The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 01-10-1986CITY 0, PUMOUTR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 10, 1986 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, January 13, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in City Council conference room. 2. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, January 13, 7:30 p.m. Special City Council meeting in City Council Chambers. 3. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS -- Tuesday, January 14, 7:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-3) 4. MEETING REMINDERS: A. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING -- Wednesday, January 15, Decathlon Club, Bloomington. Board of Directors meeting - 5 to 6:00 p.m.; Social Hour - 6:15 p.m.; Dinner - 7:00 p.m. Our legislators have been invited to attend. B. DAVID DAVENPORT & PAT NEILS APPRECIATION DINNER -- Tuesday, January 21, Radisson Inn Plymouth. Social Hour - 6:00 p.m.; Dinner - 7:00 p.m. C. SEMINARS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS -- Conference for Newly Elected Officials, Saturday, January 25 from 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. at the Sheraton Midway Hotel. Pre -conference workshops for all elected officials - Friday, January 24 - "Serving your Constitutents", 8:00 - 5:00 p.m.; "Economic Development", 7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. 5. SKIING IN PLYMOUTH -- Saturday, January 18, Plymouth Creek Park. A press release on activities planned for the day is attached for your information. (M-5) 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 10, 1986 Page 2 FOR YOUR INFORMATION..... 1. PLYMOUTH METROLINK - DECEMBER REPORT -- displaying our average daily ridership commuter, internal circulator and total December. The second table displays the each service area compared with the target order to have a successful project. Shown below is a table for the commuter/ reverse system for each week of year to date averages in which we must achieve in MONTHLY PLYMOUTH METROLINK DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY WEEK BY SERVICE TYPE DECEMBER 1985 Total System SERVICE TYPE Commuter/ Internal Total TARGET 288 Reverse Commuter Circulator System WEEK OF: 104% 14% 12/1 - 12/7 331 47 378 12/8 - 12/14 347 42 389 12/15 - 12/21 337 42 379 12/22 - 12/28* 257 72 330 12/29 - 12/30** ----------------- 329 54 383 MONTH LONG ------------------ ------------- ---------------- AVERAGE 320 52 372 * Does not include Christmas Eve or the day after Christmas ** Does not include New Year's Eve YEAR TO DATE Item Commuter/ Reverse Commuter Internal Circulator Total System YEAR TO DATE RIDERSHIP AVERAGE 306 51 357 TARGET 288 25 313 % OVER/(UNDER) TARGET 6% 104% 14% CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 10, 1986 Page 3 Also, shown below is a third table which compares the daily ridership averages by month for calendar years 1984 and 1985. For 1985 the commuter/ reverse commuter portion of the service averaged 7% above 1984 levels, the internal circulator ridership 42%, with a 1985 total system average increase of 11% above 1984. 2. MAYOR'S SIGNATURE -- Mayor Schneider has expressed his desire to receive and sign official documents prior to, rather than after, City Council meetings. Since his signature before the meeting could be construed to presuppose Council approval of all items on the agenda, he asked that this paragraph be included in the Manager's information memorandum in order that councilmembers will be .aware that this procedure is designed only to save time following the meeting. In the event that an item which he has signed prior to the meeting is subsequently denied or deferred by the Council, the signed document would be destroyed or otherwise dealt with in accordance with ultimate Council action. In the absence of Council comment, Mayor Schneider will implement the procedure as outlined above. DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY MONTH FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1984 do 1985 SERVICE TYPE Commuter/ Internal Total Reverse Commuter Circulator System MONTH: 1984 1985 1984 1985 1984 1985 January 330 307 21 51 351 358 February 310 292 25 50 335 342 March 307 311 25 56 332 367 April 301 295 27 55 331 350 May 295 298 27 36 322 334 June 276 314 41 53 317 367 July 277 297 42 52 319 349 August 266 292 47 57 313 349 September 275 322 32 42 307 364 October 276 312 36 55 312 367 November 271 311 35 57 306 368 December 265 320 39 52 304 372 YEAR LONG ------------------ ------------- ---------------- AVERAGE 287 306 36 51 321 357 2. MAYOR'S SIGNATURE -- Mayor Schneider has expressed his desire to receive and sign official documents prior to, rather than after, City Council meetings. Since his signature before the meeting could be construed to presuppose Council approval of all items on the agenda, he asked that this paragraph be included in the Manager's information memorandum in order that councilmembers will be .aware that this procedure is designed only to save time following the meeting. In the event that an item which he has signed prior to the meeting is subsequently denied or deferred by the Council, the signed document would be destroyed or otherwise dealt with in accordance with ultimate Council action. In the absence of Council comment, Mayor Schneider will implement the procedure as outlined above. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 10, 1986 Page 4 3. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION - POLICY RESOLUTIONS -- Attached are four policy resolutions dealing with local government aid, budget reduction policy, local government aid appropriation policy, and 1986 legislative policy for City Council review. These policy resolutions will be acted upon by the MLC Board of Directors at the January 15 meeting. Mayor Schneider and Councilmember Crain have expressed an interest in attending this meeting. (I-3) 4. SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE FOR INSTRUMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS INC. -- At the January 6 meeting the City Council approved a site plan and variance request from Instrument Control Systems for use of an existing structure on property located at 13005 16th Avenue North. The Council added conditions to the approving resolution, conditioning variance approval on receipt of written confirmation of variance from fire Iane and fire hydrant requirements from the Fire Chief. Attached is a memorandum dated January 8 from the Fire Chief confirming approval of these variances. (I-4) 5. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES -- Attached is a letter from Alan Beals, Executive Director of the National League of Cities, reporting on the final actions taken by the Congress and administration this year affecting cities and actions expected to be considered by the Congress when it returns on January 21st. (I-5) 6. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES - APPOINTMENT OF 1986 CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE -- Attached is a memorandum from the League requesting the assistance of city officials in the planning of the 1986 LMC Annual Conference. If any member of the Council would like to participate on the Planning Committee or may have suggestions for conference workshops, programs or activities, please let me know and I will advise the League staff. (I-6) 7. NEW COUNTY ROAD 61, CARLSON PARKWAY AND CHESHIRE LANE SPEED STUDIES -- In October and November, 1985 the City Council requested MnDOT and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation to undertake the necessary speed studies to determine the proper speed limits on newly constructed County Road 61, Carlson Parkway and Cheshire Lane. As a result of their investigation, MnDOT has determined the proper speed limits and attached is a letter with their results. The speed limits on all of the roadways within the City of Plymouth will be 40 m.p.h. The County installed the necessary speed limit signs on January 8. (I-7) 8. PIKE LAKE INTERCEPTOR SEWER THROUGH TENNANT PROPERTY -- The City Council received three alternate alignments for the Pike Lake Interceptor Sewer through the Tennant property which were acceptable to the Tennant Company. In December of 1985 the City Council approved a report of the Special Assessment Committee choosing an alignment and directing staff to begin negotiations on the purchase of the necessary easement. Fred Moore has been in contact with Bob Langford of the Tennant Company and has established a meeting for January 30. Tennant is to respond to the alignment chosen by the City and our offer on the purchase of the easements. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 10, 1986 Page 5 9. MINUTES -- Minutes from the December 9, 1985 meetinf of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals are attached for your review. (1-9) 10. 1986 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE - In 1985 the attached draft meeting schedule was reviewed by the City Council. The Council deferred action on the calendar. In the absence of Council direction to the contrary, we will continue to use this meeting schedule for the remainder of 1986. (1-10) 11. CABLE TV NORTHWEST -- A copy of the Cable TV Northwest marketing report as of January 1, 1986 is attached for your information. Todate, there are 5,420 subscribers in Plymouth. (I-11) 12. MAYOR'S CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letters to Council candidates on the appointment of Mr. Bob Zitur. (I -12a) b. Letter of appreciation to Father Arnold Weber for invocation at January 6 Council meeting. (I -12b) C. Memorandum from Frank Boyles responding to Mayor Schneider's memo regarding deferred special assessments for Mr. Douglas Schroeder, 5230 Vicksburg Lane. (I -12c) 13. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Correspondence between Marney Wamsley, Principal, Wayzata Senior High, and Blair Tremere, on the PTSO's consideration of installing a sign on Vicksburg Lane advising of school events. (I -13a) b. Letters to retiring firefighters Don Erickson and Al Tombers from Dave Davenport. (I -13b) C. Letter of appreciation from the Sohn Danielson family, 17030 - 12th Avenue No., on the City's maintenance of the skating pond on 12th Avenue North. (I -13c) d. Letter to Matt and Kay Rath, 10610 South Shore Drive, from Public Safety Department, in response to the Rath's complaint of snowmobiles trespassing on their property. (I -13d) Frank Boyles Assistant City Manager FB:jm AGENDA Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals Tuesday, January 14, 1986 WHERE: Plymouth City Center Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, Minnesota 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P_M 2. ROLL CALL 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 9, 1985 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Randall J. Raymond. Variance from the rear yard setback for property located at 4700 Goldenrod Lane North (01-01-86). B. Image Homes. Variances from the minimum Shoreland Management setback and front yard setback for property located at 4655 Goldenrd Lane North (01-02-86). 6- OTHER RTIS 1 NESS 7. ADJOURNMENT M-ts The Plymouth Gm*c League Contact: Eric Blank LaVonne Sjoberg 559-2800 (0) 559-3800 Ext. 265 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EIGHTH ANNUAL SKIING IN PLYMOUTH SET FOR JANUARY 18, 1986 Maureen Shaver 473-8568 PLYMOUTH (January 2, 1986) --Cross country racing and pleasure skiers will again have a local community event in which to participate Saturday, January 18. Skiing In Plymouth, an annual event, is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. at Plymouth Creek Park. A 5.0 kilometer cross-country ski course will be laid out on the grounds for the Pacer Race competition. A $2 individual or $5 family registration fee will be charged race entrants. Medals will be awarded to winners in five age categories for both men and women. The pleasure skiing event, which is free to the public, will begin at approximately 11:30 a.m. and continue until 1:30 p.m. Free ice skating will be sponsored by the Plymouth Parks and Recreation Department as part of the day's activities. The National Ski Patrol will be on hand to assist racers. All first-time participants in either the racing or pleasure events will receive an official patch. Those skiers who have participated in earlier events will receive an official chevron. and other refreshments will be available for skiers and others in attendance at the park's warming house. -MORE- Food Plymouth Creek Park, formerly called Fernbrook Play Field, is located at 3625 Fernbrook Lane, about one-half mile west of I-494 and one-half mile north of Highway 55. In case of postponement, the alternative date will be January 25, 1986. The Plymouth Civic League (PCL) is sponsoring this annual community skiing event. Founded over thirteen years ago by area civic and business leaders, PCL provides activities for Plymouth area residents. Membership is open to the public for an annual fee of $5 per family. These membership fees, along with contributions from area businesses and the City of Plymouth, underwrite the costs of Skiing in Plymouth. The other major League activity is Music in Plymouth, a summer evening of fine music open to the general public and held in the natural amphitheater at Plymouth City Center. -30- CMUNICIPAL LEGISI.,ATIVE COMMISSION RESOLUTION LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID POLICY 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Suite 1500 Bloominqton, Minnesota 55431 (612) 338-6610 WHEREAS, the Local Government Aid formula enacted during the 1985 Legislative Session expires on December 31, 1986; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Legislature must enact'a new appropriation level and Local Government Aid distribution formula for 1987; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Commission on Local Government Finance will not be making its recommendation on a Local Government Aid formula to the 1986 Legislature; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Legislature will have many serious and time-consuming issues before them, including balancing the State's biennial budget; and WHEREAS, the present Local Government Aid formula was adopted less than one year ago; and WHEREAS, the present formula begins to address some of the inequities that have developed in Minnesota's Local Government Aid program; THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Municipal Legislative Commission supports a continuation of the Local Government Aid formula enacted in 1985; and FURTHER, let it be resolved that the Municipal Legislative Commission pledges to work with the Legislative Commission on Local Government Finance as it strives to develop 1987 legislative recommendations. 1/86 LMUNICIPAL LEGISLATNE COMMISSION RESOLUTION BUDGFT REDUCTION POLICY y 3 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Suite 1500 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 338-6610 WHEREAS, state tax revenues are significantly less than expected; and WHEREAS, this revenue shortfallhas caused the state's 1986-87 budget to become unbalanced; and WHEREAS, the Governor and the 1986 Legislature will propose and enact fiscal measures which will likely reduce state appropriations to local units of government in order to balance the state's budget; and WHEREAS, the sacrifices required to balance the state budget should be shared by all recipients of state tax dollars; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Legislative Commission member cities are willing to share in the cutbacks that may be required to balance the state's budget; THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Municipal Legislative Commission supports budget reductions that are fair and uniform; FURTHER, be it resolved that the Municipal Legislative Commission supports the position that all recipients of state appropriations should be subject to budget reduc- tions, if necessary; FURTHER, be it resolved that the Municipal Legislative Commission will oppose any cutbacks which place an excessive amount of budget reductions on local units of government. 1/86 MUNICIPAL LEGISI,ATNE COMMISSION 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Suite 1500 Bloomington. Minnesota 55431 (612) 338-6610 RESOLUTION 1987 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID APPROPRIATION POLICY WHEREAS, the Legislature will set the appropriation level for 1987 Local Government Aid during the 1986 Session; and WHEREAS, this appropriation will not have an affect on the budget problems of the present biennium since it will not be paid until fiscal year 1988; and WHEREAS, Local Government Aid plays an important role in reducing property taxes for many cities; and WHEREAS, potential budget cuts in 1986 may reduce 1986 Local Government Aid payments already appropriated and budgeted; and WHEREAS, the new Local Government Aid formula adopted in 1985 will reduce inequities and help restore balance to the Local Government Aid distribution system only if it is adequately funded by the Legislature; THEREFORE, be it resolved that the 1987 Local Government Aid appropriation amount be increased by at least 6% more than the 19 86 appropriation amount; FURTHER, let it be resolved that should reductions in 1986 Local Government Aid be necessary, any percentage increase for 1987 be computed on the restored 1986 base amount. 