR
PARKERS LAKE NORTH
4TH ADDITION (87084)
Page 230
Planninq Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
He requested clarification concerning Condition No. 5 re-
gardinq the width of required drainage easements.
Condition No. 26 requiring relocation of the tot lot and
play area to the east end of Outlot A was debated at the
City Council. They are in disagreement with staff's posi-
tion on this item. They believe their plan provides the
safety factor to keep children away from County Road 6.
Mr. Jarvis requests the Commission's approval with reaffirm-
ation of the 5 ft. setback; and, approval of the the tot lot
location as proposed.
Commissioner Marofsky asked for clarification stating that
Sheet L is in conflict with Sheets 2, 3, and 4 as far as the
line between phases matching between sheets. Mr. Jarvis
confirmed that phase lines as shown on the the plat are
correct.
Commissioner Marofsky noted that Lot 21, Block 4 appears to
access from the south, from a cul-de-sac which is not being
built at this time. This lot should be deleted from this
plat, and shown on the next phase.
Commissioner Marofsky stated that perhaps there are too many
driveways onto this street.
Mr. Laukka explained the driveway would be moved to access
onto the public street north of Lot 21. He said it should
be allowed in the first phase.
Mr. Jarvis explained that the 4th Addition would have one
less building, and densities have been adjusted.
He stated that the conditions of approval relate to the
Engineer's Memorandum (Item No. 6) concerning the 6 ft.
drainage and utility easements; and, these are not needed
along the proposed lot lines in their project which is dif-
ferent than the 3rd Addition where the issue was the width
of the easements.
There seems to be "confusion" concerning Item No. 7 in the
Engineer's Memorandum for the 4th Addition which is marked
"No", they feel they do comply, "where applicable."
They will comply with the 20 ft. minimum distance called for
in Condition No. 14.
The second part of that condition is problematical. Putting
each building on a separate lot is a requirement of their
lender because of closing requirements that apply to condo-
minium apartment buildings. They request there be no
conventional drainage easements and that they be allowed to
locate the buildings as shown, even if the setback to the
proposed lot lines is less than 6 ft.
Page 232
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22, 1987
VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION! carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Director Tremere confirmed the meeting date for further
study and review of the consultant's report on Community -
Based Residential Facilities. The next study meeting will
be on October 14, 1987 at 5:30 P.M. The Commission will
focus on the definitions on page 29 and Table 9 of the
report.
ADJOURNMENT 11:30 P.M.
VOTE
VOTE - MOTION CARRIED
Z
V)
o
v
00
ElfQ
M
cf
00
O
£ I
J
!
+
Y
uj
W
J =
V
N
H
M
CO
OZ
M
0
J Q
O
U
N
r -
O
M
O0
3lk3P
d3
O
R
=
Q
CO
I-
O
WO
^
O)
W
N
11)
H
M
M
Y
d'
F- Z
QI
I-
co
n
J
N
O
W \
co
N
00
d'
O O
N
(
CO!
Cn
a
Cn
CD
O la
J
LD
00
t\
V)
�`
�
V)
o
N
00
w
F-
V)
V)N
to
O
Y
CC
Z
N Y
X w
00�
Q
C13
^
Lff
cc
00111
W
N
)
^
J1 � I1 o
�� co 00
U
ON CI)
V)
¢
JC� O O CD
—
ko t-
00 00
01 01
Y
LU
o
v
00
M
cf
00
O
£ I
J
!
+
Y
WF-
u
U
J =
V
N
Y O
Ln
M
OZ
M
"I O
J Q
O
U
N
r -
O
M
O0
3lk3P
d3
O
R
=
Q
CO
I-
O
J J
^
rn
v
O
M
M
O
V)
F- Z
V) 2
I-
co
n
Z UI
i\
W \
co
N
00
co
O O
N
Cn
Cn
a
Cn
CD
O la
LD
z z
C7 J
o
cn
00
w
F-
V)
V)N
to
O
Y
Z
N Y
X w
00�
Q
LLJ LZ
N
N�
V) Oi
W
)
V))
p
G;
of
w=>
U
U
Z O
CL
3 O
w
W
N!
I
1
�
J I
M I
C)
Lo
Z
2
Y
I
c Y
a
o
w
Lorr�
o
J W�
N�
n
O ci
LO
V- o i
m
LO
N YI
1
I
�
—
t
.r
J
w
N Zr
Mi
Z
00 F;
M
W
�
U" Vw I
r
=
LO
00'
O
o
z,
to r-
w
00 00
Cn m
'
Y W
col
C J
CC
O
J
W Y
ko
U
V)
C7 W
N
J
Y
NI
¢
O Z
W
k-
w
Jj
o
N
N
00
¢
O
O
J
a
01
co
W
u
X: z
39
O t
Z <
N
u
CC C
UJ
7
O c
� C
J
Z C
O
LLJ
CC
Cl ~
's
J U
¢ C
N
V)
4
J
U
) c) O
y
) 1
i
lo' co
T' V
Ll ko
001
M M
J)
1C., r
00 00
ao O
Fn a
00
M,
00
O
£ I
+
wi
Z y
M
N
J Q
O
N
r -
m
M
O0
3lk3P
O
n
=
N
M
O
I
^
O
F- Z
co
I-
co
n
to
i\
co
00
00
co
O O
N
Cn
Cn
a
Cn
LD
z z
o
cn
o
w
F-
V)
V)N
to
O
Y
Z
N Y
Nr-
Q
^
W
W
1{
J
Z
U
U
Z O
w
W
C)
c Y
a
o
w
o
w
W
=
= i
O
m
Ln
.r
J
4
Z
w
4
col
C J
CC
O
J
N
ko
U
F-
iYr O
W
J
w
co
L.Q
N
N
a£I
Q
�n
c
o
CD
uj
z w
+
Y?
�oi
N�
N
N
Y Y
NI
N
�t
¢ W
1
V
Cc
3 cn
F- >
M
ri�-r Y U
N
W Z
C
^
n
V) S W
M
M
CO
<1^
2 O Q
r
r
J O
LD
N I
—j
3e
M
cf
w
i
J
ON
co
+
to
co
to
co
O
c
ViM
Lo
V)
Ln Y
to
O
co
O
O
Q J
co
ib
C;7
Z
F -
w ¢
O
Q
J
J J
O
<
M: Q
U)
l0
00
co
J
M
Z W
r+
V)
N
O
N
=
Y
V)
to
a
¢
im
N
W
O
N
F
Y
Q
X:
N
N
O
Q
S
O
Q
O
—
2
z
to
r\
00
co
a
a
t\
00
01
CC:
W
cc
7T
LUW
F-
N
2
F -
Z
O
X:
]t
W u7' O
2 M� Ln
f -
O
Ln _
W ;
Ln 7
Z C
W �
LL 7
W c
O L
m C
Q
G.7 _
X La
W L
Ln C
F-
C:)
-O F
C
La_ F
¢u
wu
3 C
r�
O
i d
O
O
❑0
N
,1 V
ae
O O
D JJ
N u7
t0 r�
00 a7
a a
7 M
Ln
J
2
F-
F-
oo r`
O Lb
a a
J C
Q 2
v
O C
W V
7= 7
a
) ae
tD
t
00 a
ao a
LO r`
❑0 O
a a
N
J
Q
F-
O
F -
i
Z F
LU C
I
J L,
U
OD
I
C
�.
00
Ln ❑
C
7=
J
aeI
r
w
2
N F
l
W
N
+
w u
❑❑ 7
O
>_
rUrU
Z
a
O
W
co I
O
N
J Q
U')
lC1
M
C
�
l0
�
[D v7
❑
u
F
LO
r-
00
00
Y V
a
ON
u
.+
LD
W C
00co
ro
LV u
m
00
) J
Z
r.
O
a
U-
F-
F-
C
C)
O
C
..
Ln
C]
Ln
Ln
i
¢
J
r
U
x
r�
O
i d
O
O
❑0
N
,1 V
ae
O O
D JJ
N u7
t0 r�
00 a7
a a
7 M
Ln
J
2
F-
F-
oo r`
O Lb
a a
J C
Q 2
v
O C
W V
7= 7
a
) ae
tD
t
00 a
ao a
LO r`
❑0 O
a a
N
J
Q
F-
O
F -
i
I
U
Oa
�.
00
a
7=
r
l
W
O
Lo
rUrU
Z
a
O
r-
n
co I
O
N
J Q
U')
Cl)
M
M
�
l0
�
[D v7
Z
n
LD
O
00co
ro
m
00
co
Z
r.
O1
a
InO
O O
J LL
C]
Ln
�-
Zz
x
z
O
Q
w
V)
V7N
r
a
W
O
V) =J
r --r w
I
U
U
Ln
Z
w
Z O
Ln
W
O_ .
Z
O
Lj
U Q
00
a
f u_
1'
.. f
ao
^
{{ o
m
Ln O
1
7=
W Q
LDF-
d' J
i
.-r O
w �-+
—I
LL .J.
a
LO
Ln
Ln
1
¢ F
zrkI
x w
N
I
F C]
I
Ln
N
F -
z o
¢ w
O
<
N
a
C a
cta
¢ w
Ln
c
3 Ln
Y
V)
N D: U
r`
r`
r --r W Z
ct
O
Lb
V) S W
M
C
a
a
N F- co
--r
-+
Q O ¢
U F-
N
cf
❑C
W
J
O
D
3
a
kO
3P
CU
aJ
O
a
a
T
d
+
N
N
Z
W f
N
a
M
M_
co
Ln
O
O
O
LL Q
J
F-
o
J J
Q
Q C]
0
2
O
O
Q
Ln
00
a0
J
Y
Q
W
Q
Q
2
O
O
¢
O
O
H
2
Z
co
r
co
a
a
PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
TYPE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS BY TIME -F DAY
MONTH SEPTEMBER 1987
-3b
NUMBER OF
0001 0401 0801 1201 1601 2001 CONFIRMED FALSE PERMITS ESTIMATED
0400 10800 1.1200 1.1600 1 2000 ' 2400 1 CALLS I ALARMS I TOTAL I ISSUED I LOSS
1PRIVATE DWELLINGS 1 3 1 4 1
3 1
4 1 1 1 2
I 6
I 11
I 17 I -- 1
$17,1501
(APARTMENTS I 1 2
1 1
2 1 4 1 7
1 1
1 15
I 16 I -- 1
- 1
IHOTELS AND MOTELS 1 I 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
I 1
1 2
1 3
TALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL 1 i 1
1
1 1
1 0
i 0
I 0
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY I I 1�1_
1 I
1 0
I 0
I D
[SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES I I 1 1�
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 2
1 3
1HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS 1 2 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 I
1 1
1 4
1 5 1 3 1
- =J
[PENAL INSTITUTIONS I 1 1
1
[ 1 1
1 1
1 0
1[ - 1
1001
I STORES AND OFFICES [ I 1
1 1
5 1 [
1 1 5 �_ _ _6�
- ---1
[INDUSTRY, MFG. I I 1 1
5
' 1
1 2
1 5
1 7 1 -- I
4,0001
[STORAGE IN STRUCTURES [ [ [
[
1 [
I 0
1 0
[ 0 [ - - 1
- - 1
ISPECIAL STRUCTURES �_ 1 [ 1
[
[ I
1
[ 0
i 1 1 - - [
1001
[FIRES OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURES [ [ 1
_
1 1
1 0
1 0
1 0 1 __ I
-- i
IFIRES IN HIGHWAY VEHICLES__] 1 1
I
11 2 1 1
1 3
1 0
1 3 I -- 1
2,5001
FIRES IN OTHER VEHICLES - _-�,.L
1
_---��
0
1 0
I 0
IFIRES IN BRUSH
(FIRES IN RUBBISH, DUMPSTERS I 1 1 1
I
1 (
[ 0
I 1
[ALL OTHER FIRES 1 1 1 I
�-V
I 1
I 1
1 0
IMEDICAL AID RESPONSES 1 I 1
1
1 I
1 0
1 0
1 0
[MALICIOUS FALSE ALARMS* 1 I I
I
I 1
1 0
I 0
I 0
[MUTUAL AID OR ASSISTANCE l I 1
I_
� I
1 0
I 0
[ 0--
I ALL OTHER RESPONSES�1Jl.__
z- _l 1
I 2
I 0
I 2
TOTALS 1 7 1 9 13 y_ 5-L 11� 13 I 22 I 46 ' 68 1 3 1 $23,850
*INCLUDED IN FALSE ALARMS TOTALS
,SEPTEMBER 1986
CONFIRMED CALLS
19
FALSE ALARMS
48
TOTAL CALLS
67
ESTIMATED LOSS
$44,800
TYPE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS BY TIME OF DAY
0001 0401
0400 10800
PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
MONTHLY JANUARY - SEPTEMBER 1987
NUMBER OF
0801 1201 1601 2001 CONFIRMED FALSE PERMITS ESTIMATED
1200 1 1600_2000 1 2400 I CALLS I ALARMS I TOTAL I ISSUED I LOSS
IPRIVATE DWELLINGS 1
9 I
7 1 16 1
24
1 23 1 12 1
47
I 44
1 91 1
-- 1 $208,8001
1APARTMENTS 1
14 1
17 1 24 1
33
1 45 1 37 1
20
1 150
1 170 1
3 1 5,2001
1HOTELS AND MOTELS
3 1_
2 4
2
6 1 2 1
6
13
1 19 1
-- 1 130,0001
IALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL 1
I
I 1 I
1 -- 1 63,9251
I I I
0
I 1
I 1 1
-- I - -1
PUBLIC -ASSEMBLY I
I
11 1
L 3
1 1 I 2 I
4
1 3
1 7 I
-- I 1001
I SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Z3
J_
2
I 5 1 3 I
3
I 11
1 14 I
-- 1 4001
IHEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS I�2�
9 7
_8
1 5 1 5 1
4
1 32
1 36 1
8 1 25]
(PENAL INSTITUTIONS L
1 I
I 2 I
1
1 2 I 1 I
3
1 4
1 7 1
- 1 1201
ISTORFS AND OFFICES 1-
(INDUSTRY, M-;. �_
1 j
8_1
2 1 4-I_
8 112 _]___19
12 I 4 I 4
_L_14_ _8
7
15
I 20
_54
1_ 27 I
1 69 1
--
7 1 70,1001
[STORAGE IN STRUCTURES J_ _1 1 -_ 1
I
I
I 1 1
1
1 2 1
3
1 -- 1 1001
ISPECIAL STRUCTURES I 3 1 1 1
1
_1 1 1 1 L
5
1 I
6
I -- ( 1,1001
1F' ^ ^UTSIDE OF STRUCTURES
1
I 0 I
1
1 -- I 5001
LFIRES IN HIGHWAY VEHICLES 1 4 1 10 1 9
1 5
1 13
1 6 1
39
1 8 1
47
1 -- 1 63,9251
LFIRES IN OTHER VEHICLES I I 1
1_._
I
I I
0
1 0 I
0
1 - 1 - -I
FIRES IN BRUSH, GRASS 7 I 1 i 7 1
29�
32 I
201
80
1 16 1
96
1 -- I 2001
FIRES IN RUBBISH, DUMPSTERS 1 1 2 1 1 1
2
2
3 1
9
1 1 1
10
�__ - 1 2,5001
IALL OTHER FIRES 1 1 1 1 I
I 2 I
I
3
1 0 1
3
1 -- 1 2001
IMEDICAL AID RESPONSES 1 l i 1 1 1
6
I 3 I
1 1
11
1 1 1
12
IMALICIOUS FALSE ALARMS* I l i I I
1 1
l I
1
1 2 I
3
IMUTUAL AID OR ASSISTANCE i 1 1 I 2 I
3
I 3 I
1 1
10
1 0 1
10
IALL OTHER RESPONSES 1 2 1 1 1 8 1
13
1 10 1
7 1
31
1 10 1
41
I -- 1 1001
TOTALS l 60 1 62 1 103 1 161 1 172 1 115 1 300 1 373 1 673 1 18 1 $483,3701
*INCLUDED IN FALSE ALARM TOTALS
JANUARY - SEPTEMBER 1986
CONFIRMED CALLS
193
FALSE ALARMS
280
TOTAL CALLS
473
ESTIMATED LOSS
$289,110
APARTMENT_
RESIT
See to it that
"Crime
Doesn't Pays"
— On Your
Expense!!!
