HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 01-24-1986CITY O�
PUMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 24, 1986
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION -- Monday, January 27, 6:00 P.M.
A Joint dinner meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission
will be held in the Council Conference room.
2. HRA ANNUAL MEETING -- Monday, January 27, 6:30 P.M. The Plymouth
HRA will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-2)
3. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, January 27, 7:30 P.M.
Special City Council meeting in City Council Chambers.
4. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -- Wednesday, January 29, 7:30 A.M.
The Plymouth Development Council will meet in the City Council
conference room. A copy of the meeting agenda is attached. (M-4)
5. MEETING REMINDERS:
A. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES - LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE -
Wednesday, February 5, St. Paul Radisson Hotel. A copy of the
conference agenda is attached. (M -5A)
B. DISTRICT 284 COMPLIANCE MEETING - Monday, February 10, Wayzata
Senior High choo ca eteria, 5:00 p.m. Meeting notice
attached. (M -5B)
6. REVISED CALENDARS -- Attached are revised meeting calendars for
February and March. In accordance with Council direction, revisions
to the February calendar include: 1) February 10 Joint Council/HRA
meeting, a change in meeting time from 6:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; 2)
the addition of the February 19 Joint Council/Planning Commission
meeting, 6:00 p.m.; and 3) revising the February 24 Joint
Council/PRAC meeting to a Joint meeting with Council/City staff.
The March calendar reflects the Joint meeting with the Council/PRAC
on March 24. (M-6)
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 24, 1986
Page 2
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....
1. GRAMM-RUDMAN BUDGET REDUCTIONS -- You have probably been hearing and
reading plenty about the impact of the first cuts in the federal
budget resulting from the adoption of the Gramm-Rudman (Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985). There is a great deal of gnashing of
teeth and wailing at the walls as a result of this Act being
implemented. There is little question that all local governments
are going to feel the sting of this new fiscal medicine. Whether or
not we like it, the fact remains that the Act has been adopted by
the Congress and signed by the President. In terms of implications
for Plymouth directly, we can anticipate reductions in general
revenue sharing and community development block grant payments.
Federal revenue sharing is anticipated to be reduced approximately
4.6% commencing in March. With respect to the general revenue
sharing cuts, there will frankly be no discernable impact. on
Plymouth. We estimate the cuts will amount to approximately $5,500,
however, since these funds are not specifically appropriated for
operating purposes, the impact will be felt only to the extent that
the funds will not be available for some future public capital
purpose. Cutbacks in the community development block grant (CDBG)
program may be as great as 33%, which would mean a reduction in the
present $148,055 to $99,197. Attached is a memo from Blair Tremere
regarding the status of the CBDG program for 1986. (I-1)
There is going to be a great deal of additional pressure placed upon
the Congress and the administration to more effectively deal with
the federal budgetary deficit crisis. The Gramm-Rudman approach is
certainly not the most thoughtful way to deal with the issue, but is
apparently the only politically acceptable course at this time. In
the meantime, as the effects of the Gramm-Rudman cuts are made, we
can probably anticipate some "trickle-down" secondary impacts from
other units of government whose funding will be affected. These
may include mass transit grants affecting the Regional Transit Board
(RTB) which in turn could affect their long term view of Metrolink,
reductions in funding made available to Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) and the Hennepin County Department of
Transportation, which might affect the timetable for some of their
major capital projects.
2. 1986 PAYABLE TAX AND MILL RATE COMPARISONS -- Attached is a series
of charts and tables prepared by the City Assessor's office. These
charts are based on the 1986 mill rates which have just been
released through Hennepin County. All the data on the accompanying
charts are based on these new rates for taxes payable in 1986. The
charts reflect mill rate comparisons from 1982, city taxes on
typical Plymouth homes by school district, the distribution of the
tax dollar, and a comparison between the 1985 and 1986 taxes.
Overall the impact on the taxpayer for taxes payable in 1986 is not
dramatic. The total mill rate for each of the school districts is
up between 5% and 7%, however, the out-of-pocket dollars to the
taxpayer is not substantially different due to the homestead credit
being increased from $650 to $700. Scott Hovet has also indicated
that the City's contribution to the fiscal disparities pool has
declined from 33.3% to 31.6%. (I-2)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 24, 1986
Page 3
3. COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN -- On January 3, Sherm Goldberg and I met
with two representatives of the Metropolitan Council staff to
discuss in a preliminary way their reaction to a possible amendment
to the City's comprehensive sewer plan. The current comprehensive
sewer plan contemplates the eventual construction of a metropolitan
interceptor to serve the Elm Creek area. That interceptor is not
contemplated for construction under the most optimistic scenario
before the year 2000. It would be constructed southerly from
Champlin through Maple Grove to Plymouth. It would serve that area
in Plymouth which currently is designated outside the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA) and also the area around Bass Lake and
Pike Lake which is presenty being served on an interim basis. The
purpose of our meeting with the staff members was to determine
whether or not they felt it might be mutually advantageous for the
City's plan to be amended so as to provide for the ultimate service
of the Elm Creek, Bass Lake and Pike Lake portion of Plymouth
through the present metro lift station located on Highway 55 near
County Road 18. That lift station is planned to be upgraded by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in 1987 because of increased
flows and growth projections in Plymouth and now Medina. The Metro-
politan Council staff members agreed that it was an appropriate time
to consider this issue as they were in the process of reviewing the
upgrading of the lift station and construction of a second force
main into Minneapolis. I have subsequently heard from the Metro-
politan Council that they will be informally reviewing the feasi-
bility of serving Plymouth through the single interceptor during the
next several months.