1/86 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATNE COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1986 LEGISLATIVE POLICY '� 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Suite 1500 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 338-6610 WHEREAS, the Municipal Legislative Commission was formed in 1983 as an organization of cities with common fiscal interests and concerns; and WHEREAS, Local Government Aid and state property tax programs were the issues of most concern to the Municipal Legislative Commission cities; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Legislature will devote a substantial amount of its time to fiscal issues which may have a significant impact on Municipal Legislative Commission members; Now, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Municipal Legislative Commission direct its lobbyists to concentrate their efforts on Local Government Aid, property tax relief programs such as the homestead credit, budget reductions affecting cities and other issues which may have fiscal impacts on its membership. 1/86 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO January 8, 1986 Blair Tremere Lyle C. Robinson Instrument Control Company Project 85124 Request for Variance T-� This memo is to support the variance to the fire lane due to the location of the structure on the property and its proximity to the property line. There will be no additional requirement for fire hydrants on this property at this time. Any future development of this property will have to address the needs for all fire protection requirements. LCR:ly December 31, 1985 National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW League Washington, D.C. Of 20004 Cities (202) 626-3000 Cable: NLCITIES The Honorable David J. Davenport Mayor City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Mayor Davenport: Officers President George V Vo nov,c^. Mayor, Cleveland, Oh,C First vice President Carol Bellamy Council President. New York, New Yo, Second Vice President Henry G Cisneros Mayor, San Antonio, Texas Immediate Past President George Latimer Mayor, St. Paul, Minnesota Executive Director Alan Beals I am writing to advise you of the final actions taken by the Congress and administration this year affecting cities, of the actions we expect to be considered when Congress returns on January 21st, and of the courses of action you might take to protect your city's needs anO interests. Along with this letter, I am enclosing a packet of background material and a brief survey on key municipal issues. I would very much appreciate it if you would share the background information with your elected colleagues, and I would be grateful if you would have your appropriate staff person insure that the survey is given prompt and careful attention. The survey will be critical in our efforts to give you the best representation possible in Washington, D.C., in 1986. This past year has been one of the most difficult in history for municipalities from the federal perspective. The federal government called for the deepest cuts in history to cities, a host of new and expensive federal mandates, and changes in the federal tax code which would preempt or restrict your municipal authority to raise revenue or capital. Next year will be considerably worse unless we can all work together. Despite the sharp cuts in federal aid to local governments, the federal deficit and the federal trade deficit set new records. Although the federal government made these reductions, it proposed still more federal mandates and - with the exception of the success we achieved with regard to the Fair Labor Standards legislation - no reductions in any existing federal mandates. Finally, the federal government began consideration of the most Past Presidents: Tom Bradley, Mayor. Los Angeles. California • Ford L. Harrison, Mayor, Scotland Neck, North Carolina • Wllllom H. Hudnut, III, Mayor, Indianapolis. Indiana • Menry W. Maier, Mayor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin • Jessie M. Rattley, Councilwoman. Newport News. Virginia • John P. Rousakle, Mayor, Savannah, Georgia • Charles Royer, Mayor, Seattle, Washington • Directors: Art Ashley, Mayor, Nitro. West Virginia • Rose Sesserman, Council Member. Vancouver. Washington • Robert R. Confine, Executive Director, Wyoming Association of Municipalities • Henry Cook, Council Member, Jacksonville. Florida • Joe W. Davis, Mayor. Huntsville. Alabama • James E. Ferguson, Mayor, Provo. Utah • Donald Freoer, Mayor, Minneapolis. Minnesota -Terry Goddard, Mayor, Phoenix. Arizona • Ron Gonzales, Council Member, Sunnyvale. California • George D. Goodman, Executive Director, Michigan Municipal League • Daniel E. Onset, Mayor, Santa Ana, California Richard Guthman, Jr., Council Member. Atlanta. Georgia • Robert W. Harpstar, Executive Director, League of Iowa Municipalities • Delores Hudson, Council Member, Warrensburg, Missouri Brendon J. Kennedy, Alderman, New Britain, Connecticut • Dud Lostropes, Mayor, Lafayette, Louisiana• Paul A. Lenz, Mayor, Alton,'llinois • Gerald McCann, Mayor, Jerseyyy City NewJerseY • Brien J. O'Neill, Council Member, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania • Pamela P Plumb, Councilor, Portland. Maine • Ruth H. Scott, Council Member, Rochester, New York • James W. I, Executive Director, Massachusetts Municipal Association • Lottie Shackelford, City Director, Little Rock, Arkansas • Raymond C. Sittig, Executive Director, Florida League of Cities • Dona d A. Slster, Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities • Consuelo S. Thompson, Mayor. Espanola New Mexico • Minions C. Troseh, Mayor Pro Tem, Charlotte, North Carolina • Donald Tucker, Council Member. Newark, New Jersey • Thomas X. White, Council Member Greenbelt. Maryland • Louis Zapata, Council Member, Fort Worth, Texas -2 - far reaching tax reform proposal of the last 50 years - a proposal which would dramatically affect each and every municipality in America. Even though the Congress is a long way from final action on tax reform, the House tax reform bill will sharply restrict your authority to issue municipal bonds beginning at midnight tonight. Through it all, cities have continued to balance their budgets and respond to the basic needs of their citizens. It is a remarkable achievement, particularly for some of our cities in the greatest fiscal distress - communities in the farm belt, where property values are plummeting and foreclosures are too common; cities affected by a large influx of immigrants and foreign devalued currency; cities and towns adversely affected by the sharp decline in energy prices; and cities hit hard by foreign imports and consequent high levels of unemployment, and poverty no longer caught by an eroded federal safety net. I believe this is a credit to you and all municipal elected officials. When Congress adjourned for the Christmas vacation, it left without acting to implement its own budget. The conflicts between the Senate, the White House, and the House which have prevented any meaningful action to reduce record federal deficits lasted through the last bitter hours. Thus, even though the Congress actually cut spending some $6 billion below what the president requested for the current fiscal year, Congress left town without taking any substantive action to cut the federal deficit. All the money saved was simply used to pay for greater tax breaks and spending elsewhere. Part of the reason for the failure was the time Congress took to pass the Gramm-Rudman legislation - a proposal which would supposedly balance the federal budget by 1991. The Gramm-Rudman legislation would effectively delete the Congress and White House from the federal budget process, instead substituting automatically triggered cuts in a small percentage of the federal budget. It would be comparable to your city - if it had to deal in an emergency with a record deficit - passing an ordinance which said that, beginning in the next fiscal year, about 25 percent of the city budget would be subject to across the board cuts in annual installments over 5 years until the city's budget balanced. You and your fellow elected colleagues would bear no responsibility for determining what the city's priorities were. Garbage collection, 9-1-1 emergency response service, city maintenance, etc. would all be cut uniformly - and there would be no consideration of what the appropriate level of local taxes ought to be. — S_ -3 - As you can see, the proposal has some obvious political attraction. Because, however, the portion of the federal budget subject to the Gramm-Rudman proposal - which, of course, includes all municipal assistance programs - is approximately equal to the current federal deficit, it means that implementing the bill will terminate any federal relationship with local governments. It means that effective March 1st next year, all federal programs to cities will be cut in the current fiscal year. That is, you should expect reductions in your April and July revenue sharing payments, cuts in your Community Development Block grant funds, cuts in any public transportation or federal -aid highway funding, and in any wastewater sewage treatment grant funds. I expect the March lst cut to be about 4.6 percent. Unless Congress proposes an alternative, I expect that on October 15, 1986, Gramm-Rudman will require a further 18 percent cut. In March, we anticipate that the Senate Finance Committee will begin actual consideration of the House -passed tax reform bill, HR 3838. At that time, we expect the administration to make strong efforts to repeal the deductibility of local property, personal property, income, and sales taxes. The administration estimates that this will reduce municipal revenues somewhere between 1-3 percent. The committee will also be considering the administration and House proposals to restrict local authority to issue general obligation, revenue, and industrial development bonds. In other words, at the same time you are trying to compensate for extraordinary cuts in federal assistance, there will be serious efforts underway which could undermine your own ability to raise revenues yourself. Finally, I expect the federal government to continue to press for mandatory Medicare contributions from cities, for federal permits for stormwater discharges, for more expensive enforcement of drinking water and hazardous waste regulations, and for other new mandates. You and I both know that your citizens will insist upon a certain level of basic, public services and facilities. We both know that the federal government will continue to insist that cities provide certain standards and levels of basic services such as sewage treatment, etc. The question will be who will be responsible for paying for these facilities and services, and how can the revenues be raised. The current federal deficit exceeds $200 billion. The president's tax reform proposal, as well as the version passed by the House, would cut back tax breaks enough over the next 5 years to bring in nearly $400 billion in new revenues - mostly from individuals and -4- corporations who have not paid their fair share over the last 5 years. The bills would also bring in revenue from cutting back on your city's ability to issue tax exempt bonds. Both bills, however, pretend that tax refrom is completely unrelated to the nation's single most important problem: the deficit. Thus, instead of using even a single dime of the new revenues for deficit reduction, both versions would return every dollar to corporations and individuals in the form of the steepest tax cuts in this century. If the federal government proceeds along this path, it will directly affect your city. You will be faced with tough decisions about cutting personnel and services or raising taxes. If your constituents believe they are paying more in local taxes, but receiving less, they are likely to hold you responsible. Consequently, we believe you might want to consider some of the following steps: 1. Issue a state of the city address in which you specifically alert your citizens to the potential impact on local taxpayers of pending federal actions; 2. Conduct an extensive campaign, both in citizen's meetings and through the local media, to inform the public of the choices forced upon the local level by these federal proposals; 3. Send a letter to all your municipal employees advising them of the federal issues which might affect their job status, salaries, pensions, and benefits; 4. Contact your Congressional delegation, preferably in person, to request: (a) a detailed analysis of how the revenue from your city sent to Washington is shared (for instance, you might want to ask why the federal government sends more economic development assistance overseas, but tells cities it has "no revenue to share;" (b) a detailed analysis of the impact of current and pending federal mandates on your local budget and taxpayers; (c) a detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed tax bills on your city, particularly with regard to your city's authority and ability to raise capital and revenues; (d) an explanation of how the country can afford to cut taxes by nearly $400 billion under tax reform when the federal deficit is at record heights; a.0 (e) a specific statement in support of reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing; and (f) a commitment of strong, visible support for any local tax increases you will be required to seek in response to the pending federal proposals. We face a long and difficult year. It will be a year in which I believe you will have to represent you constituents not just at the local and state levels, but also upon the federal level. We will have to make our voices heard. I hope the information included along with this letter will be of assistance to you. I would be very grateful for the benefit of your views and further suggestions you might have in order to help us better represent you. With best re ards, Alan Beals Executive Director Background Status of Major Federal Issues & Cities 1986-87 1. Gramm-Rudman: As part of the legislation increasing the federal debt to over $2 trillion, the federal government enacted the so-called Gramm-Rudman legislation. This law provides for the triggering of automatic cuts in certain federal spending every year over the next 5 until 1991, beginning with cuts in the current fiscal year. Under Gramm-Rudman, the first round for FY1986 will be triggered on March 1, 1986 for the federal fiscal year which began last October 1st. In all future years, the automatic cuts would be triggered on October 15th, unless the White House and had enacted an alternative budget proposal which reduced the deficits to the amounts set under Gramm-Rudman. At this point, our best estimate is that all programs directly affecting Municipalities will be cut 4.6 percent for the current year. This will mean that public transportation, housing, CDBG, EPA wastewater funding, highway assistance, etc. will be cut by that amount (see chart #1). Because the first FY1986 revenue sharing payment will be made in the next week, we project that the final 3 payments (April, July, and October) might have to be cut by about 6 percent in order to achieve the full 4.6 percent required. The Gramm-Rudman legislation triggers automatic cuts in a small percentage of federal expenditures over the next 5 years whenever the federal government estimates that the new deficit targets will be exceeded by $10 billion. The targets begin with $171.9 billion for FY1986, and decline by $36 billion annually to $0 by 1991. The administration estimates that under current law the deficit for FY86 is well over $200 billion. Gramm-Rudman limits the maximum cut in FY86 to $20 billion, and prorates that for the last 7 months of the year. That means that the maximum cut, or "sequestration" as it is called, would be about $11.7 billion for the current year. It means that the president will be required to submit an FY1987 budget to the Congress by February 5, 1986, which provides for a deficit no greater than $144. Gramm-Rudman exempts most of the federal budget from the automatic cuts. For instance, only about 13 percent of federal expenditures are susceptible to the cuts. In FY1986, fully $750 billion of $967 billion in federal spending is protected from any cuts, and even of the remainder, much is partially protected. No city program, however, is protected. i !Wa Because Social Security, interest on the federal debt, federal obligations for binding contracts, federal tax subsidies, and other programs are completely exempt; the small percentage of federal expenditures remaining nearly equal the current federal deficit. This means that when the rate of growth of the exempt programs is taken into account, it is not even clear that the total elimination of the non-exempt agencies and programs would achieve a balanced budget. Gramm-Rudman provides that the cuts are to be divided equally between defense and domestic programs. In other words, next March, this means that about $5.8 billion in