-71 ""A c,,,-
MOST
,
MOST CRIMES RELATED TO APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE PROPERTY CRIMES SUCH
AS THEFT FROM VEHICLES AND BURGLARY. TO HELP RESIDENTS DETER THIS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING STEPS:
* REMOVE VALUABLE MERCHANDISE FROM THE PASSENGER
AREA OF YOUR VEHICLE.
* REPORT SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY OR PERSONS TO THE
POLICE IMMEDIATELY BY CALLING 9-1-1. THIS MAY
BE SOMEONE GOING FROM CAR TO CAR AND LOOKING
INSIDE OR TRYING DOORS. MAKE SURE YOU GIVE
THE POLICE A GOOD DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING AGE,
HEIGHT, SEX, CLOTHING, AND ANY VEHICLE THAT
MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM WITH A LICENSE
NUMBER.
* YOUR ENTRY APARTMENT DOOR SHOULD HAVE A DEADBOLT
LOCK.
* YOUR SLIDING PATIO DOOR SHOULD HAVE A "CHARLIE BAR"
TYPE LOCK OR A SIMILIAR TYPE BAR BLOCKING THE LOWER
TRACK.
* USE TIMERS ON LIGHTS AND RADIOS WHEN YOUR AWAY.
* TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. GET TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
IT WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO IDENTIFY SUSPICIOUS PERSONS.
ALSO, FIND A NEIGHBOR YOU TRUST TO PICK UP PAPERS,
ETC. WHEN ON VACATION.
* GROUND FLOOR WINDOWS SHOULD HAVE PIN LOCKS.
* CALL 9-1-1 IF SUSPICIOUS PERSONS ARE LOITERING IN
HALLS OR LAUNDRY ROOMS OR LURKING ABOUT OUTSIDE
WINDOWS.
* USE OPERATION Z.D. TO MARK YOUR VALUABLES. THIS IS
AVAILABLE THROUGH YOUR LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IF EACH RESIDENT WILL TAKE A FEW SIMPLE STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR
PROPERTY AND ALSO HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORS',
IT WILL TAKE A BITE OUT OF CRIME.
Sliding Doors
Sliding glass doors need special attention:
• Prevent both panels from being lifted
up and out of the tracks. Secure
the stationary panel with a screw
from the inside into the door and
frame. The top track should have
small screws protruding down so
the door barely clears them.
• When locked, wedge the sliding door
with a swinging metal rod( a
"Charlie Bar") to prevent entry even
if the lock is picked or broken. A less
desirable option is to wedge a
wooden rod (a broom stick, for
example) into the bottom track.
Citizens and Police Together
Making Our Community Safer.
/T REAL Y WORKS!
TAKE A BITE OUT OF
q:RIME
7`-'-1C,-
E
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
September 28, 1987
ATTN: City of Plymouth Apartment/Condominium owners and Managers
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The City of Plymouth Fire Prevention Department in their
continuing efforts to provide a more fire safe atmosphere for the
residents of Plymouth has further strengthened the ordinance
concerning the use of barbecues on balconies of multiple dwelling
units.
We would appreciate your assistance in disseminating this
information to your residents and making them aware of the impact
of the latest changes. We have provided a notice concerning the
ordinance, the effective date, and the punishment for a violation
of said ordinance.
We would appreciate your providing each of your residents a copy
of this notice and also placing a copy on your bulletin boards.
It is not our intent to catch anyone unaware, and we certainly
appreciate your assistance in making your residents aware of this
change in the ordinance concerning the use of barbecues.
Please advise if there is any other way in which we can assist
you, and we appreciate your help in this matter.
VVSi ce lid �� ,
. C. Robinson
Fire Chief
LCR:ly
enclosure
cc: Richard Carlquist, Public Safety Director
Stan Scofield, Fire Inspector
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 555-2600
-7 ---'LA b
NOTICE
On August 24, 1987 the City Council of the City of Plymouth
adopted a new City Ordinance which makes it illegal to use or
store any barbecues, flame producing devices, charcoal or fuel,
on balconies or patios of dwelling units that are stacked two (2)
or more in height.
EFFECTIVE December 1, 1987 this ordinance will be enforced.
A violation of the ordinance is misdemeanor punishable by up to
90 days in jail or up to a $700.00 fine, or both.
A GUIDE TO MINNESOTA'S
NEW PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM
DRAFT
9/18/87
ISL
MUNICIPAL
LEC31SLATIVE
COMMISSION
1500 Northland Plaza
3800 West 80th Street
Bloomington, Mirrhesota 5501-.:
(612)893-6650
�, ,� 11i'uv `' f—
INTRODUCING .. .
P. TAX
P. TAX WILL BE YOUR GUIDERS WEATTEMPT TO UNRAVEL
THE MYSTERIES OFMINNESOTA S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM.
MinnesotaLegislative Commis Ion
'Introducing Property Taxes'
i
im
3NTNOWCI'30N
OST LOCAL/STATE FISCAL
LAWS HAVE BECOME OCOM-
PLEX AND CONFUSING TIIA AC-
COUNTABILITY HAS BEEN LOST.
v THIS BOOKLET WILLATTFMPTTO
EXPLAIN IN A SIMPLE FASHION
SOME OF TIE SIGNIFICANT COM-
PONENTS OF MINNESOTA'S NEW
PROPERTY TAX SYSI'EM, WHICH
WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE IN 1989.
THESE COMPONENTS INCLUDE:
*LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AIDS
•
SCHOOL FINANCE
eHOMESTEAD REIMBUR-
J SFMENT AID
FISCAL DISPARITIES
--�/� • CLASSIFICATION RATIOS
e ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
\� •LEVY LIMITS
Minnesota Legislative Commission
-1m,od—ing Properly Taxes'
DON'T BE AFRAID!
IT'S GOING TO BE EASY ...
Minnesota Legislative Commission
-Introducing Property Taxes -
P. TAX LIVES IN A TYPICAL MLC SUBURB IN THE TWIN CITIES
METROPOLITAN AREA. HE LIVES IN AN AVERAGE ROME IN EDEN
PRAIRIE WITH A MARKET VALUE OF 594,000. P. TAX CALLS HIS HOME
VALHALLA-
MARY
ALHALLAMARY METRO LIVES IN AN AVERAGE HOME IN MINNEAPOLIS WITH A
MARKET VALUE OF $93,000. SHE CALLS IIER HOME TARA.
RALPH RURAL LIVES IN AN AVERAGE HOME IN BEMIDJI WHII A
MARKET VALUE OF $49,000. HE CALLS HIS HOME SNOWBIRD.
VALHALLA, TARA AND SNOWBIRD ARE ALL 25 YEARS OLD, ARE 13(X)
SQUARE FEET, THREE BEDROOM RAMBLERS, WITH 1-1/2
BATHROOMS. EACH HOME HAS AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT, CENTRAL
AIR, A FIREPLACE AND A DOUBLE GARAGE.
FOUR EASY STEPS TO FIGURE
YOUR PROPERTY TAXES
0 0
• STEP ONE: DETERMINE MARKET VALUE
is STEP TWO: APPLY CLASSIFICAI'ION RATIOS TO MARKET
VALUE TO ARRIVE AT ASSESSED VALUE
•STEPTHREE: APPLY MILL RATE TO ASSESSED VALUE TO
ARRIVE AT GROSS TAX
• STEP FOUR: SUBTRACT CRFDITS FROM GROSS TAX TO
ARRIVE AT NETTAX
Page 3 Page 4
Mlnnesote Legislative Commission
Introducing Propeny Teses'
ASSESSED VALUATION
LET'S LOOK AT OUR THREE MODEL HOMES AS EXAMPLES
PROPERTY TAX PAYABLE IN 1989...
VALHALLA
TARA
SNOWBIRD
594,000
583,0011
$49,000
Market Value
Market Value
Market Value
Homestead
Homestead
Homestead
540,760
$34,160
$18,130
Assessed Value
Assessed Value
Assessed Value
HOW DID WE FIGURE ASSESSED VALUE FOR THESE HOMES?
Minnesota Leglslative Commission
'Introducing Propeny T.—
z
TURN THE; PAGE
FOR THEANSIVER LP-STIIE LEGISLATURE AND NOT LOCALOFFICIALS WHO DETERMINE
IIIE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY AND ON ASSESSMENT RATIOS
FOR EACH CLASS OF PROPERTY. THROUGHTHE SYSTEM OF CLASS-
IFYING DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT RATES, THE
LEGISLA I'URE SETSI'HE POLICY REGARDING THE SHAREOFTAX EACH
PROPERTY OWNER WOULD PAY.
r
Page 6
Page 5 {
i
Minnesota Legislatlw Commission
"Introducing Prooertv Taxes"
MINNESOTA PRESENTLY HAS MORETI IAN 70 DIFFERENTCLASSIFICA-
TIONS OF PROPERTY — MORE CLASSES THAN ANY STATE IN THE
UN ION. THIS COMPLEX SYSTEM HAS CAUSED CONFUSION AND A LACK
OF ACCOUNTABILITY. THE 1987 LEGISLATURE FINALLY ENACTED A
MUCH SIMPLER FIVE -CLASS SYSTEM WHICH WILL GO 1N l'O EFFECT 1N
I9xy_
TODAY 70+ CLASSIFICATIONS
�3,
iQ
a
1
4
1989 FIVE CLASSIFICA11ONS
OK, SO YOU KNOW THATOUR THREE MODEL HOMES ARE HOMESTEAD
PROPERTY, THAT STILL DOESNT EXPLAIN HOW THE MARKET VALUES
DROPTO MUCH LOWER ASSESSED VALUES. AS WAS PREVIOUSLY MEN-
TIONED, THE LEGISLATURE ALSO SETS ASSESSMENT RATES AS THE
CHART ON THE NEXT PAGE WILL SHOW.
Page
i
Minnesota Legislative Commission
"Introducing Prooenv Texes'
1989 CLASSES & ASSESSMENT RATIOS
f9�<xiicwion
Class I
Homeowners
Accescmenl Rntioc
37% up to $68,000 market value
60% over SW(M market value
Class 2
Farmers
30% up to 566,01111 market value
40% over 566,000 market value
Class 3
Office &
60010 up to $80,000 of market value
Commercial
96% over S80,0f10 of market value
Building
Owners
Class 4
Apartment
70% of market value if four or
Owners
more units
609b of market value if three or
fewer units
Class 5
All Other
96% of market value
Property
Types
WHY ARETHERETWO RATES FOR HOMEOWNERS?
THE LEGISLATURE HAS SET THE POLICY THAT HIGH VALUED HOMES
SHOULD PAY A GREATER PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN
THAN LOW VALUED HOMES. A HOME WITH A MARKET OF $136,000
WHICH IS 100% MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A HOME WITH A MARKET
VALUE OF 568,000 DOESN T PAY 100% MORE IN PROPERTY TAXES.
RATHER, A $136.000 HOME WOULD PAY 162% MORE IN PROPERTY TAXES
DUE, TO THE SPLIT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM. THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR
FARMERS, APARTMENT OWNERS AND OFFICE BUILDING OWNERS.
THIS POLICY ASSUMES THAT OWNERS OF HIGHER VALUED HOMES
HAVE A GREATER ABILITY TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES THAN OWNERS
OF LOWER VALUED HOMES.
Page 8
MinnesotaLegisktive Commission
•Introducing Properly Taxes'
j�ETURNINGTO OUR THREE MODELS. WE KNOW THEY ARE HOMES-
-'T'EADEDRROPERTIES SO WE USE THE RATES FOR CLASS 1 PROPER-
TY. THE ASSESSED VALUE IS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:.
VALHALLA
37%a z last $68,000 = S25,160
.60%a x renxening S16 0f (1 = S15�600
Market Vatic $94,000 = $40,760 Assessed Value
TARA
.37%x first $68,000 = $25,160
.60%x remai6ng is (lfi9 = 2004
Market Value $83,000 = $34,160 Assessed Value
SNOWBIRD
37%x first $49,000 = $18,130
.60 x remaining -fl-
Market
!EMarket Vadte $49,((tt) _ $18,130 Assessed Value
s
Minnesota Legislative Commission
'introducing Property Taxes'
ASTHECHARTBELOW ILLUSTRATE.S,TIIEPERCENTAGE OFASSESSED
VALUE COMPARED TO MARKET VALUE INCREASES AS THE VALUE.
OF THE HOME INCREASES.
NOW THAT WE KNOW -11 IE ASSESSED VALUE, WE CAN PROCEED TO
STEP THREE -- APPLYING THE MILL RATE.
UNLIKE CLASSIFICATION TYPES AND ASSESSMENT RATIOS THE MILL
RATE IS NOT DIRECTLY SET' BY THE LEGISLATURE. (WE'LL TALK
ABOUT I.EVY LIMITS LATER.)
Page 10
Assessed as
Market
Assessed
Percentage
Value
Value
of Market
Valhalla $94,W0
$40,760
434%
Tara $83,000
$34,160
41.217o
Snowbird $49,000
518,130
37.0%
NOW THAT WE KNOW -11 IE ASSESSED VALUE, WE CAN PROCEED TO
STEP THREE -- APPLYING THE MILL RATE.
UNLIKE CLASSIFICATION TYPES AND ASSESSMENT RATIOS THE MILL
RATE IS NOT DIRECTLY SET' BY THE LEGISLATURE. (WE'LL TALK
ABOUT I.EVY LIMITS LATER.)
Page 10
Minnesota Leybhnw Comission
^Imroducirg m
Property Taxer PAYABLE 1989 TAXES
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES ARE SET BY LOCAL TAXING JURISDICTIONS TO
SUPPORT LOCAL SPENDING DECISIONS
CITIES, COUNTIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS FIRSTDL-TERMINE WHAT
THEIRTOTAL BUDGET FOR SERVICES WILL BE. THEYTHEN SUBTRACT
ANY INCOMETHEY RECEIVE FROM FEES, LICENSES AND OTHER FUNDS
SUCI I AS STATE AIDS. THE RESULT IS THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THEY
MUST LEVY ON PROPERTY OWNERS.
u .V ��
t z:. �EP
!
or
School Districts Cities Counties Total
Dollar Levy + Dollar Levy + Dollar Levy = Dollar Levy
ONCE THE TOTAL DOLLAR LEVY IS SET BY THE DIFFERENT TAXING
JURISDICTIONS, A MILL RATE IS CALCULATED. THE MILLRATE IS SIMP-
LY A FORMULA USED TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH ATAXPAYER WILL
PAY IN PROPERTY TAXES TO SUPPORT THESE EXPENDITURES.