Another alternativ-- to the Elm Creek interceptor currently being
explored by Fred Moore, involves having the sewage from the Elm
Creek portion of Plymouth diverted to interceptors via force mains
in the city of Maple Grove.
Our primary objective, of course, is to insure that Plymouth has the
maximum flexibility to develop in the years ahead without being
effectively curtailed by the failure of the Metropolitan Council
and/or Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to construct the Elm
Creek interceptor. There is obviously no desire on our part to
expedite the development of any land outside the MUSA for a number
of years.
4. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - "The Rush to Burn" -- The attached article
from the current issue of City Business suggests that the County's
decision to more forward with a 1,000 ton per day solid waste
incinerating plant may have some substantial downside risks for
County taxpayers. This is another issue which will be high on the
public's agenda for policy discussions during the next several years
and I believe it is important for the Council to keep abreast of
evolving developments. (I-4)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 24, 1986
Page 4
5. WATER RESOURCES BOARD -- Fred Moore has been appointed a member of
the State's Water Resources Board 509 Advisory Committee. This
committee's primary purpose is to help the Water Resources Board
define what must included within metropolitan watershed plans to
meet the requirements of the recently adopted Metropolitan Storm
Water Management Act. This Act, as you may recall, requires the
creation of watershed management agencies whose responsibility it
will be to develop management plans for each watershed within the
metropolitan area. When these watershed management plans are
developed they will require local watershed management plans also to
be adopted which are in conformity with the overall watershed
management plan. Fred's appointment to this advisory committee will
insure that we are well represented in the process as to defining
what will ultimately be required to be included in local watershed
management plans.
6. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - HOUSEHOLD REBATE -- Last month the Council
authorized us to submit an application to Metropolitan Council for
reimbursement for expenses incurred by the City during 1985 with
respect to developing solid waste reduction programs. Fred Moore
developed the information required by the Metropolitan Council which
substantiated a justification for reimbursement of $6,835.22. We
have just been informed by the Metropolitan Council that our appli-
cation for a household rebate in that amount has been approved.
7. PRIVATIZATION - DISCUSSION PAPER -- Attached is a brief paper on the
issue of privatization prepared by the Public Services Redesign
Project at the Humphrey Institute. This brief paper presents a good
overview of the privatization issue and particularly, lists some of
the difficulties in using the term in too broad a context. Because
this is a topic which will be growing in public interest and
discussion in the years ahead, I think it is useful for the Council
to become more aware of it. (I-7)
8. MINUTES -- The following minutes are attached for your information:
a. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, January 9, 1986 (I-8)
9. BOND NEWSLETTER -- A copy of the Ehlers and Associates bond news-
letter for January is attached for your information. (I-9)
10. PRAC TRAINING SESSION -- The attached memorandum from Eric Blank
provides information on the training session for Park and Recreation
Advisory commissioners scheduled for Thursday, March 13. Mayor
Schneider had previously requested additional details on the
session. (I-10)
11. CITY EMPLOYEES -- I have receiving the following correspondence on
City employees:
a. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Burns, 4285 Lanewood Lane, with
regard to assistance provided by Plumbing Inspector Don Kilian.