cuts will be made in defense spending, and the same amount out of domestic spending. Because defense spending has increased so much (for example, the Pentagon received $6 billion in excess inflation adjustment last year), the actual percentage cuts will be much deeper in state and local programs. If the federal government continues its current inability to deal substantively with the federal deficit and Gramm-Rudman rolls forward, it will mean the elimination of domestic government. Because Gramm-Rudman would be so destructive to national defense (while most ongoing weapons system and research would be fully protected because they are covered under binding contracts, it would mean extraordinary cuts over the next 5 years in military readiness, especially equipment and personnel), many expect the administration to seek extraordinary cuts in domestic programs in order to avoid triggering Gramm-Rudman. Since the president has pledged to increase defense spending by about 7 percent, he will be required to seek much deeper offsetting cuts in order to submit a budget providing for a deficit reduction of about $50 billion. Consequently, as you can see from the chart, we anticipate an FY87 budget request with wholesale cuts and eliminations in key city programs. What you should do: Almost without exception, members of Congress acknowledge that Gramm-Rudman is an irresponsible way to deal with the federal deficit. Almost all acknowledge that no long term solution will be possible without including tax revenues and Social Security. Moreover, because Gramm-Rudman would call for much greater automatic cuts when economic growth is low, and much lighter cuts during strong economic growth, there is a good chance that Gramm-Rudman could provoke a recession. It is important that you fully understand and are prepared for the automatic cuts - especially those set for March 1st. It is equally important that your Congressional delegation understand that dealing with the deficit requires everything to be on the table - exactly the same way every city budgets every year. Finally, it is critical that your delegation understand that no T -3- budget process can proceed separately from the revenue process: that is, you must pay for what you spend. Remember, the pending tax reform proposals seek to raise nearly $400 billion in new tax revenues - mostly from wealthy individuals and corporations who have not paid their fair share - but then proposes to turn right around and give back every penny in the form of the deepest tax cuts this century. Chart I GRAMM-RUDMAN ESTIMATED CUTS 1 Under current law, the last revenue sharing payment to cities and towns is scheduled to be made in October, 1986. This figure anticipates an administration request to eliminate the scheduled payment entirely. 2 Denotes elimination. FY 1986 (4.6%) FY 1987 Possible G -R G -R (18%) White House Cuts General Revenue $ 7621 Sharing $211 $ 53 Community Development Block Grant 161 601 900 EPA and Municipal Wastewater Grants 110 414 600 Public Transportation 170 635 2,027 Federal Highways 607 2,268 2,600 UDAG 15.4 56 3302 Subsidized Housing 252 750 2,209 Job Training Partnership Act 129 476 --- 1 Under current law, the last revenue sharing payment to cities and towns is scheduled to be made in October, 1986. This figure anticipates an administration request to eliminate the scheduled payment entirely. 2 Denotes elimination. QWhat's subject to automatic cuts under . Gramm -Rudman -Hollings? A- Only 13% of the total Federal budget', but that includes all city programs. Tax Expenditures 30% Defense 10% City/other programs 3% City/other programs Other Z include: CDBG. UDAG, Protected Programs UMPTA, Clean Water32% . and Depts. of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, HUD, (in Interior. Justice (including FBI), Labor, State, Treasury, EPA, NASA, SBA. Veterans (portion) and all other federal agencies Social Security 15% Interest 10% Total Federal Budget is 51.4 tnUM on- 5%—Medocare—protected in Horse ck ding $400 trillion in tax expenditures version 2 Other protected programs (32%) in ckrde: 10% --Programs such as retirement in which only cost of living al- lowances may be cut 136—Prior Year Contracts (Detense Dept 8%. all others 5%) 4%—Low income programs pro- tected in House version—food stamps. SSt, child nutrition. cornnwr ity health centers, mi- grant health, wlc program, vet- erans compensation and veter- ans pensions ' .`'-' �5 `�'� � December 31, 1985 2. Federal Tax Reform Before adjourning, the House of Representatives passed HR 3838 to reform the federal tax code. The Senate is expected to begin consideration of its own version in early March in the Finance Committee. Even though the Senate has yet to act, however, the House bill will restrict the authority of cities to issue municipal bonds after midnight tonight. After passing the tax bill, the House and Senate each passed separate non-binding resolutions calling for a delay in the January 1, 1986 effective dates in the House passed bill. These resolutions, however, carry no legal weight. Therefore, because the provisions on municipal bonds are pending, your city will not be able to obtain a clean opinion to issue bonds after today unless the bonds comply not only with existing law, but also with the pending legislation. As you read the analysis below, you should keep in mind that the tax reform bill is only halfway through the Congress. There are, consequently, many opportunities to make changes in the Senate. It is especially important to make sure that cities are able to preserve their right to raise their own tax revenues, so you want to be sure to urge your Senators to strongly oppose any efforts to repeal or modify the ability of your city's taxpayers to deduct state and local taxes. Likewise, it is important to preserve your city's capacity to issue municipal bonds and short term notes, especially for traditional public needs and purposes. As you go through this material, you should identify where your city will be most adversely affected and make sure your Senators are aware and responsive. It cannot be emphasized enough how important it is that you communicate your concerns immediately before the process begins. Tax reform is so complicated that it will be exceptionally difficult to have input once the process in the Senate is underway. The House Ways and Means Committee completed action on its version of federal tax reform before sunrise on Saturday, November 23rd. The committee plans to formally report the bill out the week of December 2nd. Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski(D-Ill) plans to bring the bill before the full House prior to the Christmas recess. As completed, the House bill (Rosty II) bears remarkable overall similarities to the president's proposals. That is, the bill would lower individual and corporate tax rates to their lowest levels in -2 - over 50 years. The bill would remove federal tax liabilities for almost all low income Americans. And the bill would reverse the shift of imposing greater taxes on families and individuals and less on businesses. Indeed, perhaps the most remarkable similarity between the bill and the president's request was the repeal of the investment tax credit and the stretch out of depreciation benefits - two of the most expensive tax provisions which marked the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act - the more than $100 billion in new federal revenues from repealing these two tax expenditures would not, however, be returned to the federal Treasury to help deal with record deficits. For the nation's cities, there are enormous differences between the two proposals. For while elected city officials were given virtually no access to the administration during the 5 months the White House was reviewing the November, 1984 Treasury tax reform proposal - during which time hundreds of billions of dollars of changes were made to benefit certain interest groups - there were substantial improvements made in the chairman's own proposal from the perspective of municipalities. * The president had proposed to terminate the deductibility of state and local taxes - a proposal which by the Treasury's own estimate would have reduced cities' own revenues between 1 and 3 percent. Rostenkowski proposed a compromise which would have taken away about 75 percent of deductibility. It was overwhelmingly rejected in the final hours -of committee action. The bill preserves the right for cities first asserted by President Abraham Lincoln that the federal government should not impose a tax on taxes levied by state and local governments. * The president had proposed to terminate the historic and rehabilitation tax credits. Rostenkowski, with a Chicago congressional district, understood the value of this credit to rebuilding downtown areas in a public-private partnership. The chiarman proposed a modification to preserve the credits; the House agreed. * The Treasury had proposed to sharply cut back on charitable contributions, the president modified that proposal, but still would have prohibited the charitable contribution deduction for any taxpayer who did not itemize. With the extraordinary cuts in domestic programs, this issue has become critical for a growing number of cities in order to help meet emergency food, shelter, medical, and fuel assistance needs of citizens. Rostenkwoski's bill modified the proposal to permit all taxpayers to deduct for making such contributions. * The president had proposed to terminate the authority for cities to issue bonds to provide for housing opportunities for those who could not afford decent, safe, and sanitary shelter. The -3 - president also proposed to cut back on depreciation and to eliminate the rehabilitation tax credit. The committee bill restored the credits and the right for cities to issue housing bonds, but provided greater investor incentives to invest in low income housing. In terms of direct impact, then, the bill changes would be better for cities in a number of ways. * In perhaps the most key direct impact area to many city officials, however, the bill would impose significant new mandates on cities, as well as preempting much current authority. The president had proposed eliminating the authority of cities to issue any tax exempt bonds where more than 1 percent benefited any non-governmental user - a proposal which even U.S. Treasury Secretary advised NLC president Voinovich was unreasonable. Rostenkowski upped the percentage to 5, and would have permitted some authority to issue housing bonds. But the final House bill would permit cities to issue unlimited general obligation and revenue bonds, as long as no non-governmental person received more than the equivalent of $10 or 10 percent of the value of the bonds. The bill would also provide authority to issue water and sewer, solid waste, housing, idb, and some other kinds of tax exempt bonds, but under a new state -by -state volume cap which would cut city borrowing authority about 40 percent from the current year. The change on municipal authority to issue bonds, moreover, will be effective on January 1, 1986. Even though the Senate will not act on tax reform until some time next year, the inclusion of the January 1, 1986 date in the House bill is sufficient to put a cloud over city authority to issue any bonds unless they comply with the newly proposed federal rules. Overall, however, the impact is one that will vary. No two cities would be affected the same way by tax reform. Probably the most significant area affecting cities would be in the corporate area, for there the shifts are most dramatic. Under current law, the top corporate tax rate is 46 percent. Some retail and high tech companies pay at close to that rate. On the other hand, some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America, including almost all the major defense contractors, pay little to no federal taxes. Under the committee proposal, thus, those companies currently paying over 45 percent would experience a sharp reduction in federal taxes, while those paying virtually no federal taxes would experince the opposite. -4 - Because most corporate activity occurs within the nation's cities, this tremendous shift in corporate tax liabilities would have a major impact on each city. overall the bill, consistent with the president's proposal, would shift more of the federal tax burden from individuals and families to corporations. This shift of slightly over 8 percent, or about $126 billion, over the next 5 years could be expected to provide some increased consumer spending, but some decreased business investment in cities. Analysis: The House proposal (Rosty II) to President Reagan's federal tax reform proposal would reduce the capacity and authority of the nation's cities to raise their own revenue to provide for their own public facilities, needs, and responsibilities. The Ways and Means Committee proposal will curtail the authority of cities to issue tax exempt municipal bonds and notes --in some cases retroactive to September 25, 1985 --at the end of the year, even though Congress is unlikely to take any final action until next year. As has become a tradition in the Congress, the introduction of tax legislation --drafted in secret sessions --affecting cities will have the effect of law even without enactment, or even action by the Senate. That is because it will prevent municipal bond counsels from giving cities clean opinions to issue bonds which are not in compliance not only with existing federal tax laws, but also any pending federal tax law changes. These opinions must be qualified, because legislation is now pending (Rosty II) which, if agreed to by the full Congress --would make certain of the bonds taxable to their holders. This gives the Ways and Means Committee the ability to make major changes in city's authority to issue even general obligation and revenue bonds without any final action. The threat to cities of pending legislation in the bond area can only be removed by affirmative action in the Congress. Therefore, cities will have to comply with the bond mandates in his bill until any changes are agreed to in a final conference between the House and Senate after Senate action next year. There is little chance of accurate and detailed information about the new federal mandates with which cities would be required to comply by January 1st. Moreover, given that the Senate is almost certain to make further changes, and that the U.S. Treasury is hopelessly behind -5 - in issuing regulations, it will likely be at least three full years before any actual and reliable legal guidance will be forthcoming with regard to what actions cities will be required to take. KEY PROVISIONS IN PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTING CITIES: Following is an analysis of the key provisions in the House proposal, Rosty II, affecting municipalities: Deductibility of State and Local Taxes: Rosty II would not repeal or modify the ability of families or individuals to deduct state and local taxes. Municipal Bonds: The House proposal will erode city authority and increase the cost to issue traditional public purpose bonds and notes. It will cut municipal authority to issue industrial development bonds by about 45 percent. Just as the federal government is terminating federal assistance to cities, the bill will sharply interfere with cities' own authority to raise revenues to meet their own public needs. As agreed to, the Ways and Means bond proposal would set up two categories of eligible tax exempt municipal bonds: "governmental" and "non-governmental." Municipal bonds which failed to meet the new and ambiguous tests for either of these categories would be ineligible for any tax exempt financing --even if the bonds were backed by the full faith and credit of the taxing authority of the municipality and the proceeds were to be used for a traditional public facility. Because the bill would redefine and narrow the definition of traditional public purpose bonds, it will mean that cities will have to be much more careful about issuing even general obligation and revenue bonds next year. An uncertain number, however traditional and public purpose, would be taxable under the new proposal. Others would retain their tax exempt status, but would require an allocation of bonding authority under a strict new state volume cap. The bill will, thus, severely erode the ability of cities to raise short term and long term funds. It will impose a whole new array of costly and confusing federal mandates over city borrowing authority. And it will make many municipal general obligation, revenue, and tax assessment bonds taxable. The bill will cut back on municipal authority to issue industrial development bonds by about 45 percent through the imposition of a new state -by -state volume cap effective on January 1, 1986. The bill creates some perverse situations for publicly owned and operated facilities --some intentional, some--apparently-- unintentional. These situations are perhaps best understood by describing them as the "sins of commission" and the "sins of ommission." These situations refer to the action by the House which would prohibit tax exempt financing for publicly owned facilities