Page
Minnesota Legislative Commission
'Introduclnq Prooerty Taxes'
LET'S SAY, FOR F,XAMPLE, TI IATA CITY'S DOLLAR LEVY IS $1.2 MILLION
AND ALL OF T'l1E ASSESSED VALUE. (NOT MARKET VALUE) OF ALL OF
'111E PROPERTY WITHIN THAT CITY IS $150 MILLION. THE MILL RATE
COMPUTATION WOULD GO LIKE THIS...
I S150,(1(X),(l(10 Assessed Value Idivided by} S1,200,000 Levy = .008 = 8 Mills I
IF THE TOTAL LEVY FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND SCHOOLS WERE
$7,500,000, THE COMPITT'ATION WOULD BE...
5150.000,0(!(1 Assessed Value {divided by} S7,500,(X)O Levy = .050 = 50 Midis
REMEMBER, MILL RATES VARY DUE TO LOCAL SPENDING DECISIONS.
11 I'IIE TOTAL DOLLAR LEVY IS LESS,THE MILL RATE WILL DROP.
P. TAX'S PROPERTY TAX BILL WOULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS:
Mills Ta
Education Levy 25.6 51%
County Levy 13.2 27
City Levy 8.7 17
Miscellaneous Levy:
Met Council, Mosquito
Gmlrui, Watershcds 2„} __s
Page 12
Minnesota LeplsistWe Commission
Introducing Property Taxes'
SINCE THE CITIES OF MINNEAPOLIS AND BEMIDJI SPEND DIFFERENT-
LY AND HAVE A DIFFERENTTAX BASETHAN THE TYPICAL MLC SUB-
URB THEIR MILT. RATES WILL BE SIMILARTO'1HE CHART BELOW:
VALHALLA
Valhaila'<
Service CoteM111s
°fB
PropeaXTaxes
Education Levy
25.6
51
S 703
County Levy
13.2
27
372
City Lcvy
8.7
17
234
Miscellaneous Levy
2.3
5
69
Tara
49.8
100
$1,378
TARA
Tara%
C C
Service Miilc %p Prnne�Taxec
F.ducalion Levy 22.3 43 $473
County Levy 12.1 23 253
City Levy 15.8 30 330
Miscellaneous Levy 2.0
Snmwhird'e
Service Costs
Properr(y Taxec
Education Levy
29.6
48
5260
County Levy
19.9
32
173
City levy
4 44
108
SNOWBIRD
A
Snmwhird'e
Service Costs
Properr(y Taxec
Education Levy
29.6
48
5260
County Levy
19.9
32
173
City levy
12.6
20
108
Miscellaneous Levy
A
0
0
Tara
62.2
100
$541
Page 13
Minneso4 LegislatWe Commission
-Imrodutinq Property Taxes -
TME CHART BELOW ILLUSTRATES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A
HOME'S VALUE AND THE PROPERTY TAXES AN OWNER PAYS.
REMEMBER, VALHALLA, TARA AND SNOWBIRD ARE ALL COMPARABLE
I.E., EACH HOUSE IS A 25 YEARS OLD, 1300 SQUARE FEET, THREE-
BEDROOM RAMBLER, WI -1-1-1 1 12 BATHROOMS, AN UNFINISHED BASE-
MIiNT, CENTRAL AIR, A FIREPLACE AND A DOUBLE GARAGE.
Property
Value
%Greater
Taxes
%Increase
Valhalla
$94,000
$1,378
13.2%
25.2%
Tara
S83,O00
1,100
Valhalla
$94,(X)0
$1,378
91.8%
154.7%
Snowbird
$49,(XX)
541
Tara
$83,(XX)
51,100
69.4%
103.3%
Snowbird
$49,000
541
REMEMBER, VALHALLA, TARA AND SNOWBIRD ARE ALL COMPARABLE
I.E., EACH HOUSE IS A 25 YEARS OLD, 1300 SQUARE FEET, THREE-
BEDROOM RAMBLER, WI -1-1-1 1 12 BATHROOMS, AN UNFINISHED BASE-
MIiNT, CENTRAL AIR, A FIREPLACE AND A DOUBLE GARAGE.
i
Minna.< legielatiw Committal
'Introducino Property T!xea'
CITY SPENDING
j`j OCUSING ON CrIY SPENDING FOR ONE ADDITIONAL MOMENT. P.
TAX AND HIS FAMILY PAY ONLY S303 IN NET PROPERTY TAXFS FOR
THE SERVICES HE RECEIVED IN HIS CITY. EXAMPLES OF MUNICIPAL
SERVICES ARE:
• Fire Protection
• Police Protection
• City Parks and Recreation Programs
• City Street Repairs and Plowing
ALSO YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT MILL RATFS CAN VARY DUE TO AS-
SESSED VALUE. THE MORE ASSESSED VALUE ATAXING DISTRICT HAS
WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES, THE LOWER TI IE MILL RATE NEEDSTO BETO
COLLECT THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS. THIS
DOESN'T MEAN THE PROPERTY TAXPAYER WILL PAY LESS_ A I OWER
MIT I. RATE ON HIGHER VALUE PAYS AS MUCH AS A HIGH 'NII 1 RATE
ON LOW VALIIF;
AS WE PROCEED wrim OUR EXAMINATION OF MINNESOTA'S PROPER-
TY TAX SYSTEM, WE'LL TOOK TO OUR THREE MODELS TO SEF. HOW
EACH PROVISION WOULDAFFECTTHE PROPERTY TAXTHEIR OWNERS
WOULD PAY.
Page 15
Minnesota Legislative Commission
"Introducing Property Tii.ei
TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM
BEGINNING IN 1967, WHEN TI IE STATE ENACTED A 3% SALES TAX (IT'S
PRESENTLY 6%), THE LEGISLATURE STEPPED UP ITS POLICY OF
TRANSFER PAYMENTS WHERL'BY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INCOME
TAX AND SALES TAX REVENUES ARRIVE ATTHE STATE TREASURY IN
S71'. PAUL AND ARE CONVERTED BACK TO TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO
LOCAL. UNITS OF GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TO HOLD
DOWN PROPERTY TAXES. IN 1987 MORE THAN
$2,625,000,000
T'ILArS 2.62 BILLION DOLLARS, FOLKS!
WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO
SCHOOLS, CITIES AND COUNTIES
MINNESOTA'S TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM
ANNUALCOST
1987
Homestead Credit (non -education)
S 320,000,000
Agricultural Tax Credit
116,0(X),(KX)
Local Government Aids
324,000,((X)
State Paid Education Aids
1,467,000,000
School Property Tax Credits
398,(XX),000
TOTAL
S2,625,000,0W
Page
MinnesotaLegiflaliva Commission
.Imroaucing Property Taxes"
THE TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM
WORKS LIKE THIS ...
Payto the
Order o[ I I Slate IS 2,620,000, UUU ,
r 2,620,000,000 Legislature f
Taxpayers Pay Decides Now To Money Is Sent Schools, Cities, Taxpayer pays
State 52.62 Split Up These Out Based On And Counties $2.62 Billion
Billion Extra Extra Income & Legislative Receive Dollars Less in property
Income & Sales SalesTax Policies taxes
Revenues
JUST BECAUSE YOU PAID SI,(XX) IN ADDITIONAL INCOME AND SALES
TAXES DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL RECEIVE Sl,(XX) IN ADDITIONAL
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF! SOMEONE WILL, BUT IT MAY NOT BE YOU.
SOME WILL RECEIVE MORE, SOME WILL RECEIVE LESS.
Page 17
zs
Minnesota Legislative Commission
'Inlrooucing Properly Taxes'
TRANSFER PAYMENTS GUARANTEE- TIIAT TILE SAME PEOPLE PAYING
INCOME AND SALES TAXES WILL NQI HE THE SAME PEOPLE RECEIV-
ING PROPERTY TAX REIJF.F. THIS REDISTRIBUTION OFTAX PAYMENTS
IS THE INTElMONAL RESULT OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY. LEGISLATORS
DEVISE FORMULAS TO REDISTRIBUTE TAX DOLLARS. TWO FORMULAS
WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED ARE CLASSIFICA'T'ION SYS"IEMS AND
ASSESSMENT RATIOS. ANOTHER POLICY WHICH REDISTRIBUTES TAX
DOLLARS IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID FORMULA.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID
TI IE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1971.
THIS PROGRAM WILL RECEIVE $324 MILLION IN TRANSFER PAYMENTS
IN 1988. BECAUSE THE FORMULA IN 1971 WAS EXPENSE -DRIVEN, THE
NET RESULT TODAY IS CITIES WHICH HISTORICALLY HAVE SPENT
FEWER DOLLARS ARE PENALIZED.
TI IE EFFECT OF THE CURRENT IOCALGOV FRNMF.NT AID FORMULA IS
TO GIVE FEWER DOLLARS PER PERSON TO M LC CITI ES AN D MORE DOL-
LARS PER PERSON TO CITIES OFTIIE FIRST CLASS AND LARGER OUT -
STATE CITIES. THIS DISPARITY IS INTENTIONAL. THE LOCAL GOVERN-
MENT AID FORMULA 1S N07' DEl'ERMINED ON A PER CAPITA BASIS,
I IOWEVER, POR IIJ.USTRATIVE PURPOSES THE CHART BELOW SHOWS
HOW MUCH A FAMILY OF FOUR WOULD RECEIVE IN LOCALGOVERN-
MENT AID FOR EACH OF THE RESPECI7 V E CITIES.
Page 1
Minnesota Legfslative Commission
`Introducing Properly Taxes'
VALHALLA
Cross City Property Without LGA,
Homestead Credit or School Finance
Translcr Payments
$2,539
Lecal Gow:rnmcnl Aid
-34
Property Tax with LGA Reduction
3505
Percent Reduction Due to LAA
1%
TARA
Gross City Property Without LGA,
Homestead Credit or School Ftoance
Transfer Payments
22.233
kcal GovtrnmeM Aid
.214
Propcny Tax with L(:A Reduction
f2, 109
Perecnt Reduction Due to L.(;A
1111
SNOWBIRD
Gross City Properly Without LGA,
Itomestead Credit or School Fussnce
Transfer Payments
$1,770
Local Govcmurcol Aid
-158
Property Taxwith LAA Reduction
f17612
Percent Reduction Dun to LAA
10%
IS IT REALLY FAIR THAT THE DISPARITY AMONG THESE HOMES IS SO
GREAT? SHOULDNTTHE PRESENT LGA POLICY BE RE-EXAMINED AND
REVISED? THE MLC BELIEVES SO.
Page 19
Minnesota Legblatire Commission
`Inlroduclnq
Property Taxes'
HOW ARE LGA PAYMENTS TO CITIES COMPUTED FOR 1987?
TI IE FORMULA WORKED LIKE THIS:
1. PAYABLE 1963 PROPERTY TAX LEVY:
2. PAYABLE 1984 PROPERTY TAX LEVY:
3. PAYABLE 1985 PROPERTY TAX LEVY:
4. 1983 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID:
5.19a4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID:
6. 1985 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID:
7. 1983 ATTACHED MACHINERY AID:
8. 1983 POPULATION ESTIMATE+
9. 1983 AIIACNED MACH
THERT AID PER CAPITA (7/8):
10. ATTACNE0 MACHINERY AID ADJUSTMENT (7, IF 9 I5 GREATER THAN 670.00):
11. ADJUSTED 1984 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (5-10):
12. ADJUSIED 1985 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (6-10):
13. 1983 FISCAL NEED (194):
15. 1964 FISCAL NEED (2.11):
15. 1985 FISCAL NEED (3912):
16. 3 YEAR SUM OF FISCAL NEED (13914915):
17. PRELIMINARY 1966 FISCAL NEED FACTOR (16/3.0)r
18. 25X OF 1982 WATER WELL BOHOSR1
19. FINAL 1986 FISCAL NEED FACTOR (17916):
20. 1955 POPULATION ESTIMATE:
21. FISCAL NEED PER CAPITA (19/20):
22. LOCAL EFFORT MILL RATE:
23. 2964 ADJUSTEDASSESSED VALUE:
24. FISCAL CAPACITY (22 X 25):
25. 1986 PRELIMINARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (1 9-24)
26. AOJU ST ED 1986 PRELIMINARY AID (GREATER OF 6 0
27. FINA LADJUEL
STED 1986 PRIMINARY AID (10926):
28. 1986 AID INCREASE (27-6):
29. AID52
30. 19861 LOCALS GOVERNMENT AID AFTER FOR P APPROPRI ARIATION T ION MIT IIMi1 22(6929):
31. 1984 POPULATION ESTIMATE:
32. 19a5 LOCAL 60V ER HMFHT AID PER CAPITA (6/31):
33. MAXIMUM AID IF 1985 LGA PER CAPITA 15 GREATER 111AN
OR EQUAL TO 8150.00 (6 X 1.06):
34. MAXIMUM AID IF 1985 LGA PER CAPITA 15 LESS THAN 8150.00 (6 X 1.12):
35. MAXIMUM AID IF 1985 LGA PER CAPITA IS LESS THAN
01SD.00 (31 X 8159.00):
36. FINAL MAXIMUM AID (33 OR LESSER OF 34 OR 35):
37. 102% OF 1985 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (CITIES OF THE FIRST CLASS ONLY):
36. PRELIMINARY 1986 LGA (LESSER OF 30 OR 36. BUT NOT LESS THAN
37 FOR FIRST CLASS CITIES):
39. REDUCTION FOR 5IATE COS (5 1
38 X OD0623251:
40. FINAL 1906 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (36-39):
KIND OF COMPLICATED AINT rr?
4,226,375
4,745.400
5,046,627
452.056
258.647
274,166
2.705
19.700
.14
258,647
274.166
4,678.411
5.004.047
5.320.793
15.001.251
5.001,084
5.001.064
":I
IS
207.91
12.996
293.895.575
3.819,467
1.161.617
1.181.617
1.181.61
907.451 1
204,376
478.544
21.250
32.90
307.066
3,378.75D
307.066
Page zG
307.066
191
306.875
Minnesotalegislativs Commission
9ntroeucing Property Taxes"
FO1988 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS PER CAPITA AVERAGED $27.58
FOR MLCCPtIES, $170.08 FOR MINNEAPOLIS, $142.56 FOR ST. PAULAND
S 146.92 FOR DULUTH.
LCA PER CAPITA
Eagan
$9.04
Plymouth
9.83
Eden Prairie
11.05
Edina
12.46
Shoreview
19.14
Maple Grwe
1931
Roseville
25.01
Woodbury
33.74
Bloomington
34.37
Inver Graft Heights
35.82
Minnetonka
38.07
Burnsville
38.54
Brooklyn Park
40.69
White Bear Lake
43.43
Maplewood
52.71
Average MLC City
$27.58
Golden Valley
$64.47
Brooklyn Center
70.89
Moorhead
89.57
Rochester
91.70
Brainerd
114.93
Alexandria
130.06
St. Paul
142.56
Bemidji
14636
Duluth
146.92
Minneapolis
170.08
Statewide Average
$91.37
MinnesotaLegislative Commission
'Introducing Property Taxes'
THE MLC BELIEVES THE DISPARrIIES BETWEEN ALL THE CRIES ARE
TOO GREATAND SHOULD BE REDUCED OVERTIME BY CHANGING
THE FORMULA TO PROVIDE A FAIRER AND MORE EQUITABLE SYSTEM.
LGA Per LGA Per
CAAM CaPiL2
MLC Cities $27.58 MLC Cities 527.58
Minneapolis $170.08 St. Paul $142.56
Disparity $142.50 Disparity $114.98
Percent Disparity 517% Percent Disparity 417%
LGA Per LGA Per
capita capita
MLC Citics $27S8 MLC Cities $27.58
Bemidji $146.36 Statewide Average 59137
Disparity $118.78 Disparity $63.79
Percent Disparity 431% Percent Disparity 231%
21 Page 22
LGA Per
capita
MLCCities
$27.58
Golden Valley
564.47
Disparity
536.89
Percent Disparity
134%
21 Page 22
LGA Per
capita
MLCCities
$27.58
Brooklyn Center
$70.89
Disparity
$43.31
Percent Disparity
157%
21 Page 22
Minnesota Legislative Commission
'InVoducl
Property Tues -
EXTRA, EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!
MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE
REPEALS LGA FORMUTA
3,111E OLD LGA FORMULA IS REPEALED EF-
FEC'T'IVE JANUARY 1, 1988. HOWEVER, THE LGA
ALLOCATION AMOUNTS REMAIN THE SAME, THEREBY, CONTINUING
THE DISPARITIES AND UNFAIRNESS THAT NOW EXIST.
REMEMBER, AS CITIES GROW IN POPUTAT1ON AND PROBLEMS, THE
PRESENT FORMULA DOESNT TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT. THIS 1S A
FLAW WHICH SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
MLC POLICY STATEMENT
C --
MINNESOTA'S LGA FORMULA SHOULD NOT INCLUDE FACTORS
WHICH REWARD SPENDING. THE MLC BELIEVES A WEIGFITED PER
CAPITA FORMULA HAS MERIT. PEOPLE CREATE PROBLEMS AND
DEMAND SERVICES, THEREFORE ANY FORMULA SI IOULD TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION SEVERAL DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS. THE MLC WILL
DEVELOP AND PROPOSE A NEW FORMULA WHICH WILL CONSIDER
THESE FACTORS.
Page 23
Minnesota Legislative Commission
'Introducing Properly Taxes"
F,XTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!
L 'ytis
0f�
HOMESTEAD CREDIT PROGRAM REPEALED
BEGINNING IN 1989, THE HOMESTEAD CREDIT
PROGRAM 1S REPEALED. IN ITS PLACE WILL BE A
NEW PROG RAM THE 1987 LEGISLATURE ENACTED,
CALLED HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENT AID.
LFT'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS NEW PROGRAM.
HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENT AtD
THE STATE WILL NO LONGER REIMBURSE 54% OF LOCAL TAXES AS IT
DID UNDER THE HOMESTEAD CREDIT PROGRAM. RATHER, THE NEW
HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENTAID IS FIGURED LIKE THIS:
52%of the assessed value on the first $68,000 of market value
will be exempt from property taxes. The state will pay the city,
county, school districts for this assessment value, i.e., lost
Page 24
Minneeote 1stative Commbslon
.1. my Prolmry Taxes•
HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENT AID
O HOW rr'S FIGURED
VAr i as ri ° I
--$94,000 Market Valuc, first S68,000 market v-dluc x 37% assessment ratio = $25,160
assessed value
--52% of this value will be exempt from the property tax levy -- 52%x 525,160 =
$13,093.
-413,063 is the amount the county auditor will subtract from the total assessed value
before the mill rate is applied.
The amount of credit the taxpayer will receive is computed as follows:
s 03,0193 Exempt Amount
X 04" Local Mill Rate
S 651,53 Homestead Replacement Aid Credit
THEREFORE, PROPERTY TAX ON A HOME WITH 594,000 TOTAL MARKET
VALUE WOULD BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:
S12,077
en the rug 569,(Xx)
_
025,160 - 513,093 = 512,077)
+15.6011
on the remaining 526,000
(no exemption over 54000)
5 27,677
Irxal assessedvalue
x !4199
local mill rate of 49.9 mills
31,379-31
NETPROPERTYTAX
THIS $651.53 WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE PAID BY P. TAX IF THE LEGISLA-
TURE DECIDED TO NOT -SUBSIDIZE" LOCAL SPENDING THROUGH
ANOTHER STATE DEVISED 'TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM," NOW
CALLED HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENT AID.
Page 25
�s
Minnesota L"Istative Commission
'Introducino Property Taus'
TART► Q I I Q
—$83,000 Market Value, first 568,000 market value x 37% assessment ratio= $25,160
assessed value
--52% of this value will be exempt from the property tax levy — 52% x $25,160 =
$13,083.
--$13,083 is the amount the county auditor will subtract from the total assessed value
before the mill rate is applied.
The amount of credit the taxpayer will receive is computed as follows:
313,093 Pxmpt Amount
x .0522 local mill Rate
S 692.93 Hrxneaead Replacement Aid Credit
THEREFORE, PROPERTY TAX ON A HOME WITH 583,00(1 TOTAL MARKET
VALUE WOULD BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:
S 12,077
on the first W,000
_
(S15,14A - $13,093 = $12,077)
+ 9,00
on the remainingd $15,000
(no exemption over 569,000)
$ 21,077
total assessed value
x .0522
Ines1 mill are of 52.2 mills
sijac1
NET PROPERTY TAX
TI IIS $682.93 WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE PAID BY MARY MEIRO IF THE
LEGISLATURE DECIDED TO NOT "SUBSIDIZE" LOCAL SPENDING
THROUGHANOTHER LER STATE DEVISED -TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM,"
NOW CALLED HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENT AID.
Page 26
Minnesota Legislative Commission
`Introducin Pro ert Taxes'
SNOWBIRD Ion,
-449,000 Market Value, first S49,INHl market value x 37%a assessment ratio= $18,130
assessed value
-52% of this value will be exempt from the property tax levy --52%x$18,130 = $9,428.
--59,428 is the amount the county auditor will subtract from the total assessed value
before the mill rate is applied.
The amount of credit the taxpayer will receive is computed as follows:
S 9,_428 EacmPt An,.ont
x .0622 t.ocal Mill Rale
S 586.42 Homestead Replacement Aid Credit
THEREFORE, PROPERTY TAX ON A HOME WITH $49,(0)TOTALMARKET
VALUE WOULD BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:
S 8,702 on the fire S49,000
(SI8,130-59.428 = S8,702)
S 8,702 [Nat asxsxd value
x 60622 total mill ratc of 62.2 mill.
S 541.26 NET PROPERTY TAX
TI IIS 5586.42 WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE PAID BY RALPH RURAL IF THE
LEGISLATURE DECIDED TO NOT "SUBSIDIZE" LOCAL SPENDING
THROUGH ANOTHER SPATE DEVISED "TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM,"
NOW CALLED HOMESTEAD REPLACEMENT AID.
AND THEY PROMISED
rl' WOULD BE SIMPLER
Page 27
zs
Minnesota Leylslativa Commisslo t
'Introducing Property Taxes'
IN THEORY THATSTHE WAY ITS SUPPOSEDTO WORK. 1'IIIS FORMULA
WILL BE USED AN D TI IE CREDIT WILL APPEAR ON P. TAX'S PROPERTY
TAX BILL IN REALITY WHAT WILL HAPPEN 1S THE STATE WILL TAKE
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF HOMESTEAD CREDIT DOLLARS YOUR CITY
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN 1988 IF THE HOMESTEAD CREDIT WOULD
HAVE BEEN SET AT A 52% MAXIMUM. THIS AMOUNT WILL BE THE
STATE APPROPRIATION YOUR CITY WILL RECEIVE IN 1989. IN FUTURE
YEARS THIS AMOUNT WILL BE ADJUSTED BASED ON ADDITIONAL
HOMESTEADS AND THE INFLATION RATE.
PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ARE GIVEN CREDITS THAT DO NOT HAVE A
SPECIFIC CONNECTION TO WI LATA CITY ACTUALLY RECEIVES. THERE
WILL BE NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COMPUTA-
TIONS. DOES THAT REALLY MAKE SENSE?
WHAT DOESTHE HOMESI'EAD REPIACEMENT AID PROGRAM DIRECT-
LY MEAN TOTHEOWNERS OFOUR TIiREEMODELS? HOWDOESTHIS
TRANSFER PAYMENT SYSTEM PERSONALLY AFFECT THE PROPERTY
TAXES THEY PAY? LETS AGAIN USE OUR THREE MODELS TO COM-
PARE.
28
Minnesota Legislative Commisslon
`Introduci Property Taxes"
Valhalla Tara Snowbird
Gross Tax Levy
Without Transfer
Payments f 2,539 S 2,233 f 1,770
LGA Transfer Payment -34 -214 -158
Homestead Replacement
Transfer Payment -652 -683 -541
Total Property Tax
With LGA & Homestead
Replacement Aid
Reduction S 1,853 S 1,336 $ 1,071
Percent Reduction Due
to LGA and Homestead
Replacement Aid 37% 67% 65%u
Pegs 29
TS
MinnesotaLegislative Commisslon
'Introducing Property Taxes'
THE NEXT PROPERTYTAX MYSTERY
P.TAX WILLEXPLORE
IS SCHOOL FINANCE
Page 30
Mlnnesots Legislative Commission
-lotroductrg Property Taxes'
SCHOOL FINANCE
E DUCATION COSTS MONEY ... A LOT OF MONL'Y. FOR THE SCHOOL
YEAR 1988-89,THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS APPROPRIATED $I5BjL -
LM TO PAY FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PUBLIC EDUCA-
TION. IN ADDITION TO DIRECT' PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TH E
LEGISLATURE HAS ALSO APPROPRIATED AN ADDITIONAL $400 MIL-
LION FOR SCHOOL -RELATED PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAMS FOR
HOMEOWNERS AND FARMERS. BUT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
DOESN'T PAY THE ENTIRE EDUCATION BILL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
WILL PAY AN ADDITIONAL $1.6 11111][Orl IN TAXES DURING SCHOOL
MINNESOTA
ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY
EDUCATION SPENDING
1988-89 SCHOOL YEAR
Direct State
Appropriation $1.5 Billion
State Paid
Property Tax
Relief to. School
Districts 4 Rmi,,,,
Total State
Appropriations $1.913illion
Local Property
Tax Levies $1.6 Billion
Total Estimated
Expenditures for
Education 1988-89 $3.5 Billion
a
Minnesota Leglsistive Commission
"Introducing Properly T. -V
HOW IS THE $35 BILLION DIVIDED AMONG MINNESOTA'S 433 SC1400L
DISTRICTS? THE LEGISLATURE ENACTS DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS
WHICH DETERMINE HOW MANY STATE DOLLARS A SCI i00L DISI'RICr
RECEIVES COMPARED TO HOW MANY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS TI4 EY
MUST LEVY LOCALLY.
MINNESOTA'S CONSTITUTION REQUIRESTHATTHE LEGISLATURE "E.S-
TABLTSH A GENERAL AND UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS."
THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT EACH
SCHOOL DISTRICT MUST RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY TILE SAME NUM-
BER OF DOLLARS FOR EACH PUPIL REGARDLESS OF TME PROPERTY
VALUES W I iERE TI IAT STUDENT LIVES. IF SCI IOOIS WERE FUNDED EN-
TIRELY BY PROPERTY TAX, DISTRICTS WHICH CONTAINED AN ABUN-
DANCE OF PROPERTY WEALTH WOULD BE ABLETO PROVIDE A LARGE
AMOUNTOFSCHOOL DOLLARS BY LEVYING A SMALL MILL RATE. TI IE
CONVERSE WOULD BE TRUE FOR DISTRICTS THAT ARE "PROPERTY
POOR."
Page :11
Minnesota Legislative Commission
"IntroAucl9 Pro edTaxes'
THE LEGISLATURE THEREFORE ENACTED THE "MINNESOTA
MIRACLE" IN 1971 WHICH GUARANTEED EVERY PUPIL THE SAME
AMOUNT OF MONEY REGARDLESS OF PROPERTY WEAL'T'H. IN LOW
VALUED DISTRICTS THE STATE WOULD MAKE: UP THE DIFFERENCE
WITH STATE TAX DOLLARS. IN HIGH VALUED DISTRICT'S THE LOCAL
PROPERTY TAX WOULD PROVIDE EDUCATION DOLLARS. THIS CON-
CEPT IS CALLED:
EQUA1.17ATION
AN EXAMPLE: FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1988-89 EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN
THE STATE WILL LEVY 35 MILLS AND THE STATE WILL GUARANTEE
THAT EACH DISTRICT WILL RECEIVE $2,735PER PUPIL Wf1ETHERTl1E
$2,735 IS OBTAINED FROM STATE TAXES OR FROM PROPERTY TAXES IS
NOT IMPORTANT. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT EVERY SCHOOL DIS-
TRICT WILL RECEIVE AN IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO EDU-
CATE EACI I PUPIL
Page 33
6
r
SINCE BEMIDJI HAS MUCH LESS ASSESSED VALUE 1 RELATION TO ITS
TOTAL SCHOOL BUDGET, THE STATE PAYS TWO-THIRDS OF BEMIDJI
EDUCATION COST AND ONLY ONE-THIRD OF TME COST INCURRED BY
EDEN PRAIRIE AND MINNEAPOLIS. NOTE THE DOLLARS PER PUPIL. IN
THE LAST COLUMN ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.
'Pupils are given different wcighings. An elementary pupil is weighed one pupil unit
a secondary student will be weighed 1.35 in 1988-89. Therefore, if these school districts
contained 50 elementary and 50 secondary student%, the actual budget would be 50 x 1
+ 50 x 1.35 or 127.5 pupil units, rather than 100 pupils.
—For the purpose of this comparison, Bemidji s assessed value, property levy and state
aid payments are the amounts for the entire Bemidji School District, which includes
cities outside of the City of Bemidji's boundaries.
Page 34
Minnesota
Legialative Commission
"Introducine Property Tasea'
TO ILLUSTRATE:
%Total
Assessed
Property
State Aid
Total
State
$ Pc
Pupils'
Value
Levy
Payment
Budget
Payment
Pupi
(OW)
(000)
(000)
(000)
Ed Prairie 6,132
5390,749
512,919
$8,746
$21,665
40.4%
$3,53:
Mpls 56,964
52,647,935
$142,925
571,457
$214,382
33.3%
53,76:
Bemidji" 5,973
$104,963
$6,856
$13,958
S20,814
67.1%
$3,48`
SINCE BEMIDJI HAS MUCH LESS ASSESSED VALUE 1 RELATION TO ITS
TOTAL SCHOOL BUDGET, THE STATE PAYS TWO-THIRDS OF BEMIDJI
EDUCATION COST AND ONLY ONE-THIRD OF TME COST INCURRED BY
EDEN PRAIRIE AND MINNEAPOLIS. NOTE THE DOLLARS PER PUPIL. IN
THE LAST COLUMN ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.