which fail the new test. The perversity is best displayed by noting that under the bill, non-profit universities and hospitals would be guaranteed tax exempt financing, but public hospitals and schools might be denied tax exempt financing. Sins of Commission This term refers to deliberate action taken by the House to prohibit city authority to issue tax exempt municipal bonds for the following publicly owned and operated facilities which cannot meet the new 10 percent or $10 million test: o sports facilities o convention or trade centers o parking facilities o district heating or cooling o industrial parks o hydroelectric facilities o hazardous waste facilities Sins of ommission This term refers to city bonds for traditional public facilities which the committee provides no authority for in the event they cannot meet the new tests (not all inclusive): o public (as opposed to non-profit) hospitals o highways o jails/prisons o dog pounds o town halls o city recreational facilities o elementary and secondary schools City officials should note that even for those traditional public facilities which can meet the new double test, there will still be an additional hurdle before they would be permitted to issue public purpose bonds: in any case where a non-governmental user will receive or benefit by the equivalent of $1 million or more, the project would have to be covered by the "non-governmental" volume cap (see below). -7 - The new definitions which will govern city authority to issue bonds after December 31, 1985 are: o Governmental Purpose Bonds: As under the Reagan plan, Rosty II proposes a new generic definition to redefine and curtail severely the authority of cities to issue traditional G.O., revenue, tax assessment, and tax increment financing bonds. The "one percent rule" proposed by the White House would be liberalized to the lesser of 10 percent or $10 million. In other words, a city's G.O. or revenue bonds would lose their tax exempt status if any other person (including a non-profit organization) benefited from the use of the financed facility or program by more than either amount, or if more than $5 million or five percent were used to make loans to a person. For example, if a city constructed improvements as required by EPA to a municipally owned and operated sewage treatment plant, it would be prohibited from financing such improvement through the use of "governmental" bonds if any industry used more than 10 percent of the plant's capacity or the equivalent of $10 million of the plant's improvements. Despite claims by the Ways and Means Committee that traditional public purpose municipal bonds would be protected, the action by the committee will force major changes. Under current federal law, a bond is treated by the IRS as an industrial development bonds --even if it is issued as a G.O. or revenue bond by the municipality --if more than 25 percent of the bond debt is secured by a non-governmental entity and such an entity benefits by the financed facility through trade or use by 25 percent or more. Thus the House bill proposes to cut back the existing federal test by some 60 percent. More importantly, while the new single 10 percent test will have a disproportionately adverse impact on small cities, the new $10 million limit will have a disproportionately adverse impact on major public facilities. That is because it would, in effect, set a much lower percentage for any project which cost more than $100 million. For example, major prison and public hospital facilities now cost well in excess of $100 million. Increasingly, these major public facilities involve contractual operations, such as for cafeteria and food service, lab services, emergency rooms, and building maintenance. These contracts can easily exceed $10 million --making the entire facility ineligible for tax exempt financing. Even where they do not trigger the ineligibility, they often include contracts in excess of $1 million, forcing the city owner to compete under the state volume cap in order to be able to issue the G.O. bonds to provide for the hospital or prison. As in 1984, those cities which have sought to "privatize" will be the most harshly punished. The committee action, consistent with the earlier staff draft and the administration's tax reform proposal, all go out of their way to eliminate what little incentives remained for cities to privatize and to impose severe penalties on those cities which have. The proposal would also propose new IRS arbitrage, information reporting, temporary holding period, and advanced refunding restrictions on traditional public purpose bonds similar to those advocated by the Reagan administration. The changes would generally by effective January 1, 1986, except for certain bond projects in progress (those where either construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation was commenced or a binding contract for at least 10 percent of project costs had been signed) by September 26, 1985. o Non-governmental Bonds: Unlike the Reagan would permit limited city authority to issue which cannot meet the new 10 percent or $10 Vo u � 1A E CAP, J NON-PROFIT P P UNIVERSITIE.S �• �r HOS PALS GOVERNMENTAL BONDS proposal, Rosty II some tax exempt bonds million test. e '` MUNICIPALLY GOVERNMENTAL OWNED 8/0PERATED BONDS wlTy SDg's FACILITIES 1 M1LLtON WHICH FAIL -THE )0%oR$IOM1LI10N BENEFIT RULE S -- ME Cities could issue bonds under a single, new state -by -state volume cap only for: 1. multi -family rental housing (subject to new targeting rules); 2. municipal or state owned airport facilities (not including hotels, food preparation facilities, restaurants, gift stores, etc.; the volume cap would exempt all but the freight handling facilities); 3. municipal or state owned dock and wharf facilities (except for freight handling facilities not in the immediate vicinity -- eligible freight facilities in the immediate vicinity would be the only portion of port .facilities under the volume cap); 4. municipal or state owned water facilities either operated by a governmental unit or for which rates are set by a governmental unit; 5. sewage and solid waste facilities; 6. more targeted single family and veterans mortgage revenue bonds; 7. some limited authority to use tax exempt bonds for 501(c)(3) non-profit financing. 8. government-owned mass commuting facilities; 9. small issue IDBs (sunset repealed); and 10. student loan bonds. 11. certain tax increment financing bonds Additional restrictions on "non-governmental" bonds: @ tax increment financing bonds: The bill would impose strict new limitations on tax increment bonds issued by cities in the 34 states where authorized by state law. Under the committee proposal, tax increment bonds would be treated as "governmental use" bonds to the extent the proceeds were used to finance such facilities as streets, sidewalks, lighting, curbing, and other assessment bond type public improvements. Tax increment financing bonds issued for redevelopment purposes, however, could only be issued as tax exempt after January 1, 1986 if they meet the new test for "qualified redevelopment bonds" and -10 - have sufficient authority under the respective state volume cap. Such eligible bonds could only be used for the costs of acquiring the land to be redeveloped and for relocation expenses of eligible occupants. The bill would define qualified redevelopment bonds as those: (a) issued pursuant to state statute and secured solely by incremental property tax revenues; (b) issued to finance the above described eligible activities, but only in a federally defined blighted area (determined based on the substantial presence of structurally substandard buildings, excessive vacant land, abandoned or vacant buildings, excessive vacancies, or delinquencies in the payment of real property taxes); (c) issued pursuant to a plan adopted by the city in which the blighted are is located; and (d) issued for financing where the designated area(s) does not exceed 10 percent of the assessed value of property within the city, but where each designated area must exceed one-fourth square mile. The bill would have a particularly harsh impact on small cities, many Of which have seen their downtown areas simply erode under the farm crisis. The 10 percent and quarter mile rule is close to an absurdity in such situations. Similarly, creating a new federal definition of blight removes from cities the authority to determine the appropriate use in a designated redevelopment area. For instance, many cities believe that the presence of porn shops, while not substandard in structure, are antithetical to downtown redevelopment. The new federal standard would make such a change ineligible for tax increment financing. @ multifamily rental housing bonds: Under the bill, multifamily housing bonds would be more targeted to low income renters and the financed structures would have to remain rental for a longer period of time. The greater the targeting towards low income renters, the more generous the depreciation treatment which would be allowed to the owners. A city could issue multifamily bonds after January 1, 1986, if: (a) 25 percent or more of the units are rented to families with incomes of 80 percent or less of area median income, or 20 percent or more of the units are rented to families with incomes of 70 percent or less of the area median income. -11 - The bill would provide depreciation to such properties at a rate approximately a 25 percent more favorable rate than non -low income housing. Or a city could issue multifamily bonds after January 1, 1986, if: (b) 40 percent or more of the units are rented to families with incomes of 60 percent or less of the area median income. The depreciation treatment for such properties would be approximately 50 percent more generous. Under the bill, housing financed with tax exempt bonds would have to remain rental for the greater of 15 years or the maturity of the tax exempt bonds with the longest term, as opposed to 10 years or 50 percent of the longest term under current law. The multifamily bond provisions would also require annual certification to the Treasury and clarification of income adjustments for family size. @ single family mortgage revenue bonds: The proposal would still call for the sunset of the authority for cities to issue single family mortgage revenue bonds on December 31, 1987. It would also limit the use of such bonds effective January 1, 1986 by requiring: * that all proceeds would have to be used to finance mortgages for eligible persons; * 90 percent purchase price limits (110 percent in targeted areas); * that at leas.t 50 percent of mortgage loans be made to borrowers with family income less than 90 percent of area median income, and that no loans be made to a borrower with family income exceeding 115 percent; and * that two-thirds of the loans made in targeted areas would have to go to borrowers with incomes not exceeding 140 percent of the greater of either the area or statewide median income. * mortgage credit certificates --would be conformed to the mortgage revenue bonds. Any change in the use of a non-governmental bond financed facility to use (whether through rent or sale to a taxable person) would make rent or interest costs of the private taxpayer non-deductible. -12- o The new 1986 Volume Cap (see illustration and chart)--Rosty II would set a new, single state -by -state volume cap for all "non-governmental" bonds, except those issued for airport runways, air traffic control towers, and publicly owned and operated airport terminal and parking facilities, as well as some port facilities. The cap would also include any amount of bond proceeds exceeding $1 million from a "governmental" general obligation, revenue, or tax assessment bond used by persons other than a state or local government. ••_ 0 0•• • r r-• • • e•• r r :•.•. (in millions) +N=: This chart does not include the portion of governmental bonds (for Wry amount in excess of $1 million to any no-govesnecntal user) nor those portions of airport or port Cads which would be Nader the n volume rap. Sources: U.S. Treasury: NIC Total mms, $175 per 9naLl Vets and MF Gita Student Hcampt Issue and Sewage IFBs Issued with $200 Cap as 8 low Shtity Industrial Disposal in State CY Million of 1984 Bonds Basis Park and Waste 1984 Total Floor Activity Total $1,680 $10,055 $16,951 $6,561 $20,361 $55,608 $421111 132% - 338 365 55 202 960 702 1371 Alabama Alaska - - 89 - 1,467 1,556 200 778% Arizona - 319 318 402 224 1,263 512 247% Arkansas - 44 102 29 110 285 410 70% California 426 783 492 552 4,214 6,467 4,424 146% Colorado - 246 218 20 333 817 545 150% Connecticut - 79 203 35 306 53 623 195 564 200 111% 98% Delmrare Florida - 12 8 748 134 541 - 1,002 944 3,247 1,864 174% Georgia - 31 745 524 325 1,625 1,009 161% - 82 - - 100 182 200 9114 Hawaii Idaho 37 5 18 56 116 200 58% Illinois 132 477 728 38 519 1,894 2,048 93% Indiana - 315 357 87 203 962 979 988 Iowa ll 4 186 - 215 416 520 80% - 38 178 100 207 523 431 121% Kansas Kentucky 41 113 218 406 61 198 209 315 642 1,310 656 781 98% 168% iam 196 _ 195 - 60 - 108 168 203 83% Maine M-yland 14 164 561 - 653 1,392 763 182% ttr 122 506 503 112 316 1,559 1,034 15114 Michigan - 248 631 426 186 1,491 1,630 921 60 78 585 172 395 1,290 740 174% Minnesota - 42 111 149 203 505 456 111% Mississippi - 357 383 61 336 1,137 886 128% Missouri 68 26 59 13 75 241 200 121% Montana Nebraska - 116 110 - 235 461 284 162% - 9 21 - 222 252 200 1268 Nevada New Hampshire 5 _ 45 252 90 11009 15 293 72 366 227 1,920 200 1,331 114% 144% New Jersey 13 59 115 187 243 77% New Mexico- - 1,004 1,149 174 679 3,006 3,160 95% New York 38 349 9 163 559 1,077 52% North Carolina - 128 27 20 19 75 269 200 135% North Dakota _ 271 661 42 456 1,430 1,931 741 Ohio _ 3 116 128 288 535 569 94% Oklahoma - 105 78 57 273 513 474 108% Oregon Pennsylvania 200 782 1,480 606 377 3,445 2,123 200 162% 2911 ptnde Island - 86 18 60 301 210 261 225 111 581 692 573 12114 South Carolina - 23 42 - 200 314 200 157% South Dakota 49 - 146 679 248 1,073 832 129% Tennessee 25 1,447 769 334 2,346 4,921 2,734 1801 Tis 165 90 251 506 278 1821 Utah - - 32 72 1 48 153 200 77% Vermont Be 129 996 234 578 2,025 983 206% Virginia 46 50 100 50 175 421 760 55% Washington - 61 80 209 350 349 100% west Virginia 20 152 309 2 300 783 853 92% Wisconsin Wyoming - _ 45 - 74 119 200 60% +N=: This chart does not include the portion of governmental bonds (for Wry amount in excess of $1 million to any no-govesnecntal user) nor those portions of airport or port Cads which would be Nader the n volume rap. Sources: U.S. Treasury: NIC -13 - This last item is critical for city officials. It is the second major hurdle referred to above. It means that city officials must be certain that the state allocation process provides sufficient authority so that G.O., revenue, or tax allocation financing for major public facilities may go forward. It means that projects backed by local tax revenues would be forced to compete with private and non-profit deals. The volume cap would be the greater of $200 million or $175 per capita per state until after 1987, when it would drop to $125 per capita to reflect the termination of single family housing bonds. Of the allocation, non -profits would be guaranteed a privileged position not subject to any control by the governor or state legislature. They would be guaranteed at least $25 per capita. The remainder of the cap would be allocated one-half to the state, one-half to local governments on the basis of relative population. This allocation could be overriden by a gubernatorial proclamation before the next session of the state legislature, and afterwords by state statute. The City of Chicago and other Illinois home rule cities (and only Illinois) would not be subject to any action by the Illinois governor or state legislature, however. There is a special allocation rule for tax increment financing bonds, but it would only apply to those states which issued more than $25 million of such bonds between July 18, 1984, and November 21, 1985. This provision would set aside the greater of $6 per capita or $8 million of a state's volume cap for tax increment "qualified redevelopment bonds." This set aside could be overridden by state statute. Similarly, unless changed by the state, at least 50 percent of non-governmental bond proceeds in 1986 and 1987 would have to be used for single and multifamily housing bonds. Under the provision, gubernatorial authority to set a different allocation scheme by executive order would expire on the January 1st following the next year after enactment of the tax reform bill in which a state legislature met in executive session. If no state allocation law were passed and signed into law prior to that date, the state would automatically revert to the federal allocation scheme. For example, if this provision were enacted into law on August 17, 1986, a governor's authority would expire on January 1, 1988, as long as the governor's respective legislature met in regular session in 1987. Z � -14- OTHER NEW FEDERAL MANDATES: New Restrictions Which Would Apply to All Tax Exempt Municipal Bonds: o Short term notes and private placements Banks and financial institutions could no longer deduct the interest costs they