'Pupils are given different wcighings. An elementary pupil is weighed one pupil unit
a secondary student will be weighed 1.35 in 1988-89. Therefore, if these school districts
contained 50 elementary and 50 secondary student%, the actual budget would be 50 x 1
+ 50 x 1.35 or 127.5 pupil units, rather than 100 pupils.
—For the purpose of this comparison, Bemidji s assessed value, property levy and state
aid payments are the amounts for the entire Bemidji School District, which includes
cities outside of the City of Bemidji's boundaries.
Page 34
MinnesotaLegislative Commission
'Ina oducing Property Taxes"
HOW DO SCHOOL FINANCE TRANSFER PAYMENTS AFFECT VALHAL.
" TARA AND SNOWBIRD? THE CHART BELOW WILL SHOW YOU:
Page 35
=S
Minnesota Leglstative Commission
-Introducing Property Taxes"
THE MLC'S POLICY ON SCHOOL FINANCE
THE MLC BELIEVES THAT ANY SYSTEM OF SCHOOL FINANCING
SHOULD BE EQUITABLE AND FAIR. THE FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY OF EQUALIZATION IS SOUND. HOWF.VER, TILE MLC OP-
POSES THE POLICY ENACTED BY THE 1987 LEGISLATURE WHICH
"RECAPTURES" LOCALLY RAISED PROPERTY TAXES. IF A SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S PROPERTY WEALTH IS SUFFICIENT TO PLACE IT OFF
THE FORMULA, THEN 'THE DISTRICT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO
LEVY FEWER MILLS RATHER THAN BE REQUIRED TO LEVY THE
MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF MILLS, TIIE EXCESS WHICH WILL BE
RECAPTURED AND REDISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE.
Valhalla
Tata
Snowbird
Gross Property Tax Bill
S2,539
$2,233
$1,770
Less LGA Transfer Amount
34
214
158
Less Homestead Replacment
Transfer Payment
652
683
541
Less School Finance
Transfer Payment
475
236
530
Total Net Property Tax
$1,378
$1,100
$541
Total Amount of State
TransferPaymems
$1,161
$1,133
$1,229
Percent Reduction in
Total Property Taxes Due
to All Transfer Payments
84%
103%
227%
Page 35
=S
Minnesota Leglstative Commission
-Introducing Property Taxes"
THE MLC'S POLICY ON SCHOOL FINANCE
THE MLC BELIEVES THAT ANY SYSTEM OF SCHOOL FINANCING
SHOULD BE EQUITABLE AND FAIR. THE FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY OF EQUALIZATION IS SOUND. HOWF.VER, TILE MLC OP-
POSES THE POLICY ENACTED BY THE 1987 LEGISLATURE WHICH
"RECAPTURES" LOCALLY RAISED PROPERTY TAXES. IF A SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S PROPERTY WEALTH IS SUFFICIENT TO PLACE IT OFF
THE FORMULA, THEN 'THE DISTRICT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO
LEVY FEWER MILLS RATHER THAN BE REQUIRED TO LEVY THE
MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF MILLS, TIIE EXCESS WHICH WILL BE
RECAPTURED AND REDISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE.
Minnesola Legislative Commission
'Introducing Property Taxes'
FISCAL DISPARITIES
THE LEGISLATURE NOT ONLY MANIPULATES WHAT INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY TAXPAYERS PAY THROUGH CLASSIFICATION SYSTC•MS,
ASSESSMENT RATIOS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS AND CREDIT
PROGRAMS SUCH ASTHE HOMESTEADCREDIT, BUTTHEY ALSO HAVE
SET POLICIES WHICH IN EFFECT CAPTURE PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS
FROM ONE CITY AND REDIS'T'RIBUTES THEM TO ANOTHER. THIS
POLICY 1S CALLED FISCAL DISPARITIES. IT ONLY APPLIES TO CITIES LO-
CATED IN THE SEVEN -COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA. T11E LFGISL.A-
TURE ENACTED THIS POLICY IN 1971. IT WORKS LIKE THIS: 40% OF ALL
THE POST -1971 ASSESSED VALUE OF All. COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN A MUNICIPALITY IS CAPTURED AND PUT IN
ONE LARGE FISCAL DISPARMES'POOL'
THE TOOL: 1STHEN REALLOCATEDTO EACH MUNICIPALITY BASED ON
A FORMULA "THAT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH. COMMUNITIES WITH
HIGH COMMERCIALINDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUES AND LOW MILL
RATES BECOME NEI' LOSERS WHILE COMMUNITIES WITH LOWER C-1
ASSESSED VALUES AND HIGHER MILL RATES BECOME NET WINNERS,
LE., THEY RECEIVE MORE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE POOLTHAN TH EY
CONTRIBUTED. FOR NETLOSERSTIIEEND RESULTISIHATALLTHEIR
PROPERTY TAXPAYERS PAY MORE PROPERTY TAX THAN THEY
WOULD IF THE FISCAL DISPARITIES LAW DID NOT EXIST. THE CON-
VERSE IS TRUE FOR NET WINNERS. RESIDEN'T'S THAT LIVE IN NET WIN-
NER CITIES PAY LESS IN PROPERTY TAXES THAN THEY WOULD
WTIHOUT FISCAL DISPARITIES.
Page 37
Minnesota Legislative Commission
-Introducing Property Taxes -
`"T FACTORS MAKE A COMMUNITY A NET LOSER OR WINNER? FIS-
CAL DISPARITIES IS ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE POLICY BASED ON
PROPERTY WEALTH ANDABILTTYTO PAY. CITIESWITH HIGH PROPER-
TY VALUES BASED ON A PER PERSON BASIS Will, BE NET LOSERS. COM-
MUNITIES WITH HIGH VALUE PROPERTY WILL BE SUBJECT TO A
LOWER MILL RATE THAN LOW VALUE COMMUNITIES, ASSUMING
THEIRSPENDING PATTERNS ARETIIE SAME. THE LEGISLATION WHICH
ESTABLISHED FISCAL DISPARITIES STATED:
-7he Legislative finds it desirable to ... increase the likelihood of orderly
urban development by reducing the impact facal considerations on the
location of business and residential growth ... and to establish incentives
for all pans of the area to work for the growth of the area as a whole."
SOME ARGUE THAT THE FISCAL DISPARITIES LAW REDUCES THE IN-
CENTIVE FOR COMMUNITIES TO PROMOTE THE EXPANSION OF COM-
MERCTAIANDUSTRIAL PROPERTY GROWIH.
Page 38
Minnesota Legislative Commission
"Introducln Pro en Tesea"
FISCAL DISPARITIES
HOW DOES IT WORK?
EiUL
40% of the annual increase (after 197 1) in the assessed valuation of commercial -
industrial property is placed in a metropolitan "pool."
bk=
a "need" formula based on population and fiscal "capacity" (per capita market value
of all taxable property including residential) is applied.
Lnauv
each community is assigned a share of the metropolitan pool, which it taxes as it
does property within its boundaries.
FISCAL DISPARITIES DOES EQUALIZE MILL RATES THROUGH
REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH.
TfiE MLC POLICY ON FISCAL DISPARITIES IS:
• • • INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
39
Minnesota Legislative Commission
'introducing Property 7eses"
LEVY LIMITS
`J`JHAT IS A LEVY LIMIT?
LEVY LIMITS ARE SELF DESCRIPTIVE -- A LIMITATION ON I IOW MUCH
A CITY CAN LEVY, I.E., RAISE THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES.
THESE. LIMITS ARE NQT SELF-IMPOSED, RATHER THE STATE LEGISLA-
TURE SETS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAXES A CITY CAN
LEVY. EVEN IFTHERESIDENTS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS WANT ADDI-
TIONAL SERVICES THEY WILL BE RESTRAINED BY THE LEVY LIMIT.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT IMPOSED I.EVY LIMITS UPON ITSELF.
MLC'S POLICY ON LEVY LIMITS
LEVY LIMITS ARE AN INFRINGEMENT ON LOCAL
ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY FREQUENTLY CAUSE
PROPERTY TAXES TQ INCREASE MORE THAN IF
THERE WOULD BE NO LIMIT. THE MLC STRONGLY
URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL LEVY
LIMITS AND RESTORE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AC -
Page 40
Minnesota Leglslative Commhslon
`Introducina Property T es'
EE END IS NEAR
WE'VE EXAMINED THE BASIC CONCEPTS BEHIND MINNESOTA'S
PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM. THE CHART' BELOW SUMMARIES THE
MAJOR PROVISIONS.
IT, IS FAIR TO SAY THAT EACH LEGISLATIVE POLICY HAS, AS A MAJOR
CONSIDERATION, TIIE REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. THIS POLICY IS
NOTINHERENI'LY WRONG. THIS ISSUE IS'rO WHATDEGREE DOES THIS
POLICY BECOME COUNTER PRODUCTIVE? WHEN DOES THE BURDEN
PLACED ON THE NET LOSERS BECOME TOO HEAVY TO BEAR? THE MLC
IS COMMITTED TO ESTABLISHING A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROPERTY
TAX SYSI'EM.
Page at
ZS
MinnesotaLegls4tive Commisslon
•Introducing PropeAy Taxes'
MLC PROPERTY TAX POLICY
THE MLC BELIEVES THAT THE NEW PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM-
I'HOUGH SIMPLIFIED, IS STILL IN NEED OF REVISION. IT NEEDS TO
BE REVISED TO ALLOW LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT AND IN-
DIVIDUALS TO MAKE DECISIONS WrrHOUTAS MANY STRINGS AT-
'T'ACHED TO THE REVENUES RAISED BY THE PROPERTY TAX. IT
ALSO SHOULD BE REFOCUSED TO ELIMINATE MANY OF TI IE DIS-
PARITIES THAT NOW EXIST. NOW IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT NEW
IDEAS AND CREATIVE, SOLUTIONS. THE MLC WILL BE WORKING
TOWARD DRAFTING NEW PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION WHICH
WILL BE BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF STABILITY, SI MPLICITY,
FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE END -
Result
Claccifieation Types
Redistributes Tax Dollars
Assessment Ratios
Redistributes T'ax Dollars
Transfer Payments
Redistributes Tax Dollars
Homestead Replacement Aid
Redistributes Tax Dollars
Local Government Aids
Redistributes Tax Dollars
Levy Limits
Scbool rinance
Fiscal Disparities
Restricts Local Control
Redistributes'rax Dollars
Redistributes Tax Dollars
IT, IS FAIR TO SAY THAT EACH LEGISLATIVE POLICY HAS, AS A MAJOR
CONSIDERATION, TIIE REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. THIS POLICY IS
NOTINHERENI'LY WRONG. THIS ISSUE IS'rO WHATDEGREE DOES THIS
POLICY BECOME COUNTER PRODUCTIVE? WHEN DOES THE BURDEN
PLACED ON THE NET LOSERS BECOME TOO HEAVY TO BEAR? THE MLC
IS COMMITTED TO ESTABLISHING A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROPERTY
TAX SYSI'EM.
Page at
ZS
MinnesotaLegls4tive Commisslon
•Introducing PropeAy Taxes'
MLC PROPERTY TAX POLICY
THE MLC BELIEVES THAT THE NEW PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM-
I'HOUGH SIMPLIFIED, IS STILL IN NEED OF REVISION. IT NEEDS TO
BE REVISED TO ALLOW LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT AND IN-
DIVIDUALS TO MAKE DECISIONS WrrHOUTAS MANY STRINGS AT-
'T'ACHED TO THE REVENUES RAISED BY THE PROPERTY TAX. IT
ALSO SHOULD BE REFOCUSED TO ELIMINATE MANY OF TI IE DIS-
PARITIES THAT NOW EXIST. NOW IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT NEW
IDEAS AND CREATIVE, SOLUTIONS. THE MLC WILL BE WORKING
TOWARD DRAFTING NEW PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION WHICH
WILL BE BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF STABILITY, SI MPLICITY,
FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE END -
�+n:an�,;�nt�eata
........................................
liOr 1
3
ding
7 -
Your strategies should center around
your house, your company benefit
plans and some well -considered
Having money in the family. What an
idle dream it seemed when you started
out in your first apartment with a few
wedding presents and a batch of furniture
the Salvation Army wouldn't take. Your
rent seemed bigger than the national debt
and, to make ends meet, you drove an
Own -a -Wreck and survived on a diet of
meatless meatloaf.
Now that you have progressed in life
and career, it's easy to see how your stan-
dard of living has advanced. Yet if you are
in your forties or fifties, you may be sur-
prised to discover when you tot up your
assets that you have accumulated a stun-
ning sum. If you are younger, you may be
equally amazed at your potential for do-
ing so. Says David Morse, a C.P.A. and
attorney and author of Retire Rich! Plan-
ning a Secure Financial Future After
Tax Reform (Watts, $19.95): "Now peo-
ple of average means can retire in luxury
and leave something to their kids by
putting aside money, investing wisely and
using tax -advantaged savings plans." In-
deed, wealth—a term once reserved for
52 MONEY
moves in the market.
the few—is beginning to touch the many.
Internal Revenue Service surveys of es-
tates reveal that the number of million-
aires doubled between 1976 and 1982, the
most recent year for which figures are
available. Another 850,000 people had
assets of at least $500,000, and half a mil-
lion owned more than $250,000.
Few of those on their way to such
wealth are CEOs, rock stars or TV
preachers with profitable ministries. For
the most part, they consider themselves
solidly middle-income people who will
work, save and invest their way to upper
assetdom. Chances are you are among
their number. In fact, the median net
worth—assets minus liabilities—of
MONEY subscribers aged 25 to 49 is
$143,100. The undramatic sources of
most such success stories: a house in a
sought-after neighborhood bought more
than 10 years ago, some canny invest-
ments and a well -funded employee -bene-
fits plan. That's all.
Yet with affluence comes responsibil-
ity: on the one hand the risk of misman-
agement and loss, on the other the
opportunity to enlarge your pile and to
pass some of it along to your heirs. In this
special report, MONEY provides you with
a step-by-step guide for accomplishing
both these goals. (A list of the contents
appears on page 55.) Developing and
managing a plan that works cannot be
done without help from specialists. The
people pictured throughout are living tes-
timony to this fact. They recruited law-
yers, accountants, financial planners and
other experts to guide them through the
maze of wealth management. Happily,
the choices were wise, so the costs more
than paid for themselves.
Start your asset -building program by
making the most of what you have.
Though your Albanian coin collection or
an investment in a gourmet ice cream sec-
tor fund may eventually land you on Easy
Street, don't count on it: your fledgling
fortune will likely depend on more down-
to-earth investments.
Your house is the foundation of much
'uture of Sarah and C'.
trustee Pest Miles) is
?.ApH KY IONAD-uNN UV? -O.
ss 111 {in the laps of guardian Jim Ramstad
arks tt► estaite planning bar grandparents
d and parrenEts Charlie Jr. tend Sheryl.
CHOOSING A
GUARDIAN
WHO CARES
Sheryl and Charlie Hvass Jr. are both
young and healthy at 37. Chances are
remote that their adopted children Sa-
rah, 5, and Charles III, 2Y2, will ever be
orphaned. But the Minneapolis couple
nevertheless have appointed her
brother, Jim Ramstad, 41 (right), a Min-
nesota state senator, as guardian for the
kids. They were moved to do so by
memories of Sheryl's close call eight
years ago when the small plane she was
piloting crashed and caught fire. Says
Sheryl, who spent two months in a hos-
pital burn unit and required seven oper-
ations: "The accident taught me how
fine a line separates life and death."
After the Hvasses adopted Korean -
born Sarah in 1983, they didn't need le-
gal prodding to begin contingency
planning—both are attorneys. When
Sarah was 18 months old, they set up an
irrevocable living trust to provide for
her upbringing and pay for her educa-
tion if anything happens to them.
current family wealth because its value
has boomed over the past decade or so.
Yet it may diminish in relative impor-
tance in the future even though it
keeps even with inflation. Second, pay
close attention to your employee -benefits
plans—especially those to which you
contribute: they have gained greatly in
value because they allow you to stack up
tax-deferred savings. Last, examine your
investments: there may be sensible ways
to invest that you have never thought of.
By coordinating these three elements,
you can achieve both security and
growth.
YOUR HOUSE
This remains the most valuable asset most
families acquire. Indeed, in 1984, the
Census Bureau estimated that a house
represented about 41% of a typical fam-
ily's worth. (Savings accounts were a very
distant second at 14%; the survey failed
to include employee -benefits plans.) Un-
54 MONEY
Sheryl is trustee and Charlie successor
trustee. They designated Pat Miles, 37,
a Minneapolis TV -news anchorwoman,
who is a longtime friend of the couple
and Sarah's godmother, to assume the
trustee role if they both die. Charles III,
adopted in 1985, got his own trust when
he was 18 months old, with Jim
Ramstad as ultimate successor trustee.
Ramstad also agreed to be the two
children's guardian and raise them if
both Sheryl and Charlie die. A frequent
visitor in the Hvass (pronounced vahs)
fortunately, housing economists are not
forecasting the same heady gains for
houses that they enjoyed in the late 1970s
and early '80s. Ira S. Lowry, a Los Ange-
les housing consultant, believes that the
single-family house (median price today:
$107,000) will track inflation over the
long run. That means your home will
more likely be a source of capital pres-
ervation rather than capital growth. Con-
sequently, Lowry counsels that you "buy
a house because it is where you want to
live; buy as much house as you need, but
no more."
Such a strategy is a break with the re-
cent past, when double-digit annual in-
creases in housing prices made it a smart
investment to buy the grandest house you
could afford. The typical house outpaced
inflation by two percentage points com-
pounded annually since 1970—a modest -
sounding amount, but in truth a tidy gain
of 29% over a three-year period when an-
nual inflation ran as high as 11 %.
household who is close to the kids, he
already plays a big part in their lives.
"Jim and I share a common upbringing
that Charlie and I have tried to pass on
to our children," says Sheryl, whose
parents Della Mae and Marvin
Ramstad, retired owners of an auto
dealership, have wills naming all four
Hvasses and Jim as their heirs.
"Jim." she adds, "would continue the
traditions."
The Hvasses formalized the arrange-
ment when they drew up their will this
past year by simply designating Jim as
guardian. Like all guardians, however,
he would have to be approved by pro-
bate court after the parents' deaths.
Such approval is usually proforma.
A bachelor, Ramstad is thrilled that
he was chosen. The walls of his office at
the state capitol are lined with pictures
of his niece and nephew. He takes the
kids skating and fishing at his lakefront
home and is faithfully in attendance
when Sarah plays her piano in recital.
"I'd give up a Republican fund raiser to
be there," he says. And why not? Sarah
and Charlie march with him in commu-
nity parades wearing T-shirts proclaim-
ing them members of the RAmsTAD
TEAM. Says Jim: "They're my best
campaigners." —ROBIN MICHELt
While boosts in housing prices gener-
ally have occurred more slowly in recent
low -inflation years, they are expected to
coot out before long. Currently, about
two-thirds of all sales are trade -ups, a fac-
tor that has papered over the lackluster
pace of first -home sales. John Tuccillo,
chief economist for the National Associa-
tion of Realtors, anticipates that the
heavy demand for trade -up houses will
continue only until the mid-1990s. New
households will then be formed from
among the less populous baby -bust gen-
eration. "Demand will flatten, and infla-
tion alone will dictate increases in house
prices," he predicts.
But that's no reason to give up on the
American Dream of home ownership.
Says Robert W. Burchell, acting director
of the Center for Urban Policy Research
at Rutgers University: "Using the house
to accumulate wealth can be a very re-
warding strategy." For one thing, making
regular payments on the mortgage is a
method of disciplined savings that works
well for those who would normally spend
every dollar they earn. Second, owning a
house qualifies you for one of the few re-
maining tax shelters available to individ-
uals: deductions for property taxes and
mortgage interest. When you sell, you can
defer taxes on the profits if you put them
into a new house within two years. Fi-
nally, at age 55, you can exclude $125,000
of your gain from taxation.
YOUR BENEFITS
Coming on strong are your forgotten as-
sets—so-called because you rarely think
of them as such. They are the funds stored
in your employee -benefits plans, and
they may well turn out to be the stars of
your future personal finances. There has
been an explosion in growth and popular-
ity of benefit plans, according to Paul
Westbrook, president of Westbrook Fi-
nancial Advise, c. in Watchung, N.J.
"They offer more opportunity for tax-
free buildup, more choice of investments,
and recently, greater yield from the bull
market," he says.
While every company has its own
wrinkles, employee -benefits plans fall
into two major categories: defined bene-
fit and defined contribution. The first,
which has been around for decades, is
really nothing more than your pension
plan. Defined benefit means that the
company puts away money for you and
decides what you get—based on a for-
mula—when you retire. Spurred by tax
breaks for themselves as well as their em-
ployees, more and more companies have
added defined -contribution plans, which
allow employees to put aside a portion of
their salaries that the company adds to.
There are two types of defined -contribu-
tion plans: matching programs, in which
a company contributes a specified per-
centage—usually 50% -of what you in-
vest, and profit-sharing arrangements
under which your employer adds a por-
tion of profits to your savings. Addition-
ally, you may be offered an employee
stock -ownership program (ESOP). Your
employer will typically match up to 50%
of the amount you invest in shares of
company stock.
Quietly, and inexorably, both defined -
benefit and defined -contribution funds
accrete until they total surprisingly large
sums. At the Bechtel Group this year, a
$55,000 -a -year design engineer who left
after 21 years of service walked away
with $314,000 from various plans. An
ESOP would have added even more. The
National Center for Employee Owner-
ship in Oakland, Calif. found that em-
ployees who earned $35,000 a year at
companies with ESOPs can generally
leave their jobs after 20 years with pro-
ceeds from an ESOP of more than
$200,000.
Least flexible of the benefits is your
pension, or defined -benefit plan, because
you have no control over its size or man-
agement and you cannot automatically
take the money with you if you leave the
company before retirement. Right now,
most companies allow vesting after 10
years of service; however, changes in fed-
eral law will reduce the waiting period to
no more than seven years by 1989. Most
companies do not allow or require you to
make any contributions. If yours allows
you to contribute extra amounts, you
should carefully study the pension fund's
past investment performance. (For ad-
vice on how to do this, see "Guarding
Your Hard -Won Wealth" on page 62.)
Defined -contribution plans offer far
more opportunity for wealth building
IN THIS
SPECIAL
REPORT
• Worksheets Figure out how your
assets will grow, page 60
• Protections The best ways to
guard your wealth from taxes, infla-
tion and other threats, page 62
• Lawsuit -proofs Why you should
buy liability insurance, page 70
• Estatos: All you really need to
know about estate planning, page 74
• Avoiding probates A short guide
to wills and living trusts, page 82
• Children: How you can still trans-
fer assets to kids, page 91
* Essential legalese: A glossary
of estate -planning terms, page 96
than do pension plans. If you leave your
company, you can take all your contribu-
tions with you. and the company's con-
tribution vests more quickly than in
pension plans—usually after one to
three years of employment. Furthermore.
many companies let you contribute to
these plans as part of 401(k) salary -
reduction programs. That's the best ar-
rangement of all because it puts you three
giant steps forward. First, you can ex-
clude your contribution—up to $7,000
this year—from your taxable income.
Second, you get an immediate gain on
your investment because your employer
matches it. Finally, the earnings are not
taxed until you begin withdrawing them
at age 59%. If you change jobs before
then, you can roll over the funds into an
Individual Retirement Account that con-
tinues the tax-deferred buildup.
Perhaps even more important, de-
fined -contribution plans usually give you
more than one investment option. The
choices may include your company's
stock, highly diversified portfolios of
stocks and bonds that operate much like
mutual funds, and guaranteed investment
contracts—loans to large insurance com-
panies that promise a fixed rate of return
slightly higher than CDs. With most
plans you can choose between two differ-
ent types of investments, usually a growth
fund and an income fund. If you are close
to retirement, and leery of taking any risk
with your money, you will probably want
to choose an investment—bonds or guar-
anteed investment contracts—that pay
steady income. If you have just started
your career, however, you may prefer
more chance for growth—say, stock. Al-
though you may go for growth when the
stock market is about to take a deep dive.
such moves are at least partly offset by the
company's matching contribution. The
same holds true for your ESOP. Even if
your employer's stock sags, the match will
compensate for temporary drops in value.
When you retire, your company may
offer you several payment options for
your pension. The two most common
choices are a monthly check or a lump
sum, which is typically based on your
length of service, final five years' pay and
life expectancy. Deciding which to take
requires detailed computations. The
wealth -building point that many Ameri-
cans are learning to take with increasing
seriousness: if you believe you can invest
OCTOBER 1987 55
the lump sum profitably enough to equal
the pension you would otherwise get, you
can also leave behind a sizable legacy. An
added incentive: the tax bite on lump sums
taken at retirement can be moderate. Ev-
erybody who retires after age 59% is eligi-
ble for five-year forward averaging—
spreading out the lump as though it were
paid in equal installments over five years.
While the entire tax bill must be paid the
year you receive the lump sum, averaging that pay dividends and promise some
will significantly lower your bracket. growth. By contrast, says Perritt, a corpo-
rate employee with a secure job who
earns $50,000 a year and has a generous,
diversified portfolio in his employee -
benefits plans is often inclined to invest
his spare cash in a safe but stodgy mutual
fund. "This guy can obviously afford to
look for a little more bang in his invest-
ments," says Perritt.
If your analysis of your income tells
you that you should be investing some of
your spare cash more aggressively, but
you are the type of person who frets over
every decision, you might adopt the clas-
sic and conservative method of increas-
ing your holdings: dollar -cost averaging.
With this technique, you merely pick a
mutual fund and invest equal sums peri-
odically. This way, you will be purchasing
fewer shares when prices are high and
more when prices dip.
To make dollar -cost averaging work,
You have to have the guts to keep writing
those regular checks even when your in-
vestment plunges. No-load growth mu-
tual funds are ideal vehicles for dollar -
cost averaging. (For candidates, see
MONEY's list of best -performing mutual
funds in Fund Watch on page 35.)
Another wealth -building avenue is
to invest in mutual funds inside tax -
deferring envelopes such as rollover
IRAs. (If you are covered by a company
pension plan and earn more than
$25,000—$40,000 for a couple—you can
no longer fully deduct your contribution
to a standard IRA.)
Single -premium deferred annuities,
sold by insurance companies, operate in a
similar fashion. You buy an annuity—the
lowest priced is $5,000—with after-tax
dollars, but your gains accumulate tax-
free. Some annuities promise a specified
annual return; others may offer a choice
among as many as 15 different funds and
allow you to add small deposits monthly
or quarterly so that you can dollar -cost
average. You have to choose carefully,
v
The safer your
benefits, the more
daring your stock
picks can be.
YOUR INVESTMENTS
The blossoming of company benefits in
recent years has been so pronounced
that they are becoming the heart of over-
all investments for many an asset -rich
American family. This sea change has in
turn caused many financial advisers to
overhaul their clients' approach to out-
side investments. Says Brian Sheen, a
Boca Raton, Fla., financial planner and
author of Nest -Egg Investing (Putnam,
$18.95): "Designing your outside portfo-
lio to counterbalance your benefits
makes it a hedge against those other
important assets." But that's exactly
what people are least inclined to do,
he observes. "Say someone works for
Grundle Gasket Co., invests money in its
pension plan and contributes to its em-
ployee stock -ownership plan. With his
free investment dollars, he buys more
Grundle stock. If profits slide, this per-
son is sunk," says Sheen. The lesson is
obvious: don't put all your eggs in
Grundle Gasket.
One factor you should take into ac-
count in designing your investment port-
folio is the security of your income.
Gerald Perritt, editor of the Mutual
Fund Letter (Investment Information
Services, 205 W. Wacker Dr., Chicago,
Ill. 60606; monthly, $115 a year), ob-
serves that people's investment inclina-
tions often mirror the way they earn their
money. For example, a freelance writer, a
high -commission salesperson or a
musican might earn $35,000 one year,
$60,000 the next and $10,000 the third
year. "Very risky," says Perritt, "and
what do these people invest in but chancy
stock in emerging growth companies,
venture-capital deals and highly lever-
aged real estate projects." Such an indi-
vidual might instead be better off hedging
with safer vehicles—CDs, Treasury bills,
or mutual funds with holdings in stocks
S6 MONEY
however, because many insurance com-
panies extract hefty fees and surrender
charges. Further, some of the mutual
funds operated by insurance companies
have not been stellar performers. Brian
Sheen recommends two deferred annu-
ities: Charter National Life's plan (800-
325-8405) and Discovery from Pruden-
tial Life (800-445-4571).
Individual stocks offer the most inter-
esting departure from conventional wis-
dom for the wealth seeker. If your
benefits -plan funds are broadly diversi-
fied, you can feel free to take a flier
on an appealing company that you
believe has solid long-term growth
prospects.
However impressive the fortune you
ultimately create, you will probably have
a harder time than at present ensuring
that your family—and not the IRS or
your state—is your prime beneficiary.
Currently, estate taxes do not inhibit the
Passage of wealth within most families
because the federal tax code exempts
$600,000 for individuals ($1.2 million for
a husband and wife). Above those limits,
the IRS takes 55%. So if you and your
spouse drown in your hot tub and leave
your children $1,200,001, the most the
estate will owe in federal taxes is 55e.
That pleasant situation may not be
long for this world. Congress is threat-
ening to toughen death taxes, and some of
the proposals will be enacted this year.
One now before the Joint Committee
on Taxation would boost the top rate
to 65%. A second would scale back
the exemption to $225,000 ($550,000
for couples). Yet another would close
what commentator Michael Kinsley has
dubbed the "Angel of Death loophole."