incur in carrying or purchasing tax-exempt bonds except in some instances. (Present law permits 80 percent of these costs to be deducted from taxable income). The provision would apply to all tax-exempt obligations (short-term and long- term) issued after December 31, 1985, except the bill provides that a bank may still take the current law deduction when it purchases or holds (carries) bonds after December 31, 1985 if: (1) they are general government bonds; and (2) the bond issue or private placement does not exceed $3 million per project, with a $10 million annual limitation per issuer or local jurisdiction. o Arbitrage In general, present law IDB rebate requirements and other restric- tions on arbitrage are recommended for all tax-exempt bonds. The proposal is very similar to the administration's proposal which severely restricts arbitrage and forces governments to issue more bonds to finance their projects, because investment earnings must be rebated to the Treasury instead of being used to reduce project costs. The rebate represents a 100 percent tax on certain invest- ment earnings thereby penalizing good cash management practices. o Advance Refundings The House bill prohibits advance refundings of "non-governmental" bonds, and imposes new restrictions on advance refunding authority for "governmental" bonds. Present law permits issuers to refinance outstanding debt without a time limitation except in the case of IDBs and MRBs. These two types of bonds generally may not be refunded more than 180 days before the bonds that are being refinanced can be called. Advance refunding of so-called "governmental" bonds would be permitted under the following new federal restrictions: * no original issue could be advance refunded more than twice; * the amount of refunding bonds would be limited by the greater of the present value of the interest savings or 250 percent of the amount of the refunded bonds; -15 - the time period in which they would have to be called and during which they could earn arbitrage would be strictly limited; and * any amount in excess of $1 million could only be issued if provided for under the state volume cap. Rehabilitation and historic tax credits: The bill would modify current law to provide for a 10 percent rehabilitation tax credit for nonresidential buildings constructed before 1935 and placed in service after January 1, 1986. It would permit a 20 percent credit for residential and nonresidential certified historic structures. The owners of the property receiving the credit would have to reduce the basis of the property by the full amount of the credits earned. Low income housing: In addition to the treatment of single and multifamily tax exempt housing bonds, the bill would retain certain incentives to benefit the construction or rehabilitation of low income housing. The bill would permit the owners of qualified low income housing to amortize the cost of additions or improvements up to a $30,000 per unit expenditure limit over a 5 year period.(Section 167(k)) The bill would not apply the at -risk rules (which limit the amount of tax benefits an investor can take to the actual amount invested) to certain low income projects. Targeted jobs tax credits: The bill would extend the targeted jobs tax credit for two years, but the amount would be reduced from 50 percent of the first $6000 in salary to 40 percent in the first year, and would be eliminated in the second. r-- HOW THE TAX PLANS COMPARE Financial Institutions No No No No, except for small Deduction for Yes cities interest to carry tax exempts Minimum Tax on Yes Not necessary Retain and tighten Yes, including 25%including on , interest on "non- "non-governmental Individuals and governmental bonds" Corporations bonds" SOURCES: OF(ce of the Secretary of the Treasury; Sen. Bradley; Rep. Kemp; ways and .bteans Committee; NLC. NOVEMBER 1984 TREASURY PRESIDENT'S CURRENT LAW PROPOSAL FOR PROPOSAL FOR ROSTY I ROM 11 (1986) 1986 1986 1986 1986 Muncipal Bonds "Governmental" Tax-exempt 1% rule 1% rule S% rule 10% or $10 million rule "Nongovernmental" Multifamily rental Tax-exempt Taxable Taxable Tax-exempt, capped Tax-exempt, capped housing bonds targeted targeted Single family Tax-exempt Taxable Taxable Tax-exempt, capped Tax-exempt, capped mortgage revenue expire 1987 targeted expire 1987 targeted bonds Small issue idbs Expire 1986 except Taxable Taxable Taxable Tax-exempt, capped for manufacturing Tax increment Tax-exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Partially exempted, financing bonds capped Airport, docks, Tax-exempt Taxable Taxable Tax-exempt, capped Tax-exempt wharves Water, sewer, solid Tax-exempt Taxable _ Taxable Tax-exempt, capped Tax-exempt, capped waste Pollution control Tax-exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable bonds Deductibility of Individual Property taxes Yes No No Yes/modified Yes Sales taxes Yes No No No Yes Income taxes Yes No No Yes/modified Yes Personal property Yes No No No Yes taxes No No Yes/modified Yes/modified Housing Yes Rehabilitation Tax Credit Historic Tax Credit Yes No No Yes/modified Yes/modified Targetted lobs Tax Yes No No No Yet/modified Credit Energy Renewal Yes No No No No Conservation Tax Credit Individual Tax Rates 14 rate brackets 3 rate brackets 15, 3 rate brackets 15, 3 rate brackets 15, 4 rate brackets 15, from 11 to 50% 25, & 35%, indexed 25, & 35% indexed 15, & 35% indexed 15, 35 & 38% indexed indexed Exemptions Self, 5pouse Sl,oso, indexed $2,000, indexed $2,000, indexed $1,500 for each, Non -itemizers indexed, S2,000, indexed; itemizers, $1,500 indexed $1,060, indexed $2,000, indexed $2,000, indexed $1,500, indexed Non- itemizers Dependents s2,000,indexed; itemizers, $1,500 indexed Standard Deductions Single $2,480, indexed $2,800, indexed $2,900, indexed Indexed $2,950, indexed joint $3,670, indexed $3,800, indexed 54,000,indexed Indexed $4,800, Indexed Heads of Household S2,480, indexed S3,500, indexed $3,600, indexed $3,000, not indexed $4,200, indexed Earned income credit Yes, (554o maximum) Yes, indexed Yes, indexed Yes, indexed Yes, indexed Fringe benefits Employee provided Not taxed Taxed above a cap, Taxed up to $120 for Taxed Not taxed health insurance $300 for family individwl Itemized deduction Charitable Deductible by Deductible (above Deductible for Deductible for Deductible, non - itemizers contributions itemizes and non- 2% of Adjusted Gross Income) for itemizers, but no deduction for non- itemizers, but no deduction for non- permitted deduction for itemizers itemizers, but no itemizers itemizers contributions in deduction for non- excess of $100 itemizers or for unrealized gains on contributed property Mortgage interest Deductible Deductible, for Deductible, for Deductible for Deductible, for and second principal residences principal residences principal residences principal homes Capital and Business Income Corporate tax rates Graduated, up to 33% flat rate Graduated, up to 33% Graduated, up to 46% 33% 36% Investment tax credit 6-6-10% No No No taxed No 42% excluded Capital gains 60% excluded Indexed, taxed as So% excluded No exclusion; ordinary income in (optional indexing) as ordinary income 1991) Financial Institutions No No No No, except for small Deduction for Yes cities interest to carry tax exempts Minimum Tax on Yes Not necessary Retain and tighten Yes, including 25%including on , interest on "non- "non-governmental Individuals and governmental bonds" Corporations bonds" SOURCES: OF(ce of the Secretary of the Treasury; Sen. Bradley; Rep. Kemp; ways and .bteans Committee; NLC. December 31, 1985 3. General Revenue Sharing Unless the Congress passes legislation to reauthorize General Revenue Sharing, the program will expire September 30, 1986, and the last payment to cities will be made in October. The President signed into law this year a bill which will cut the program in FY 86 by 8.36 percent. This entire cut will be made in the fourth quarterly payment, thus, slashing the October payment to cities by 33 percent. The first round of Gramm-Rudman cuts will occur on March 1, 1986. At this point, no one knows exactly what the impact will be on revenue sharing. The January payments will be made in full beginning next week, but we anticipate that Gramm-Rudman will require cuts in the subsequent payments. According to our best estimate, all non-exempt domestic programs will be cut approximately 4.6 percent for FY1986. Because the first FY1986 GRS payment scheduled for next week will not be cut, there is a strong likelihood that the final three authorized payments would have to be cut a little more to provide for the full required cut. In other words, the April, July, and October payments might be cut about 6 percent in order to achieve the full 4.6 percent reduction for FY86. Although there is as yet total confusion, specifically with regard to GRS, in the Congress and administration, the legislation would appear to require cuts in the current fiscal year. The President's FY 87 budget proposal will eliminate the program entirely and may even eliminate the last payment scheduled to be mailed to cities in the first week of October. In the Senate, Senator John Heinz (R -Pa.) has introduced S318 to extend revenue sharing at current levels through FY1990. The following Senators have joined as co-sponsors: Howell T. Heflin (D -Ala.) Frank J. Murkowski (R -Alaska) Dale Bumpers (D -Ark.) David Pryor (D -Ark.) Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R -Conn.) Daniel K. Inouye (D -Hawaii) Alan J. Dixon (D -Ill.) Paul S. Sarbanes (D -Md.) John F. Kerry (D -Mass.) Carl Levin (D -Mich.) Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D -Mich.) Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.) Daniel P. Moynihan (D-N.Y.) John Heinz (R -Pa.) Arlen Specter (R -Pa.) Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) Albert J. Gore (D -Tenn.) James R. Sasser (D -Tenn.) Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) Robert W. Kasten, Jr. (R-Wis.) -2 - In the House, Representatives Frank Horton (R-N.Y.) and Robert Walker (R -Pa.) have introduced HR796 to extend revenue sharing for 3 more years, and former New York City Councilmember Reprepsentative Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.) has introduced HR1400 to extend revenue sharing 5 years - just the same as the Heinz bill. The co-sponsors of the two House bills are: HR796 Richard C. Shelby (D -Ala.) Jim Kolbe (R -Ariz.) Tony Coelho (D -Calif.) Charles Pashayan, Jr. (D -Calif.) Estaban Edward Torres (D -Calif.) Samuel Gejdenson (D -Conn.) Wyche Fowler, Jr. (D -Ga.) Edward R. Madigan (R -Ill.) Melvin Price (D -Ill.) Marty Russo (D -Ill.) Cooper Evans (R -Iowa) Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) Helen Delich Bently (R -Md.) Barney Frank (D -Mass.) Robert W. Davis (R -Mich.) Dale E. Kildee (D -Mich.) Howard Wolpe (D -Mich.) James L. Oberstar (D -Minn.) Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.) Barbara Vucanovich (R-Nev.) Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) Richard C. Shelby (D -Ala.) Barbara Boxer (D -Calif.) Tony Coelho (D -Calif.) Ronald V. Dellums (D -Calif.) Mervyn M. Dymally (D -Calif.) Augustus F. Hawkins (D -Calif.) Matthew G. Martinez (D -Calif.) Robert T. Matsui (D -Calif.) Estaban Edward Torres (D -Calif.) Walter E. Fauntroy (D -D.C.) Daniel K. Akaka (D -Hawaii) Cecil Heftel (D -Hawaii) Lane Evans (D -Ill.) Charles A. Hayes (D -Ill.) William 0. Lipinski (D -Ill.) Frank McCloskey (D -Ind.) Beverly B. Byron (D -Md.) Benjamin A. Gilman (R-N.Y.) Frank Horton (R-N.Y.) Stan Lundine (D-N.Y.) David 0'B. Martin (R-N.Y.) Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) George C. Wortley (R-N.Y.) Bill Hendon (R-N.C.) Michael G. Oxley (R -Ohio) James A. Traficant, Jr. (D -Ohio) William F. Clinger, Jr. (R -Pa.) Robert W. Edgar (D -Pa.) Austin J.Murphy (D -Pa.) Thomas J. Ridge (R -Pa.) Don Ritter (R -Pa.) Robert S. Walker (R -Pa.) Gus Yatron (D -Pa.) John J. Duncan (R -Tenn.) `Ed Jones (D -Tenn.) Donald K. Sundquist (R -Tenn.) Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-W.Va.) Robert E. Wise, Jr. (D-W.Va.) Jim Moody (D-Wis.) HR1400 Dale E. Kildee (D -Mich.) Howard Wolpe (D -Mich.) Robert A. Young (D -Mo.) Bernard J. Dwyer (D-N.J.) Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.) William B. Richardson (D-N.M.) Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) Joseph P. Addabbo (D-N.Y.) Major R. Owens (D-N.Y.) Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.) Walter B. Jones (D-N.C.) Charlie Rose (D-N.C.) Dennis E. Eckart (D -Ohio) Louis Stokes (D -Ohio) Robert A. Borski (D -Pa.) William J. Coyne (D -Pa.) Paul E. Kanjorski (D -Pa.) -3- (cont'd.) Barbara D. Mikulski (D -Md.) Joseph P. Kolter (D -Pa.) Barney Frank (D -Mass.) Albert G. Bustamante (D -Tex.) Edward J. Markey (D -Mass.) Solomon T. Ortiz (D -Tex.) Gerry E. Studds (D -Mass.) Frederick C. Boucher (D-Va.) John Conyers, Jr. (D -Mich.) Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-W.Va.) George W. Crockett, Jr. (D -Mich.) Jim Moody (D-Wis.) Steps to Take: GRS is the highest priority federal assistance program of the nation's cities. It is the only federal assistance program which returns a portion of the revenue derived from cities back to them to spend according to the city's own needs and priorities. Nevertheless, it is clear that members of the House and Senate do not understand revenue sharing to be cities' highest priority. Unless that message is made clear in no uncertain terms, the program will be eliminated. Moreover, because of the new Gramm-Rudman law, the Congress would be prevented from considering any legislation to reauthorize revenue sharing after this year unless it is incorporated in the Congressional budget resolution by April 15, 1986. 1. Compile a record of what your city has been able to do with revenue sharing. Stress the projects built, the program beneficiaries, and the leveraging of other funds. Remember, as long as this program is perceived as a local elected officials' political slush fund, it is doomed. 2. Hold special hearings and press conferences to determine where cuts in servives or projects will have to be made if revenue sharing is terminated. Make sure city constituents understand that federal actions will directly affect local issues unless they make their views known. Invite your Congressional delegation to these hearings so they can understand and appreciate what is at stake. 3. Work closely with your state municipal league to get statewide attention on this issue. It is important that the governor and state legislature appreciate the statewide impact, and the ripple effects of the loss of revenue sharing. 4. Make sure to complete and return the enclosed survey so that NLC will have the most updated information to support renewal. 5. Make sure that your Congressional delegation knows your city's priorities before Congress resumes on January 21st. Where does your Congressperson stand on revenue sharing? How about your Senators? Get an answer, and please share that answer with your state league and with NLC. December 31, 1985 4. Housing & Community Development: Congress failed to complete any action on legislation to reauthorize HUD's assisted housing programs this year; it provide(q only a last minute 3 month extension of FHA authority. On the very last day Congress was in session efforts to include NLC backed changes in the UDAG selection criteria broke down. Not only did the House and Senate Banking Committee negotiations break down, but the entire budget implementation or "reconciliation" bill fell apart amid bitter disagreement between the White House, Senate, and House. Therefore, the FY1986 HUD -Independent Agencias Appropriations bill signed into law on November 25, 1985 set the funding levels for the current fiscal year - subject to the March 1 further round of cuts due to the Gramm-Rudman legislation as follows: The community development block grant (CDBG) is funded at $3.124 billion, a 10 percent cut from the $3.472 billion available in FY 1985 and v.ssumes the continuation of the Section 108 loan guarantee program at $225 million. The Section 312 rehabilitation loan program is retained through loan repayments. The Urban Development'Action,'Granl (UDAG) program is funded at $330 million, a 25 percent reduction from the $440 million provided in FY 1985. For HUD assisted housing the FY 1986 spending act provides $9.9 billion in new budget authority, estimated to aid 97,000 additional units including: 12,000 units of section 202 housing for the elderly or handicapped; 36,000 five-year term housing vouchers; 32,000 section 8 existing 15 -year term certificates; 10,000 section 8 moderate rehabilitation units; 5,000 new construction public housing units and 2,000 units of new Indian public housing. The rental rehabilitation and housing development grants (HoDAG) programs are funded at $75 million each for FY 1986 and the FEMA emergency food and shelter program for the homeless is provided $70 million. The Administration's reported FY1987 budget proposal calls for major program reductions and eliminations for HUD Housing and Community Development activities. -7 5 -2- According to HUD budget documents, $500 million of the $3.12 billion appropriation for the current FY1986 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) would be deferred until FY1987, even though we are almost halfway through the current fiscal year and cities have incorporated their entitlement amounts as provided under the appropriation. The administration thus proposes a current year CDBG funding level of only $2.6 billion for FY1986. In addition to any cuts or deferrals by the administration, Gramm-Rudman will require approximately an additional 5 percent across the board cut. This across the board reduction combined with the 10 percent cut sustained by CDBG for FY1986 and the Administration proposed deferral would mean CDBG could be cut by 30 percent for FY1986. The Administration is proposing only $2.6 billion for CDBG in FY1987 with $500 million of those funds coming from the FY1986 deferral request for CDBG. The budget documents indicate that the CDBG cuts will be obtained by the development by HUD of a targeting proposal that directs funds to those entitlement recepients with the "greatest need." The plan would also require changing the current allocation between entitlement and non -entitlement jurisdictions from 70 percent/30 percent to 65 percent/35 percent; assuming the termination of the current Farmers' Home Administration's Community development program. The FY1987 HUD budget proposal would once again call for the elimination of the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program, which was reduced by 25 percent in the FY1986 appropriations to $330 million and will be subject to an additional 5 percent across the board reduction under Gramm-Rudman. The plan also proposes postponing or cancelling the January 1986 large cities UDAG funding round. For HUD assisted housing, the Administration's reported plan would rescind at $6.2 billion of the $9.9 billion appropriated for housing assistance in FY1986 and would defer an additional $2.1 billion to FY1987. This would mean the elimination of the Section 8 existing and moderate rehabilitation programs, Section 202 housing for the elderly and handicapped, Sectoin 312 rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation and housing development grants (HoDAG), and major reductions in public housing operating subsidies and modernization funds. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1987 Budget (Dollars in Millions) Program: Community Development Block Grants (and Section 108 Loan Guarantee) Budget Authority (limit) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Budget Authority 2,625 2,125 2,740 2,850 2,955 3,056 Entitlement 2,145.0 1,359 1,759 1,830 1,899 1,964 Non -Entitlement 919.0 732 947 986 1,022 1,058 Secretary's 3,594 3,093 2,569 2,560 2,701 2,827 Discretionary Fund 60.5 34 34 34 34 34 Outlays 3,577.4 3,132 2,686 2,675 2,778 2,886 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Budget Authority (limit) 222.5 0 - 0 0 0 0 FFB outlays 108 172 0 0 0 0 Repayments -91 -111 -117 -115 -77 -59 Net Outlays 17 -39 -117 -115 -77 -59 Total Outlays 3,594 3,093 2,569 2,560 2,701 2,827 December 31, 1985 5. Transportation The Congress took no action on re -authorization of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act this year. The Act, which authorizes both the federal highway and public transportation programs expires on September 30, 1986. The Congress did finally reach agreement on the fiscal 1986 appropriations for transportation earlier this month. The appropriations bill provides for a significant reduction in both transit and highway assistance - which levels will be subject to even deeper cuts effective March 1, 1986 with the first round of Gramm-Rudman reductions. FY 1986 Transportation Appropriations as approved in the Continuing Resolution (in millions) FY 1985 FY 86 FY 86 FY 86 House Senate Conf. MASS TRANSIT Section 3 Discretionary Grants $ 1,120* $ 1,010 $ 1,082 $1,045 --Bus & Bus Facilities (130) (115) (145) --Rail Modification (487.5) (435) (430) --New Starts (422.5) (380) (385) --Planning (50) (50) (50) --Elderly & Handicapped (25) (25) (30.5) --Innovative Techniques (5) (5) (5) Section 9 Formula Grants $ 2,449 $ 2,210 $ 2,066 $2,150 --Operating Assistance (875) (875) (856) (870) --Capital Assistance (1,502) (1,271.25) (1,150) (1,217) Section 18 Small Urban & Rural (71.8) (64.75) (60.6) (63) HIGHWAYS Obligational Authority $13,800 $13,250 $12,546 $12,750 AIRPORTS Obligational Authority $ 925 $ 925 $ 910 *Includes $20 million in unobligated FY 1984 contract authority. $ 925 -2- Public Transportation: The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 expires on September 30, 1986. While no proposals (the House Public Works and Transportation Committee withdrew their proposal) have been introduced to date, the Administration is currently working on a major redraft of federal transit and highway assistance. Their proposal is again expected to include a phase-out of operating assistance for all urbanized areas over 200,000 and significantly enhance state involvement in the administration of any federal transit assistance. These revisions will also be accompanied by proposed substantial reductions in the level of federal assistance. The highway provisions of the Administration's proposal are expected to provide more flexibility in the use of urban highway funds, but will also be accompanied by increased state involvement and reductions in overall funding levels. NLC supports changes in the STAA that facilitate the use of federal assistance to reflect more accurately local public trans- portation (such as local option on the use of transit aid for operating or capital assistance) and highway needs and priorities, but we remain steadfastly opposed to the elimination of operating assistance (at least 35 percent of which is used to comply with federal transit -related mandates). Furthermore, based on information available to date on the Administration's proposal, we see no programmatic improvements or benefits to cities from proposals unilaterally enhancing the role of states in the administration of highway or public transportation programs or in significant funding reductions. December 31, 1985 6. Environment Despite a number of expiring programs, Congress failed to complete action on any environmental legislation in its first session, and will have a number of major issues affecting municipalities when it returns. In a key local issue, NLC was successful in getting the Congress to approve $600 million for the municipal wastewater treatment grant program. Full FY1986 funding has been held up pending final Congressional approval of the Clean Water Act, which expired on September 30th. The $600 million - one quarter of the 1985 funding level - is intended to provide funding until the House and Senate reach agreement on re -authorization legislation. The House and Senate have both acted on their own versions of re -authorization legislation (H.R.8, S.1128). Both bills reject the administration's request to phase out the municipal construction grants program; however, because the Senate version contains a new allocation formula, agreement between the House and Senate has been delayed, jeopardizing the construction grants. In addition to ensuring continuity of the $2.4 billion municipal sewer grants program to enable cities to comply with the federal Clean Water mandates, NLC is supporting efforts to exempt municipalities from legislative and EPA regulatory proposals to require municipal stormwater discharge permits. EPA PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL STORM SEWERS Separate municipal storm sewers discharging into the surface waters of the United States have technically been subject to Clean Water Act permits and pollution control provisions since the Act was passed in 1972. EPA has given very low priority to the storm water discharge issue, concentrating its resources instead on bringing industrial operations and municipal sewage systems into compliance. Now, in response to a federal court ruling, EPA has said it will require storm water collection systems to obtain a permit similar to those issued to waste treatment facilities and major industrial plants. Recent regulations proposed by EPA will require municipalities with separate storm water sewers to apply for a permit application which entails submission of detailed flow and monitoring data, details of drainage area, pollution characteristics, etc. for each discharge point, for run-off from highways, for drainage ditches, -2 - etc. Based on estimates of sampling and analysis costs, costs per permit are expected to be anywhere from $1,100 to $8,500. EPA estimates there are more than one million separate storm water discharge points within the country's 366 major urban areas. From the perspective of local government, however, there is considerably more at stake than just the procedural burden and the cost of the application requirements. EPA and the states have a mandatory legal duty to issue permits that impose treatment and control conditions on the discharge. While precise costs for control are almost impossible to calculate, they are expected to be significant, and more importantly, totally a local government expense since storm water control is not now eligible for federal grants under the sewage treatment construction grants program. Failure to apply for a permit or comply with the permit conditions is a violation of federal law and exposes local elected officials as well as appointed operating officials to both criminal (up to 3 years in jail) and civil (fines of $25,000 per day) prosecution from suits filed by the federal government or by citizens. Attempts to amend the Clean Water Act -- currently under consideration by Congress -- to exempt separate storm sewers from the permit requirements except where EPA could identify a specific pollution problem have, so far, been unsuccessful. There is still an opportunity to gain some measure of relief during the House -Senate conference on the Clean Water Act amendments (H.R. 8, S. 1128) which is expected to take place within the next two to three weeks. To accomplish this, Congress needs to be made aware of the enormous cost in manpower and physical plant to implement the program, the folly of the present EPA regulatory approach and the diversion it would cause in federal, state and local resources now earmarked for higher priority water pollution control problems. Congress should suspend the permit requirements for separate municipal storm sewers pending a better understanding of the task, the need, and the best approaches to controlling the storm water discharges that need to be controlled. Superfund: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to provide for cleanup of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites expired September 30. EPA has suspended clean-up activities pending completion of a re -authorization proposal which includes taxing authority to pay for remedial investigations, feasibility studies (RI/FS) and clean-up costs. :=_ -3- While the House and Senate have completed re -authorization measures (HR 2005, formerly S 51 and HR 2817 respectively), differences over the taxing mechanism to pay for the re -authorization have prevented any final agreement between the White House, Senate and House. We expect the House and Senate to return to the issue of how to pay for the Superfund program early next year. NLC supports prompt re -authorization in order to assure clean-up of sites in and around cities, affecting the health and safety of municipal residents. Safe Drinking Water Act: Both the House and Senate have passed bills (HR 1650, S 124) to regulate numerous toxic contaminants in public drinking water. The Administration opposes both bills, saying such regulation should be left to the states. While conference to resolve differences between the two verions has been tentatively scheduled numerous times, it has not yet taken place. The major stumbling block has been inclusion of a major groundwater protection program: the House bill contains a requirement for state groundwater planning; the Senate bill does not. NLC supports enactment of a program to provide guidance and uniform standards in public drinking water. The outlook for completion is unlikely. December 31, 1985 7. Human Resources Mandatory Medicare: The House and Senate each passed legislation this year requiring municipalities and their employees to participate in and contribute to the Medicare trust fund in order to reduce the federal deficit. It was, in effect, a new federal tax on cities and municipal employees. The House version would have required participation and contributions for all municipal employees hired after January 1, 1986 - tomorrow. The Senate proposal would have required both new and existing employees to participate, effective October 1, 1986. The proposals are estimated to cost state and local governments some $537 million over the next 3 years. Just before Congress adjourned, House and Senate conferees reached agreement on the House version - that is to require all new state and local employees hired after tonight to participate. The conference agreement fell apart, however, over other issues. Therefore, the status of the new Medicare mandate for cities will be an issue which Congress will confront after it returns on January 21st. It is doubtful that Congress will or could make any mandatory Medicare provision -retroactive. it is uncertain, at this point, - whether a serious effort will even be made to resolve the differences. There is a chance the initiative will simply die. NLC strongly opposes any new tax or mandate on local governments. Employment and Training Programs: Congress provided $106.6 billion in FY86 appropriations for the Departments of Labor/Health and Human Services, and Education. Under the bill, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title II -B Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) funds were reduced in FY86 by $100 million from FY85 levels and in FY87 by $160 million from those same FY85 levels. JTPA Title III Dislocated Worker Assistance funding was also reduced by $122.5 million from FY85 levels. Appropriations for FY86 include $640 million in funding in FY86 for the Job Corps. This approximate $23 million increase from FY85 funding levels was transferred from a similar $23 million reduction in the JTPA Title II -A Block Grant. All other employment and training programs remain essentially frozen at FY85 funding levels. MM Other Appropriations Provisions: The bill also provides for the allocation of $28 million for grants to state and local health planning agencies for FY86, compared with $65 million provided in FY85. Fuel subsidies for the poor are funded at $2.1 billion, frozen at FY85 levels. Social service block grants are funded at $2.7 billion, down $25 million. The Head Start program is funded at $1.09 billion, approximately $12.1 million over last year's levels. The Work Incentive (WIN) Program, targeted by the Administration for elimination, is funded at $220 million, down $47 million from FY85 levels. All these FY86 funds will be subject to a 4-5 percent cut under the first round of Gramm-Rudman. The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC): The Tax Reform Act of 1985 recently adopted by the House includes a two year extension of the TJTC currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 1985. The credit thus would remain available for wages paid to individuals who begin work for an employer on or before December 31, 1987, if this provision is agreed to by the Senate. The cost of the extension is estimated to be $1 billion. The bill limits the credit in three respects. First, the 25% credit for qualified wages paid in the second year of a targeted individual's employment is eliminated. Second, the 50% credit for qualified first year wages generally is reduced to a 40% credit. Thus, the bill generally reduces the maximum credit per employee from $4,500 (50% of $6,000 plus 25% of $6,000) to $2,400 (40% of $6,000). The bill does not reduce the credit presently allowed for wages of economically disadvantaged summer youth employees (85% of up to $3,000 of qualified first year wages) . Third, under the bill, no wages are to be taken into account for credit purposes with respect to any individual if that individual is employed by the employer for less than 14 days. A bill to provide a temporary extension of the TJTC died in the last biter hours before Congress adjourned. Plant Closings: The House of Representatives narrowly defeated H.R. 1616, plant closing notification legislation strongly supported by NLC and specifically supported by an NLC resolution. (See Nation's Cities Weekly, Nov. 4 and 11, 1985.) Immigration: The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration has approved H.R. 3080, major immigration reform legislation introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. Peter V. Rodino (D-N.J.). Along with an increased temporary farmworker program, the legislation would make it illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented aliens and legalize foreigners without papers -3 - who have lived in the country since before January 1, 1982. The issue of temporary foreign agricultural workers has been left to further negotiations. A similar bill, S. 1200, passed the Senate in December. The House bill will now go to the full Committee on the Judiciary. league of minnesota cities MEMORANDUM December 20, 1985 TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks FROM: Ann Higgins, Staff Associate SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF 1986 CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE The League will soon begin the planning for the 19806 LMC Annual Conference. An important part of that process involves the work Of city officials who serve as members of the Conference Planning Committee. 