Under current law, appreciated assets
that you leave to your heirs—for exam-
ple, your empty lot in Tuscaloosa or the
Coca-Cola stock you've held since 1932—
are taxed only on gains your beneficiary
earned while he or she held them. All the
gains you accumulated over the years go
untaxed. Congress is studying several
plans for taxing all appreciation that you
and your family have enjoyed since the
day you acquired the assets.
No matter how strict or confiscatory
estate taxes become, it's still better to
have created a small family fortune than
not. And who knows what it might grow
to in another generation or two?
October 8, 1987
CITY O�
PLYMOUTH+
Mr. Larry Begin
4300 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mr. Begin:
This letter confirms the results of our October 7 meeting with you and I,
Sergeant Tom Saba and Public Safety Director Dick Carlquist. At the
conclusion of the meeting we agreed to the following:
1. On October 7 Tom Saba will inspect your property to confirm whether 20
2-1/2 ton truckloads of solid wastes were removed from the site as you
indicated. The materials removed consist of building materials, wood,
glass, concrete, etc. You indicated that the metal will be retained and
disposed of together with the vehicles.
2. On October 14 Tom Saba will again inspect the site to determine whether
one-half, or 1300 tires have been removed. You will recall that under
the agreement all tires must be removed by November 1. This includes
all tires on Junked vehicles. It would specifically exclude operable
vehicles and classic cars.
3. On October 30 Tom Saba will call you to make arrangements for an
inspection on that date or November 1.
4. On the date of the inspection you stated you would provide Tom with a
list of the classic cars you desire to retain, together with the
operable vehicles you possess. All classic cars will have to conform
with the ordinance which means that they will have to be currently
licensed or maintained within a structural enclosure. All operable cars
must be currently licensed as well.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Mr. Larry Begin
October 8, 1987
Page 2
As I indicated at the meeting, our preference is that you continue to remove
materials in accordance with the agreement. However, if you are unable to
comply with the agreement, the city staff has been directed to complete the
required work and assess associated costs and expenses against the property.
Yours ve ;�41 tru ,
Frank Boyles
Assistant City Manager
FB:kec
cc: Mayor and City Council
Public Safety Director
Sergeant Saba
October 2, 1987 F -
The Honorable Virgil Schneider, Mayor
City of Plymouth
11520 - 54th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55442
Dear Mayor Schneider:
In February of this year we were invited to, and partici-
pated in, planning meetings for our new neighborhood park.
At that time in correspondence to, and conversations with,
Mr. Blank and at a meeting of the City Council, we repeatedly
requested that the City's Park Standards for Neighborhood Parks
be adhered to and that our concerns regarding park path and
equipment placements be considered.
We were assured that such would be the case.
Now our park has been constructed, and we find that our fears
have been realized, and our concerns have not been addressed.
Certain aspects of the park are not usable safely.
Specifically we had asked that:
1. The park and trails be developed in the existing open
areas.
2. The trails be constructed only where the design is safe
for users.
3. The park equipment be located in open areas.
4. No trail be located along the north 75' corridor due
to its topography.
5. Safe access to the park be provided for our children.
We find that these neighborhood park standards have been
violated:
1. The emphasis should be on use by ages 5-15 and
their parents.
2. The access should be primarily pedestrian and bicycle.
3. Steep slopes... should not be considered as developable
acreage.
lb
Page 2
Since the park was "opened", several accidents have occurred
because of the steepness of the trails. One was serious enough
to require removal of the biker by ambulance. The trails into the
park are unbikeable safely in the opinion of many. Many residents
will not let their children play in the park because they feel
the secluded areas are unsafe. The relative seclusion of some
areas has prompted several incidents of unlawful behavior.
We realize that it is impossible to design the perfect facility.
We further realize that with any new facility there must be a get -
acquainted period while the users adjust to its correct usage. We
do feel, however, that in this instance an attractive nuisance has
been created.
Given the fact that we specifically, repeatedly and emphati-
cally voiced our concerns about safety of access and trails, we
are deeply upset with the finished product.
The Park and Recreation Director has asked us to organize
and fund a dedication ceremony for the park. At this time, we feel
we cannot participate in such an event given the widespread dis-
satisfaction with the park which is evident in our neighborhood.
We, therefore, have decided that we must respectfully defer our
participation until we are able to discuss with you the unsafe
conditions in the park and we have so informed our neighborhood
association, the Westminster Homeowners Association.
We further respectfully invite you to tour the park with us
to see our concerns first-hand. We also request your immediate
consideration of these actions:
1. That the 34th Avenue North access be regraded to
eliminate the present steepness.
2. That a path be constructed on the west side of
County Road 61 from the intersection at County Road 9
to the park parking lot.
Our neighborhood looked forward eagerly to its new facility.
We are somewhat isolated by the busy roads which border us. A
safe, accessible play area for our children was exciting to
anticipate.
We are deeply disappointed that our input was solicited and
then ignored. At the first planning meeting, reference was made
by the staff to the light turnout from the neighborhood. Perhaps
those who chose not to attend knew what those of us who did attend
now know - that our input was given lip service and then ignored.
Z �b
Page 3
Thank you for any consideration you may be able to give our
concerns.
Sincerely,
Merrilee P. Riley
President
13010 - 37th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55441
CC: City Council Members
VMr. James Willis, City Manager
Mr. Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
Mr. Bill Ciora, President, Westminster Homeowners Association
-1)0
MITI' OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: October 8, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation E8
SUBJECT: LETTER DATED OCTOBER 2 FROM MERILEE RILEY
Mrs. Riley raises a number of concerns which I believe should be discussed and
reviewed.
1. The planning and design process for County Road 61 park was the same
process that was used for Amhurst and Rolling Hills neighborhood parks.
The residents in attendance at the review meetings played a tremendous
role in determining the location and size of the open play area, hard
court, parking lot, play structure tot lot area and trails within the
County Road 61 master plan. At the public meetings, I believe
Commissioner Rosen asked the residents some questions about the play
structure location. The northerly site was a preferred site for the
play area for two reasons:
a. The residents wished to keep it as far away from Northwest Boulevard
as possible.
b. They wanted to keep the smaller children away from the older children
that would tend to play in the open games area and the hard court
area.
2. The entrances to this park have been a difficult issue since first under-
taking the park design. Northwest Boulevard is a barrier to those resi-
dents living southeast of the park area. Access to the north was
limited because the Ives Lane right of way was the only other public
access available. We have attempted to place cross walks on Northwest
Boulevard at the most northerly median in the roadway and at the inter-
section of West Medicine Lake Drive to provide for safe crossing of
Northwest Boulevard. The entrance from 34th Avenue is steeper than
anyone would have liked for this situation. The limited space for this
trail access (30' wide for half the distance and 15' the other half)
allowed for very few economical designs for this trail entrance. If
the Council believes that the 34th Avenue access is inadequate to serve
the public need, I would agree with Mrs. Riley that a trail from 34th
Avenue along County Road 61 to the open play field on the south end of
the park is an option. The estimated cost for adding this additional
trail of approximately 2,400 feet is $15,200. This cost does not
include seed or sod restoration. Because of the difficulty getting to
and from this park from all portions of the neighborhood, we did build
a parking lot in the County Road 61 park to allow for vehicular access.
Parking lots were not included in the Amhurst or Rolling Hills parks.
James G. Willis
Re: Merilee Riley Letter
Page 2
Mrs. Riley has raised a concern about the secluded area around the children's
play area. In the next two weeks, the park maintenance crew will be going into
this area and thinning out the hackberry and thistle bushes that are obscuring
much of the view around the play area. Once this selective thinning has taken
place, the new residential homes built on Sycamore Lane and 32nd Avenue within
the Heritage Ridge development will provide a higher level of comfort we all
wish to provide at this location.
Some of the other issues which Mrs. Riley has raised are very subjective and
difficult to quantify. This original park site was selected because of the
rolling terrain and the mature oak and other trees on the hillsides. I believe
this was an effort on the part of the City to retain much of the natural
beauty of the area without having the trees or hills removed for residential
construction. The park totals 11.5 acres. Within this, 2.96 acres is planned
to be mowed, or the active area, while 8.5 acres is designated for the
passive, or unmowed areas within the park. I believe every effort was made
by the residents, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, the consultant
and staff to retain as much of the natural beauty of the site as possible.
I look forward to working with Mrs. Riley and other members of the neighborhood,
City Council and PRAC to work toward alleviating any concerns that the
neighbors may have. I will await your further direction on this matter.
/np
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: September 30, 1987
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Virgil Schneider, Mayor
SUBJECT CONCRETE WALL ON HWY 101 ADJACENT TO HAWTHORNE PONDS
Margaret Crowder
17720 6th Ave.
Plymouth, MN 55447
475-1061
The problem is a recurring one from many years ago; the wall is
unsightly because of the kids writing graffiti on it. A few years ago
we tried to plant some vines to cover it up, which have since died,
leaving holes in the sidewalk for weed growth. She is asking: 1) what
is the cost of a brick veneer on the outside of the concrete wall so as
to make it not as susceptible to graffiti, and 2) if that were to be too
expensive, why would we not want to fill the holes in the concrete so
that the weeds don't grow.
Please respond to Ms. Crowder and let me know the results.
October 8, 1987
Mrs. Margaret Crowder
17725 - 6th Avenue
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mrs. Crowder:
r
9' V-144 W -
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
Recently you contacted Mayor Schneider as well as myself regarding your
concern with the appearance of the retaining wall on Highway 101 adjacent to
your neighborhood.
This wall was constructed, as you know, as part of the improvement project
for Highway 101 a number of years ago. As originally constructed, there was
no area between the sidewalk and the wall for planting. Due to several
years of periodic graffiti, the neighborhood suggested that ivy be planted
along the wall. The City had a portion of the concrete taken out and
subsequently planted ivy. We made a good faith effort to establish ivy over
a period of several years but with limited success.
You have asked that we try to estimate the cost of covering the wall with a
brick or stone veneer. Mr. Fred Moore, Director of Public Works, informs me
that the estimated costs for such work would be approximately $15.00 per
square foot or approximately $42,800.
You also suggested, if the ivy could not be maintained, that perhaps the
City should fill in the planting area with concrete or blacktop.
Your neighborhood association over the years has periodically expressed
concern about the wall. We have sought to respond to those concerns in a
proactive fashion. I believe the estimated cost of covering the wall with
some sort of a brick or stone veneer would be prohibitively expensive. Your
association, of course, may request that the Council consider such an
expenditure if you believe such an expenditure is warranted for the
conditions which exist. Your association may also request us to abandon the
planning effort and replace the planting bed with concrete or blacktop.
Please let me know your association's thoughts on this after you and they
have had a chance to discuss it. If in the meantime I may be of any further
assistance to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
6'ames G. Willis
ty Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
Fred Moore
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
October 6. 1987
CITY OF
PUMOUTR
Mr. Paul Teeuwen
Territory Sales Manager.
Luverne Fire Apparatus Companv. Incorporated
P.O. Box 437
Luverne. Minnesota 56156
RE: September 30. 1987 Correspondence Obiecting to Fire Apparatus Bidding
Specifications
Dear Mr. Teeuwen:
The Citv Council has deferred action on awarding the bid for two pumper trucks
and one pumper tanker. This deferral was based upon your letter sent September
30 with the four objections that you raised. The item has been rescheduled for
Council consideration on October 19.
The Council has asked that You be more specific in your objections to the bidding
specifications. It would be helpful if you would review the bidding notice and
specifications and hiahliaht each area that you contend contains bias and causes
the bidding process to be "closed". Once You have hiahliahted these areas.
Please explain briefly in an accompanying letter your specific concerns as
completely as possible. Please utilize some corresponding codina to aid the
reader in evaluating your responses. To be part of the agenda. I must receive
your correspondence no later than Wednesday. October 14. More over. because of
the complexity of the issue. I would expect that you would be present on October
19 to respond to City Council questions about issues you have raised. The
meeting commences at 7:30 P.m. in the City Council Chambers at 3400 Plymouth
Boulevard.
For your information. we received bids from two different fire apparatus manufac-
turers: they were General Safetv Equipment Corporation and Grumman Emeraencv
Products Incorporated. In the absence of additional correspondence and your
attendance at the October 19 meeting. it is my intention to recommend the bid
award to the lowest responsible bidder.
Sincerely.
Richard J. Cariq st
Public Safety Director
RJC•as
cc: James G. Willis - City Manager
Lyle C. Robinson - Fire Chief
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (6121559-26,X,
'T,- -7 -iz-
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
TPme
DATE: October 6. 1987
TO: James G. Willis - City Manager
FROM: Richard J. Carlauist - Public Safetv Director
SUBJECT COUNCIL PRIORITIZING POLICE ACTIVITIES / RESPONSE TIME
In 1986. the Citv Council prioritized 33 police activities. In concert with their
rankina of these activities. thev also indicated when a response time was important.
In particular. nine activities were checked off as being important enough to be
responded to in 5 minutes or less. This memo is being sent to you for Council
feedback. In some cases we have not met the Council's expectation.
The statistics associated with the nine activities identified by the Council are taken
from the time frame August 1. 1986 through Julv 31. 1987.
ACTIVITY NUMBER OF INCIDENTS AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME
Crimes aaainst person 230 5.0
Motor vehicle iniury 277 4.0
Crisis intervention 26 5.0
Medical emeroencv 803 4.0
Bomb/Bomb threats 1 9.0
Fire
240
4.5
Automatic alarms 1.357 5.0
Prowler/Window peeper 84 5.5
Domestics 305 7.0
RJC:as
C I r.
I Y C�)
PLYMOUTH
October 8, 1987
Ms. Susan Mauderer, RES
Appraiser
City of Plymouth
RE: RESIDENTIAL EVALUATION SPECIALIST DESIGNATION
Dear Sue,
I want to take this opportunity to extend my sincere congratulations to you on
your receiving your RES from the International Association of Assessing
Officers. This is indeed a great accomplishment for you and for your career.
I am extremely proud of you and I know I can say this for all the Assessors in
Minnesota and for the IAAO members throughout the organization. I realize the
personal dedication and time that you have donated to achieve this
designation. However, the benefits that you will receive will go with you as
long as you are in the Assessment profession. The City of Plymouth also
stands to gain from your accomplishment.
Again, congratulations to you, Sue, as you are one of only twelve assessment
personnel in Minnesota, and one of the first females in our profession to
attain this designation. We are a small but elite group that is well
respected. May your career in the Assessment field be a long and enjoyable
one.
Respectfully,
J'�
Scott L. ovet, CAE
Plymouth Assessor
SLH/je
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
Dale Hahn, Director of Finance
Personnel File
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
,WA IkA-
tm W.s-
A, 0 E"I IA
'WWWAr 0 THE PRO PERI l" TAX A""IU AY�ESSN I'VI AidVi11'\I'ST
14k'% r�
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Susan M. Mauderer
Awarded Professional Designation
October 1987
Susan M. Mauderer, of Plymouth, Minnesota has been awarded the Residential
Evaluation Specialist (RES) designation by the Executive Board of the
International Association of Assessing Officers.
This distinction is conferred only upon those association members who have
completed required courses on appraisal/assessment techniques, demonstrated their
ability to appraise real estate properties, and passed an extensive comprehensive
examination.