1 �G If you or another official in your city is interested in assisting in the development of this year's conference program, please contact me at the LMC Office. We welcome the participation of city officials from a wide range of member cities in order to represent a range of topics and learning opportunities of interest to all cities. I also encourage you to contact me to alert me to topics, resources, Prospective faculty and speakers for both workshop and general session programs as well as to provide suggestions regarding the schedule of conference programs and activities The first meeting of the 1986 Conference Planning Committee is scheduled for Friday, January 10, at 9:00 a.m. A second meeting is tentatively set for Friday, January 31, at 9:00 a.m. 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (612)227-5600 Minnesota Department of Transportation District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 December 27, 1985 Fred G. Moore, Public Works Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Re: Speed Zoning - City of Plymouth CSAR 61/Carlson Parkway/Cheshire Lane Dear fir. Moore: (Gi_> :K*?F 593-8544 As discussed with you previously, engineering and traffic investigations to determine reasonable and safe speed limits have been completed for the above referenced roads within the city of Plymouth. Based on investigation results, we have recommended authorization of the following speed limits: CSAH 61 - northbound 35 mph - from T.H. 12 to Fairfie.d Road 40 mph - from Fairfield Road to Carlson Parkwav CSAH 61 - southbound 40 mph - from Carlson Parkway to Windy Hill Road 35 mph - from Windy Hill Road to T.H. 12 Carlson Parkwa 40 mph - from Twelve Oaks Center Drive to Xenium Lane (CSAR 61) Cheshire Lane 40 mph - from the south junction with Carlson Parkway to the north junction with Carlson Parkway The CSAR 61 study was done early in anticipation of a resolution from Hennepin County. The early study included only the segment between T.H. 12 and Carlson Parkway, whereas the expected county resolution will request zoning of a larger segment extending from T.H. 12 to T.H. 55. Since the adjacent speed limits were an important consideration in determining the above speed limits for CSAH 61, it is possible the limits will need to be modified when the segment north of Carlson Parkway is studied. (Speed sample SP 4 in the data enclosed for your information, indicates the possibility that an increase in speed limit to 45 mph is warranted north of Carlson Parkway on CSAH 61.) In the meantime, the early study will provide enforceable speed limits for the newly constructed portion of CSAH 61. An Equal Opportunity Employer "'!�5) T-% Fred G. Moore December 27, 1985 Page Two The recommended 40 mph speed limits for Carlson Parkway and Cheshire Lane are five miles per hour below design speed and it is anticipated they will continue to be viable as development occurs. We assume, since turnback has not been completed, that the original authorization for the CSAH 15 portion of Carlson Parkway should go to Hennepin County. Please inform us if this assumption is not correct. Sincerely, -T a,C'A7�T J. S. Katz. P. District Engineer Attachment: Speed Data JSK:pn:EB THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 9, 1985 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Actinq Chairman Victor, Commissioners Musatto, Quass and Cornelius MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Bigelow and Plufka STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham and Building Official doe Ryan MINUTES MOTION was made by Commissioner Cornelius, seconded by Acting Chairman Victor to approve the November 18, 1985 Minutes as amended. VOTE. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried. OLD BUSINESS: MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1985 VOTE - NOTION CARRIED Acting Chairman Victor introduced the Board Members and ERWIN STOBBE reviewed the variance criteria which the Board uses in VARIANCE FROM THE consdering variances. The request submitted by Erwin Stobbe MINIMUM FRONT YARD was introduced for a variance from the minimum front yard SETBACKS setbacks for property located north of 12000 23rd Avenue North as described in the November 27, 1985 staff report. The Board reviewed the grading plan that was submitted as requested on this item at their last meeting. They inquired if a fence would need to be placed along the top of this wall since the wall was approximately 4 to 5 feet in height in some areas. Staff responded that the Building Code would require a guardrail, a minimum of 36 inches in height with no more than 6 inch spacing between rails. The Board also discussed the style of house proposed and questioned why the petitioner would not construct a two story home rather than a split level to reduce the grades. Mr. Stobbe comented that the grades of this lot would still need change and require a retaining wall to be constructed. Mr. Sohn Ritter, 2320 Jonquil Lane, stated that he had a concern regarding his view of a 7 foot high retaining wall. He also state a concern for the safety of the people and pets in the area due to a retaining wall of this height. The Board responded that the wall would be approximately 2 to 4 feet in height in the northwest corner of this property which would be the area Mr. Ritter would view. Regarding the safety of the people, the guardrail fence on top of the wall would act as a safety requirement. The Board inquired of Mr. Stobbe as to the type of materials to be used in the construction of the retaining wall. z- 9 Page two Board of Zoning Minutes December 9, 1985 Mr. Stobbe responded that 6" x 6" timber would be used with deadman spaced accordingly to hold it securely in place. Mr. ferry Murphy, 12030 23rd Avenue North stated that he was still concerned with the water run-off of this site. He questioned what would happen at the end of the retaining wall since it does not extend as far south as 23rd Avenue. Staff responded that a berm would be constructed at the south end of the retaining wall to continue the flow of water to 23rd Avenue. The Board discussed the concerns of the neighboring property owners regarding drainage and the proposed height of the retaining wall. They reviewed their duties as a Board and recalled they had requested this petitioner to provide more information to show how the drainage of this site would be handled in response to the concerns of the neighbors. MOTION was made by Commissioner Cornelius, seconded by NOTION TO APPROVE Commissioner Quass to approve the variance from the front yard setback for property located at north 12000 23rd Avenue North for Erwin E. Stobbe subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance criteria have been met. 2. No other variances are granted or implied. 3. Prior to any final inspection or occupancy permits for this home, the grading must be cointipleted as per the approved grading plan. VOTE. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - MOTION CARRIED Acting Chairman Victor introduced the request submitted by WAYNE MOPP - VARIANCE Wayne Oopp for a variance from the minimum Shoreland FROM THE MINIMUM Management setback for property located south of 310 SWORELAND MANAGEMENT Sycamore Lane, as described in the November 27, 1985 staff SETBACK report. Mr. Bopp reviewed his request and stated that the reason he located this house in this position was due to the design of the neighboring home. This home was placed to receive the full benefit of the lake view. The Board discussed the possibilty of moving the home 10 feet closer to the front yard so that he would not need as great a variance from the Shoreland regulations. Page three Board of Zoning Minutes December 9, 1985 The Board inquired if the setbacks of this home to the lake could be averaged, since only a small portion of the house extends into the required Shoreland setback. Staff responded that the Board has considered this and found this as a basis to grant a variance. The Board continued to discuss with Mr. Bopp the possibility of moving the house forward on the lot so that he would have a 68 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark rather than the proposed 58 foot setback. Mr. Bopp stated that he was not interested in this and would prefer to construct the house as shown on the survey. MOTION was made by Commissioner Quass, seconded by NOTION TO DENY Commissioner Musatto to deny the variance request from the minimum Shoreland Management setback for property located south of 310 Sycamore Lane for Wayne Bopp for the reasons stated in the draft resolution. VOTE. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried. The Board then discussed with Mr. Bopp the appeals process and the time frame involved. The earliest an appeals could be reviewed by the City Council would be at the January 6, 1985 meeting. Mr. Bopp decided he would prefer to have the Board look at granting a 10 foot front yard setback variance and a 7 foot Shoreland Management setback variance so that he could begin construction of this home as soon as possible. The Board discussed Mr. Jopp's alternative and agreed that is what they were originally trying have Mr. Bopp consider. MOTION was made by Commissioner Quass, seconded by Commissioner Musatto to approve the variance for a 25 foot front yard setback and a 68 foot Shoreland Management setback for property located south of 310 Sycamor Lane, for Wayne Bopp for the reasons stated in the draft resolution. VOTE. 4 Ayes. MOTION carried. ADJOURNIENT : The meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED VOTE - NOTION CARRIED CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 9th day of December . 1985. The following members were present: Acting Chairman Victor, Commissioners Mussatto, Quass and Cornelius The following members were absent: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Plufka do Bigelow Commissioner Cornelius introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. B 85-31 APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ERWIN E. STOBBE, NORTH OF 12000 23RD AVENUE NORTH (11-03 85) WHEREAS, Erwin Stobbe has requested approval of a 15 foot encroachment into the Ordinance front yard setback of 35 feet in order to construct a 24 x 60 ft. home; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Erwin Stobbe, for a 15 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and for a 24 x. 60 foot home on property located North of 12000 23rd Avenue North subject to the following conditions and for the following reasons: 1. The variance criteria have been met. 2. No other variances are granted or implied. 3. Prior to any final inspections or an Occupancy Permit being granted, the grading must be completed per the approved grading plan and verify that the drainage flows to 23rd Avenue. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Quass , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Acting Chairman Victor, Commissioners Musatto, Quass and Cornelius The following voted against or abstained: None Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. l CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 9th day of December . 1985. The following ■embers were present: Acting Chairman Victor, Commissioners Musatto, Quass and Cornelius The following members were absent: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Plufka do Bigelow Commissioner Quass introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. B 85-32 DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WAYNE MOPP, 300 SYCAMORE LANE (12-01-85) WHEREAS, Wayne Bopp has requested approval of a 17 foot encroachment into the Ordinance Shoreland Management setback of 75 feet in order to construct a new home; WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for Wayne Bopp, for a 7 foot variance to allow a 58 foot Shoreland Management setback setback for a new home at 300 Sycamore Lane for the following reasons: 1. The variance criteria have not been met. 2. A new home could be constructed within Ordinance standards. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Musatto , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Acting Chairman Victor, Commissioners Musatto, Quass and Cornelius The following voted against or abstained: Mone Nbereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 9th day of December . 1985. The following members were present: Acting Chairman Victor, Commissioners Musatto, Quass, and Cornlius The following members were absent: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Plufka do Bigelow Commissioner Quass introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. B 85-33 APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WAYNE MOPP, 300 SYCAMORE LANE (12-01-85) WHEREAS, Wayne Bopp has requested approval of a 7 foot encroachment into the Ordinance Shoreland Management setback of 75 feet and a 10 foot encroachment into the front yard setback in order to construct a new home; WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Wayne Bopp, for a 7 foot variance to allow a 68 foot Shoreland Management setback and a 25 foot front yard setback for a new home at 300 Sycamore Lane for the following reasons: 1. The variance criteria have been met. 2. No other variances are granted or implied by this action. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Musatto , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Acting Chairman Victor, Commissioners Musatto, Quass and Cornelius The following voted against or abstained: None Nbereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. =-- \0 11/85 1986 CITY COUNCIL MONDAY MEETING SCHEDULE + Council/Commission Dinner Meetings - 6:00 p.m. 1986: Jan. 27 Planning Commission Feb. 24 Park & Recreation Advisory Commission * Council/Staff Dinner Meetings - 6:00 p.m. 1986: Mar. REGULAR SPECIAL TOWN MEETINGS OPEN MONDAY HOLIDAY 1986: JANUARY 6 13, 27+ July __ 20 FEBRUARY 3 10, 24+ Oct. __ 17 MARCH 3, 17 24* 10 (Area 9) 31 --- APRIL 7, 21 28* 14 (Area 10) -- __- MAY 5, 19 -- 12 (Area 1) -- 26 JUNE 2, 16 23* --- 9, 30 --- JULY 7, 21 28* --- 14 --- AUGUST 4, 18 25 --- 11 --- SEPTEMBER 15 8, 22*, 29 --- 29 1 OCTOBER 6, 20 27* 13 (Area 2) -- --- NOVEMBER 3, 17 24* 10 (Area 3) -- DECEMBER 1, 15 -- ___ 8, 22, 29 --- 1986 MEETINGS 21 14 5 8 4 + Council/Commission Dinner Meetings - 6:00 p.m. 1986: Jan. 27 Planning Commission Feb. 24 Park & Recreation Advisory Commission * Council/Staff Dinner Meetings - 6:00 p.m. 1986: Mar. 24 Park and Recreation Apr. 28 City Manager June 23 Public Works July 28 Community Development Sept 22 Community Development Task Force Oct. 27 Finance Nov. 24 Public Safety Other Services VCR Hookups 593 389 FM 1,493 1,272 Remotes 28,301 The Company is experiencing a penetration rate of 41%. Our pay penetration rate is 1.22%. COMPANY MARKETING REPORT CUSTOMER INFORMATION AS OF JANUARY 1, 1986 City Number of Customers One Year Ago Comparison Brooklyn Center 4,391 3,939 Brooklyn Park 6,858 6,720 Crystal 3,613 3,530 Golden Valley 2,804 2,509 Maple Grove 4,141 3,896 New Hope 3,126 3,020 Osseo 285 324 Plymouth 5,420 3,918 Robbinsdale 1,779 1,816 TOTAL 32,417 29,672 Basic Services Subscribers Universal 490 288 Family -no converter 10 Family -remote 39 76 Family -no remote 159 230 Basic -no converter 318 81 Basic -remote 25,864 24,425 Basic -no remote 5,994 4,395 Premium Services Units HBO 15,506 17,071 Show time 8,818 11,607 The Movie Channel 6,109 10,017 Cinemax 5,921 3,669 Disney 3,137 2,949 Bravo 256 360 Other Services VCR Hookups 593 389 FM 1,493 1,272 Remotes 28,301 The Company is experiencing a penetration rate of 41%. Our pay penetration rate is 1.22%. January 7, 1986 Dean M. Barkley 2840 Evergreen Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Dean: _ K CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ Z - \ 2� C"" - Plymouth is blessed with residents who are both highly capable and interested in making a contribution to the community. The recent City Council interviews to fill my unexpired term, stands as a cleat example of this fact. I, and Councilmembers Crain and Sisk, were extremely impressed with the quality of individuals who applied for the available position. The qualifications of each of the candidates interviewed made the decision that much more difficult. In the final analysis, we resolved to appoint Mr. Bob Zitur. On behalf of the City Council and the residents of the community, thank you for your interest and the time you have invested in pursuing this position. There is a vacancy in the City's Park and Recreation Advisory Commission which we are accepting applications for until noon, January 13. If you are Interested, an application may be obtained from City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800. Thank you again for your interest in our community. Sincerely, q—/, � � /,-` Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:Jm 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 7, 1986 Eric Foss 4615 Oakview Lane No. Plymouth, MN 55442 Dear Eric: k CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ Plymouth is blessed with residents who are both highly capable and interested in making a contribution to the community. The recent City Council interviews to fill my unexpired term, stands as a clear example of this fact. I, and Councilmembers Crain and Sisk, were extremely impressed with the quality of individuals who applied for the available position. The qualifications of each of the candidates interviewed made the decision that much more difficult. In the final analysis, we resolved to appoint Mr. Bob Zitur. On behalf of the City Council and the residents of the community, thank you for your interest and the time you have invested in pursuing this position. There i-- a vacancy in the City's Park and Recreation Advisory Commission which we are accepting applications for until noon, January 13. If you are interested, an application may be obtained from City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800. Thank you again for your interest in our community. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:Jm 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 7, 1986 E CITY OF PUMOUTR Jim H. Sentman 13510 County Road 15 Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Jim: Plymouth is blessed with residents who are both highly capable and interested in making a contribution to the community. The recent City Council interviews to fill my unexpired term, stands as a clear example of this fact. I, and Councilmembers Crain and Sisk, were extremely impressed with the quality of individuals who applied for the available position. The qualifications of each of the candidates interviewed made the decision that much more difficult. In the final analysis, we resolved to appoint Mr. Bob Zitur. On behalf of the City Council and the residents of the community, thank you for your interest and the time you have invested in pursuing this position. IIIei-e ib d VdCdIICy in the City's Park and Recreation Advisory Commission which we are accepting applications for until noon, January 13. If you are interested, an application may be obtained from City Clerk Laurie Houk at 559-2800. Thank you again for your interest in our community. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:jm 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 7, 1986 . CITY OF PUMOU1'II-t The Reverend Arnold Weber Holy Name Catholic Church 155 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Dear Father Weber: Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to provide the invocation at our January 6 City Council meeting. Your comments were particularly instructive for those present. On behalf of the City Council, thank you for your thought-provoking invocation. Sincerely, a . //� / <�-x Virgil Schneider Mayor VS:Jm 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 =- \aQ-^ CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: January 6, 1986 TO: Virgil Schneider, Mayor FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City ManagerA,� SUBJECT DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Jim asked that I respond to your January 2, 1986 memorandum regarding deferred special assessments for Mr. Douglas Schroeder, 5230 Vicksburq Lane. Your memorandum indicates that prior to Mr. Schroeder's acquisition of this property in 1981, the City Council levied a special assessment for Vicksburg Lane against this property. A portion of the assessment was deferred. Mr. Schroeder wants to know the amount deferred, how long the time period was for deferral, the amount of interest being accrued and the rate of accrual, and any factors which would trigger the release of the deferment. The Finance Department has prepared the following information: The amount of assessment deferred was $7,595.00. The deferment period was for five years. The amount of interest is $3,038.00, which is accruing at an 8% per annum rate. Council approval for relevying of this assessment was done under Resolution No. 85-935. The total amount of deferral including interest and principal is $10,633.00 starting in 1986. I am attaching a copy of the initial resolution approving the deferred assessments and the 1985 resolution. I agree that it would be appropriate to have members of the Council further discuss the general subject of special assessments and specifically, deferral of special assessments. I would suggest that the special meeting in January, scheduled for January 27, would be an appropriate time to discuss the City's deferral policy. By copy of this memorandum I am advising Mr. Schroeder of the Council's intended action. attach cc: S/F 1/17 C: -Y OF PLYM."� ; L Pursuant tc due call ant notice therecr, a special meetinc c- the City Council of the City or Plymouth, Minnesota was he '.t on the 29th da. of September , 19 80. The followina members we -E present: Acting Mayor Davenport, Councilmem5ers Hoyt, Neils and Schneider The following memoers were aoser�.: Mayor Hunt Councilmember Hoyt introduced the followinc Resolution anc moved its aaoot�or,: RESOLUTION NO. 80- 727 DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS - PROJECT NO. 801 WHEREAS, the following described parcels of homesteaded land shall be assessed for the first 300 feet of frontage when the frontage is 600 feet or more with the balance being deferred at the established rate; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MINNESOTA that the following parcels assessment that applies to the street manner as stated above for a period n ever, that if the property is sold, n further subdivided during that five y become payable in full. 4-118-22-23-0001 4-118-22-32-0001 4-118-22-33-0001 5-118-22-41-0003 8-118-22-11-0002 8-118-22-14-0001 8-118-22-44-0001 ��'!_j 18-22-22.0006' r, 9-118-22-23-0005 9-118-22-32-0003 ? 16-118-22-22-000003 CITY COUNCIL OF shall be deferred frontage that ex of to exceed five of used by the o ear period, the d $ 39,060.00 8,000.36 8,029.00 22,785.00 13,562.50 7,690.91 2242. 50 7,182.70 6,510.00 8.141.62 $ 150,799.59 THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, for that portion of the ceeds 300 feet in the (5) years, provided how- wner for his homestead, eferred assessment shall The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Neils , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers lls and Davenport The following voted against or abstained: None Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. =-\a L_. ityCoPursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City-,- Council uncil of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota was held on the day of �. 1985. The following members were present: The following members were absent: introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85- 93 S RELEVY OF DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, in accordance with City policy certain parcels of homestead land were assessed at a residential rate with the remainder of the assessment deferred at the established rate; and WHEREAS, the deferral was for a five year period which period expires at the end of 1985; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council to determine the period of years over which the deferred assessment is to be paid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: That the assessments listed below which were previously deferred be respread for the period of years indicated: FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the first installment is payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.* Interest PID Levy # Yrs. Rate Assessment •04-118-22-23-0001 7651 05 $ 8.00 $ 54,684.00 )� y 05-118-22-44-0003 7651 05 8.00 11,086.12 08-118-22-11-0002 7651 05 8.00 18,987.50 .08-118-22-14-0001 7651 05 8.00 10,767.31 t-09-118-22-22-0006-` 7651 05 8.00 10,633.00 .G9-118-22-23-0005 7651 05 8.00 10,055.80 -10-118-22-11-0002 7654 10 8.00 51,042.05 40 87ee- � • ' '' .� » -17-118-22-14-0006 --765L 8410 08 8.00 7,955.80 1� 17-118-22-14-0006 8411 08 8.00 6,632.54 -17-118-22-14-0006 8412 08 8.00 12,362.24 21-118-22-14-0001 7653 01 8.00 4,172.00 ,y27-118-22-43-0002 7671 10 8.00 11,567.65 IS -27-118-22-44-0002 7671 10 8.00 15,793.84 i6 •27-118-22-44-0007 7671 10 8.00 19,705.43 FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the first installment is payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.* DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT G CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO January 2. 1985 James G. Willis, Fred Moore Virgil Schneider, Mayor DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Maria Vasiliou received a call from a resident, which she referred to me regarding deferred special assessments. The resident's name is Douglas Schroeder, 5230 Vicksburg Lane. Home phone - 559-7680. P.I.N. 09-118-22-22-0006. Mr. Schroeder purchased this property around 1981. Previous to that time, the City Council had levied special assessments for Vicksburg Lane against this property, a portion of which was deferred. Mr. Schroeder would like to know: 1) the amount deferred; 2) how long a time period was it deferred; 3) the amount of interest being accrued and at what rate; and 4) any factors which would trigger the release of the deferment (i.e. development activity). Jim, I think this may be a good opportunity for the members of the City Council to get together at a work session meeting to discuss in general the deferral of special assessments. Please give me your thoughts on the more broad discussion on deferred assessments and also your thoughts on this specific parcel. 7 5� 5. Gc 3) to 3J 039. GO bcc: James Willis 4 CITY OF January 7, 1986 PUMOUTf Principal Marney Wamsley Wayzata Senior High School 305 Vicksburg Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Principal Wamsley: I noted with interest in your newsletter of January, 1996, that the Executive Board of the PTSO was currently researching the feasibility of a sign that could ht- seen from Vicksburg Lane and that would inform the community of school events. I am taking this opportunity to recommend that, when the Board has reached a tentative conclusion as to the size and location of such a sign, plans be submitted to the City for preliminary review with respect to the City's sign regulations in the Zoninq Ordinance. I believe the relevant language in the Ordinance is: One free-standing nameplate sign shall be permitted for allowed institutional uses such as church,�s, schools, hospitals, clubs, libraries, municipal and other governmental buildings, and the like; provided that the maximum surface area shall be 32 sq. ft., and provided that the sign is located at least 20 ft. from the front property lines, but in no case is located in any side yard. A nameplate sign is defined as a sign which states the name or address or both of the business or occupant of the lot where the siqn is placed. I am sending Building Official Joe Ryan a copy of this letter and he is the person you or others on the Executive Board should contact. Since--r)--ly, Blair Tremere, Director Community Development /gw cc: Building Official Joe Ryan File/SUBJ District 284 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 Z as PUBL/C SCHOOLS pendent School District 284 WAYZATA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL . 305 VICKSBURG LANE . PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-3999 • Telephone 612%473-0400 January 9, 1986 Blair Tremere, Director Community Development 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Tremere: rl' �2PIPPf?n J0 Yt� 1W Gin,,. �gCLOWN] "T. I received your letter about the possibility of the Wayzata PTSO signboard project. We will be in contact with the City --- either directly or through the company we deal with ---if and when the PTSO makes a decision about the project. Thank you for picking up on that item. (It's encouraging to know that someone "out there" reads the newsletters to the very end!) It is also easier to know the restrictions and parameters at the beginning of such a project. Sincerely, Marney Wamsley Principal MW: ba 4 r 4 . CITY OF PUMOUTR January 6, 1986 Mr. Al Tombers 3020 Larch Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Al: It has just come to my attention that your request to retire from act4ve service in the Volunteer Fire Department effective January 24th has been approved following 20 years of active service. I understand that Don Erickson has also submitted his retirement notice. Both of you are unique not only because of the duration of your service, but because of the fact you were both founding members of a department that has matured into one of the most professional in the entire City. In his letter to you, Jim Willis commented that the Department "stands as one of the finest in the metropolitan area". I quite agree. Both of us will now be enjoying retirement of sorts, but my service to Plymouth pales in comparison to the 20 years of dedicated and conscientious service you have given to our community. Al, please accept my best wishes for a full and enriching retirement and be assured that the contribution that you have made to making our City the special place it is will not be forgotten. Thank yoEDavenport rom all of us. Si e 1 Dav d J. DJD: cap cc: Mr. Jim Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559.2000 CITY OF PUMOUTR January 6, 1986 Mr. Donald Erickson 12530 County Road 9 Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Don: = - \3b It has just come to my attention that your request to retire from active service in the Volunteer Fire Department effective January 24th has been approved following 20 years of active service. I understand that Al Tombers has also submitted his retirement notice. Both of you are unique not only because of the duration of your service, but because of the fact you were both founding members of a department that has matured into one of the most professional in the entire City. In his letter to you, Jim Willis commented that the Department "stands as one of the finest in the metropolitan area". I quite agree. Both of us will now be enjoying retirement of sorts, but my service to Plymouth pales in comparison to the 20 years of dedicated and conscientious service you have given to our community. Don, please accept my best wishes for a full and enriching retirement and be assured that the contribution that you have made to making our City the special place it is will not be forgotten. Thank you Si er y, �i ain,-,Trbm all of us. DaviFl J. Davenport DJD: cap cc: Mr. Jim Willis 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 5, 1986 To: City of Plymouth Park and Recreation Department From: John, Diana, Sarah and Emily Danielson 17030 12th Ave. North Re: Skating pond on 12th Ave. North We would like to thank and compliment you for the good job that has been done on our street's pond this season. Adults and children alike have enjoyed having this skating pond so well cared for. You have made our winter a lot more fun! Thank you! Sincerely, CITY C� January 8, 1986 PUMOUTR Mr. and Mrs. M. Rath 10610 South Shore Drive Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rath: We have received the complaint you filed through Mayor Schneider regarding snowmobiles trespassing on your property. The Plymouth Police Department is also very much concerned about this annoying problem. We would like to encourage you to help us by calling the police department whenever you observe snowmobiles violating the law. Also, if at all possible, please note the registration numbers located on each side of the machine. This would enable us to locate and prosecute the owners for the violations. Snowmobiles move from one location to another quickly making it very difficult for police officers to apprehend. We are posting a notice on the bulletin board informing patrol officers of your concern and asking that they cooperate in every way possible. Please do not hesitate to call us if you should have any questions. We are enclosing a brochure which might be of interest to you on snowmobile rules and regulations. Sincerely, Richard J. Carlquist DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY: iM ,S - A7 4W Mel Solberg Lieutenant cc: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager Enclosure 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (6121 559-2800 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: January 7, 1986 TO: Mel Solberg, Lieutenant FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT SNOWMOBILING COMPLAINT Mayor Schneider has advised me that he received a complaint from Matt and Kay Rath, 10610 South Shore Drive. The Rath's have complained of snowmobilers trespassing through their yard at all hours of the day and night. They have asked what action they or the City can take to resolve this matter. The Rath's phone number is 546-9646. Please investigate this question and prepare correspondence which would respond to the Rath complaint. Please provide me with a copy of the correspondence in order that I might share it with members of the City Council. FB:jm