Susan M. Mauderer, RES, is an Appraiser for Plymouth, Minnesota. She attended
the University of Minnesota and North Hennepin Community College. She is an
Accredited Minnesota Assessor (1987) and a member of the Minnesota Association of
Assessing Officers.
A.
OCT 6 %f
br rt)h:J;;,
International Association of Assessing Officers a 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637-9990�ejj-)' "�7 206+
PURP LES WAN o FFI C ES ERRV I C FS
1245 5TH AVE 50.
ANOKA. MN 55303
(612) 421-6060
September 28, 1987
Chief of Police
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Chief of Police:
r,v
On the evening of Thursday, September 24th, I foolishly locked my keys in my
vehicle after a round of golf at Hollydale Golf Course on County Road #9 in
Plymouth.
I asked the caretaker of the Course to call the Police Department after we
had made a few unsuccessful attempts to open the vehicle by way of the wing
windows. This was approximately 6:30 to 6:45 that the call was made to #911.
An officer arrived and attempted to break in through the wing window of my
1984 Ford Van. It took approximately 45 minutes, but finally after much
patience and with the joint effort of one of my golf partners, they opened
the wing and got the door unlocked. I was then on my way. I repeatedly told
the officer to break the window, but he refused to do that and kept trying
until he eventually opened the wing. There wasn't even a scratch on the
exterior of my vehicle.
I regretfully have to say that in my rush to get home, I did not get the officers
name or his badge number. I am sure that you can check your records and come up
with his name. I would like to see that this fine young man gets a pat on the
back and that my letter be placed in his personnel file for reference in the
event of any future promotions.
I would again like to state that his help was very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
r
Peggy L. Violet
PLV
OCT i
Mr. Dave Crain
3400 Plymouth $oulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Mr. and Mrs. M. R. Risberg
710 Cottorwcod Lane No.
Plymouth, Mn. 55441
10-1-87
RE: I ;4 PRIME DEVELOPMENT'S PLYMOUTH SHOPPING CENTER PLAN
BORDERING OUR PROPERTY WITH A RESTAURANT AND A PARKING LOT
II - OUR OBJECTION
III - HOME, PROPERTY, NEIGHBORHOOD JEOPARDIZED
IV - CITY OF PLYMOUTH STANDARDS, SAFEGUARDS IN DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
Dear Mr. Crain:
WE ARE Bud Risberg - retired - Graybar Electric Co.
Maren Risberg - retired - General Mills, Inc.
Property owners here for forty years
YESTERDAY WE SAW PRIM DEVELOPMENT'S PLAN for this area, presented
after attempts to buy us failed. In our view it is a continuation
of their tactic to harass Cottonwood Lane residents.
IT WOULD REVERSE THE QUALITY OF OUR PROPERTY AND OUR LIVING SO SEVERELY
that we must object to the plan.
SINCE IT WOULD IMPACT SO DRASTICALLY we don't really suppose
such a plan as this would be likely to be approved.
HOWEVER, FOR THE RECORD, we will list our most strenuous objections.
Copies: Bob Zitur
Jerry Sisk
Maria Vasiliou
Virgil Schneider
drank Boyles
Al Cottingham
Photographs mentioned here are attached to the Dave Crain letter only -
for sharing as appropriate.
I - PRIME DEVELOPMENT'S PLAN
II - WE OBJECT TO POSSIBLE/LIKELY EFFECT
A - Extension of existing Would turn our home into a typical
shopping center westward back -of -the -stores place
with the usual miserable atmosphere-
-All night troublemakers roaring through,
-Trash pickup trucks crashing and banging,
-Concentrations of pests and what all.
B - Restaurant 75' north of us Late night noise, crowds, possibly
(photographs 1 and 2) drinking groups along our property.
Curtailment of our outdoor evenings.
Restaurant odors instead of flowers
in the summer air.
C - Anchor 75' N.E. of us Very large hub of traffic, noise, pollution
non -Plymouth crowds swarming along our plac
D - Parking lot 15' east of us Our whole summer -living yard and
along the woods 321 screened summer porch
(photograph 3) made public and virtually useless.
Situated along the woods, it would be
an open invitation to the criMal element
currently invading shopping center
parking lots.
Would pretty well consign us
to living indoors.
PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED:
1 and 2 - Facing north property line
3 - Facing east property line and woods
III - HOME, PROPERTY, NEIGHEORHOOD JEOPARLIZED
Following are the highly valued qualities of our home place
which would be jeopardized by this plan.
A - LIFETIME HOME - OUR RETIREMENT PLACE (photograph 4)
-We have lived here forty years.
-To make for comfortable, low maintenance retirement living
we have upgraded over the past 2j years and 20,000 dollars' worth.
B - OUR IRREPLACEABLE PROPERTY AND LOCATION
-Privacy, quiet - dead end road.
-Magnificent huge old trees. I personally planted them starting
when we bought here from the Schiebes in 1947.
The land hadn't the tiniest sapling.
-Good winter highway access - one block from 55•
-Proximity to necessities:
Health care,business
- downtown -
15
minutes
Pharmacy, gro. -
shop. center-
5
minutes
All else -
Ridgedale -
5
minutes
C - COTTONWOOD LANE - INCREDIBLY SERENE
-Spacious, quiet
-Properties here are laid out so that one rarely sees one's neighbors
and certainly never hears them.
*Relitive security
No noise or disturbance from outsiders - dead end road.
-Wildlife habitat setting (photographs 5 and 6)
Cottonwood Lane looks out onto considerable stretches of wild land
spilling into our yards birds, pheasants, ducks,deer,
for the food, water, gardens they find here. (photograph 7)
A constant wonder we value highly and of inestimable value
to the continuation of the broader scheme.
PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED:
4 - Our home
5 and 6 - Wildlife habitat - east end of Cottonwood,and facing east
7 - Deer and wild land across the street, southwest.
IV - CITY OF PLYMOUTH STANDARDS/SAFEGUARDS IN DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
It looks to us like the two forces meet in the hands of the city council,
residents' interests and city/developer business.
Can you shed some light as to what standards, safeguards may already be in plac
to control damage to residents during development procedures?
And in today's corporate takeover business style?
BY MEANS OF PLAN MODIFICATIONS? ZONING CONTROL?
-Prevent location of late night crowd type businesses adjacent
to residential properties, as with the three who would be affected here?
-Prevent location of public parking lots and attendant crime hazard
alongside residential property, as ours here?
-Prevent rezoning right up to residents' property lines?
This current plan would wrap the development up tight around us,
totally ruining our place.
BY MEANS OF TIME LIMITATIONS ON DEVELOPERS?
Is there, or could there be, a time limitation agreement with
Prime Development to conclude their business with this area
once and for all, in a given time? This to prevent them
from continuing to harass us all,year after year, indefinitely.
If we could learn something about the above areas of vital concern -
whether they are in or out of control- then we would know
what survival measures we must manage ourselves.
This would certainly be helpful.
IN SUMMARY
We would think it would be more in harmony with the quality of life
in Plymouth if:
A new shopping center, if one materializes, were to be contained
in the existing 200' depth you now have zoned for that, and
The existing buffer zones- the corner west of the existing center,
and the woods behind- were recognized as essential
to people survival and wildlife survival as with the
West Medicine Lake Wetland Preserve.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Could we meet with you and/or the appropriate City_of Plymouth people
av___�}u$s
and also about the current status of the Prime Development plan?
Yours truly, Bud and Maren Risberg
5 6053
\�
282U MEDICINE RIDGE HUAD
PLYMOUTH, MlNNESUlA 55441
`
UCTUBER b, 1��/
�. OCT
MAYOR VIR6lL SCHNElDEH,
CUUNClLMEMBEAS DAVE CRAlN, JERRY SISk,
MARIA VASlLL%{JU, AND ROBERT ZlTU�
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
GREETINGS TO ALL;
AS A FOLLOW UP TO MY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 26, I AM EN-
CLOSING A COPY OF A LETTER l RECEIVED FROM MR. STEVEN TALLEN,
THE ASSISTANT C17Y ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE CITY IN COURT ON
'
THE PARKING TICKET MATTER.
MR. TALLEN CONTINUES HIS REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINT OF
MY ARGUMENT AND THE POINT OF LAW THAT IS IN QUESTION HERE. NO
ONE HAS EVERQUESTIONED THE CITY'S RIGHT TO LEGISLATE A PARKING
ORDINANCE! THE ONLY POINT l HAVE EVER MADE AND THE POINT THAT
HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE COURTS IS SIMPLY THAT PROPfKSIGNAGE
MUST 8EINS1ALLED-WHEREA PARK1NC�_BAN'£XISTS!_"IDN_�F
T��FfJC-�E��L�TION�.j9Y.{�2TY-%�k�lK�S LE/�]�/L/4TIkE�q
CJSEl?THRQ8/SH'���TY��8UN/:JL* ,�Ni�-ORD2NAN/�E-S��ULD-'/�R���C�I�E-/�L��ES
wHfRAT'$yUpPJ86, 'ST^4ND2NG OR PARKING UF KEHICLE$,'SHALL,8E,pRDRZRITED
ANP ) SUCH P«//H/S///:
PLAULN_jUIlAf(Lf /4N�'DF�J�I����S2lN� GJyI�G NOTICE TOAU8L7(�AE-A_
(OP. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1Y52, NO. 123, P 230.)
AS I INDICATED TO MR. TALLEN BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE HEAR-
ING, THE MERE POSTING OF SIGNS AT `ENTRANCES' TO THE CITY WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT. MY CONTENTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE COURTS, THE ATTORNEY
GENERALj AND GOOD COMMON SENSE.
MY WHOLE PURPOSE IN CONTACTING YOU, MY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES,
IS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE AS SIMPLY AS POSSIBLE BY EITHER ELIMINATING
THE ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO A 2:00 A.M. TO 5:00 A.M. PARKING BAN
OR BY ERECTING SIGNS FOR THE PROPER NOTICE OF THE ORDINANCE. I
COULD CHOOSE TO TAKE MY CHALLENGE BACK TO THE COURTS BY JUST PARKING
ON THE STREET AND THEN FORMALLY PETITIONING FOR AN ORDER TO CEASE
ENFORCEMENT. THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY COST THE CITY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE,
WHEN ALL I WANT IS A REASONABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM CREATED BY
THIS UNREASONABLE BAN WHEN SNOW IS NOT THE ISSUE. TO THREATEN ME
WITH ADDITIONAL CITATIONS INSTEAD OF SEEKING AN ADULT SOLUTION TO
A RELATIVELY MINOR PROBLEM SEEMS QUITE PETTY AND IMMATURE. I HOPE
THAT WE CAN FINALLY ACHIEVE A SOLUTION TOGETHER.
Y
ENCLOSURE
cc: JOHN SWEENEY
JAMES THOMSON, ESQ.
JAMES WILLIS
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Felecopier (612) 333-0540
Clayton L. LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
,ilenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler III
.James.). Thomson, Jr.
Phomas R. Gait
Dayle Nolan
John G. Kressel
Steven B. Schmidt
James M. Strommen
ionald H. Betty
Nilliam P. Jordan
✓Villiam R. Skallerud
Aodney D. Anderson
'orrine A. Heine
)avid D. Beaudoin
'aul E. Rasmussen
Steven M. Tellen
Mary Frances Skala
:hristopher J. Harristhal
i imothy J. Pawlenty
7olf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
LeFo'etr
U4Icr
KennedN,
O'Brien K
I)rawz
9 Pf0foSional
Association
September 28, 1987
Alan J. Perlman, Jr.
2820 Medicine Ridge Road
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Re: Plymouth City Code No. 1310.07
No Parking on City Streets between 2:00 a.m. &
5:00 a.m.
Dear Mr. Perlman:
This letter is just to inform you that I have discussed
the dismissal of your parking tickets with the police
department and we have decided not to pursue the matter
for the three tickets which were issued between August
27, 1987, and September 8, 1987. You should be aware,
however, that it is our position that the ordinance is
constitutional and any further violations of the parking
ban which come to the attention of the police department
will result in citations being issued.
Sincerely,
Stev M. Tallen
Assistant City Attorney
City of Plymouth
cc: Chief Richard Carlquist
K `
Scherc� �anjtat�r�
�
Delcno, Kn. 5.'3��
To: :479-433�:.
October 8, 3987
Dear Council Members,
Without being facetious, l would likv to start this letter saying, "if K.
sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck!
Likewise, if it sounds like organized collection, looks like organized
collection, and acts like organized collection, it in organized
collection.
The removal of newsprint` corrigated, glass, aluminum and stool cans from
each residents trash under a bid from Super Cycle is organized collection
of recyclablps.
BFI has told Minnetonka that they would bc interes`r: in a remuvOl
contract of all yard debris and composiable material. This is organnzed
collection.
l
Each of tnese concepts esorn+jally �har organized coI pction (negociatWd
contract) keeping small hauiers working. '
'
Zoning will compliment recycling a,`O I'm sure it is necessary to have a
i f + ized collection But
successful program. Zorinq s a orm o orpan . ,
zoning will hurt if not put so/al] haulersout of businesc. What if wr
are given a zone for ono days work and wc have two days work there? o -c
we to buy another truck for that day? Largo hauUcru 110, 20, 1�'� trucks)
simply put two trucks in that zone that day
Volume pricing is enforceable only under orpanized co"Ie-�"rn kith
pressure put on the haulers to survive in this business. in open
collection it would not be enforced as wo]).
I repeatedly hear we don't want organized collection. (vc want to keep
our same hauler.) I feel the people making these statements are not
aware of what has and will happen to their waste stream and their hauler
under this policy of open collection, bids and restrictions.
On the surface organized collection is very touchy for the city,(to say
the least.) But I feel we must dean with the facts and act responsibly.
Hopefully, we can see the benefits of organized collection and keep large
and small haulers working.
Councilmembers, we �are knee deep in organized collection already.
Please do not hesitate to call or write if you have any questions. Thank
you.
A hillf
-
an :herer
,
October 8, 1987
Mr. Jim Willis
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Jim:
Commercial
Normandale Lake Office Park
8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard
Suite 375
Bloomington, Minnesota 55437
612/921-2000
I would like to personally thank you for your involvement in the
approval process for the Carlson Center, 8th Addition. From the
initial meeting that Kirt and I had with Blaire and you, we have
experienced a municipality that is going the extra mile to work
with a developer through the city approval process. Blaire
Tremere and Fred Moore have helped us out tremendously and we
thank all of you for the roles that you have played in the
process.
Jim, again we thank you for rolling up your sleeves and helping
us work through this recent challenge. If there is anything
that we can do for you, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
jhx-024
Very truly,
TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY
John Griffith
I
OCT g J�3i
Mr. Pat Murphy
Maintenance Supervisor
Hennepin County Department of Transportation
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Subject: Traffic Signal
County Road 10 and Zachary Lane
Dear Pat:
As requested in my letter of September 18, 1987, the County modified the
traffic signal at County Road 10 and Zachary Lane to provide a separate left
turn movement. This work was completed on October 8, 1987. This traffic
signal modification will alleviate a safety problem which had occurred since
the detouring of County Road 9.
I wish to thank you and other County officials for your prompt action on the
request by the City of Plymouth.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
Herb Klossner, County Engineer
Dennis Hansen, County Traffic Engineer
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800