(I -11a)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 24, 1986
Page 5
b. Letter from Robert Melamed, Managing General Partner, Medicine
Lake Apartments, regarding the expeditious service received from
Building Official Joe Ryan. (I -11b)
c. Letter from Peter Clark, Chairman, Health Education Taask Force
at Breck School, commenting on the contributions of Police
Investigator Bill Hanvik to the Breck parent education PAR
program held on January 14. (I -11c)
12. MAYOR'S CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter of congratulations to Richard Rosen on his appointment to
the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. (I -12a)
b. Letters of appreciation to the PRAC interviewees. (I -12b)
James G. Willis
City Manager
A G E N D A
PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ANNUAL MEETING
January 27, 1986
6:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call
r
II. Approval of Minutes for December 16, 1985 Meeting
III. Nomination and Appointment of Officers
IV. Year End Status Report on the Section 8 Program
V. Year End Status Report on the Housing Rehabilitation Program
VI. Year End Status Report on the Senior Citizen's Housing Development
VII. Year End Status Report on the Scattered Site Home Ownership Program
VIII. Year End Status Report on the Child Care Subsidy Program
IX. Management Services Contract
X. Status Report on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program for Year XII
XI. Adjournment
CITY OF PLYMOL
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 14, 1986
TO: Plymouth Development Council Members
FROM: Bob Burger, President
SUBJECT MEETING NOTICE
The next meeting of the Plymouth Development Council will be held on
Wednesday morning, January 29 at 7:30 a.m. in the Plymouth City Center
Council Conference Room. The following items are scheduled for
discussion, however, you may wish to bring up other items as well:
1. Review of "fast track" plan review and permit issuance process
for single family permits.
2. Review of automated permit system procedures for reroofing,
residing, plumbing and mechanical permits for one and two
family dwellings.
3. Sewer capacity issue.
4. 1986 Improvements for County Road 9, County Road 10, Pike Lake
Sewer.
5. Other business.
I look forward to seeing you at the January 29 meeting.
BB:Jm
cc: dames G. Willis, City Manager
Blair Tremere, Director of Planning & Community Development
Fred Moore, Public Works Director
S,F.I�%s
League of Minnesota Cities
1986 Legislative Action Conference
Wednesday, February 5, 1986
Radisson St. Paul Hotel
Kellogg Blvd.
Agenda
7:30 a.m. Registration begins
9:00 a.m. Panel discussion: State budget/mandated fees
10:00 a.m. Policy adoption
12:00 p.m. Lunch/speakers (legislative leaders invited)
1:30 p.m. Legislative issues (development, tort liability, pensions, etc.)
2:15 p.m. Legislative priorities/Ask the lobbyist
2:30 p.m. City officials go to the Capitol to meet with legislators
5:30 p.m. Reception for city officials and state legislators (Co-sponsored by the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities)
LMC 1986 Legislative Action Conference registration
City (Please print or type)
Name Title
Name Title
Name Title
Name Title
Name Title
Registration fee: $50.00 advance, $55.00 on-site
Check enclosed in the amount of $
Fee includes conference registration, luncheon, and evening reception with legislators invited.
Mail to Gayle Brodt, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101
Z 9aA "ta
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ROGER M ADAMS, Pr C
Independent School District 284 Interim Superintendent
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 210 NORTH STATE HIGHWAY 101 P.O. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391-9990 (612)475-45C,'
January 16, 1986
Mayor Virgil Schneider
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Virgil:
Each year the Wayzata Board of Education holds a compliance meeting on
community education. I cordially invite you to attend this meeting
scheduled for Monday, February 10, 1986, beginning at 5:00 p.m. in the
Wayzata Senior High School Cafeteria, 305 Vicksburg Lane, Plymouth.
The Community Education Services staff has developed a presentation to
provide you with information on their programs. The reception will begin
at 5:00 p.m. with a dinner following. There will be opportunities for
sharing ideas covering cooperative ventures between the Board of Education
and the constituency you represent.
Immediately following the dinner, a number of mini -workshops on the various
areas of community education will be presented. On completion of the
workshop, a short discussion will take place dealing with the cooperation
of governing boards in the area of learning.
Our hope is that you or a member of your board can be present at this
important meeting. Please R.S.V.P. by February 3, 1986, at 475-4501.
Si c rely, a6w�
Ro r Adams, Ph.D.
Int Superintendent of Schools
RMA: Imb
A2:77
` V
`vr. ~
�
I I
•-C
W
�
moi/
�
.
—
z�noz
z �c
rv,n�r
r✓ r
"CJ r
'moi
H V
Z
H V�
w -_
-_ �� . --
SS
r�
r
V
W\
r•
O
x
t"I H
w f \
a7 r
•
z r
cn
d
y
X It
CID
Cn
OO
o
�.
z
�
z
Ln
--
lid
— -—
--
n �, •v
- --- —
---
zoz
•"z
zoz�
Lp
.�
z
z o
C-)
r Id
ND
H
a �
�
h
H
cn
M
u
d
t
\
00
��
T
W
i
W
i
i
00
i
KW]
o�
O n
zftj
min
In H
.
CT OD c
i £
Z o z
.-C
irH,bO
i
Hroo1td
o
r-yo°�M
n �
j
Z;lc
v
�
0H
row
CG,
r.
n
Pd
r ••
n o
r
C!1
KW]
o�
C
V
LD
w
O
C,
i�
b�
1
InVtzi
CT OD c
Z o z
.-C
irH,bO
i
o
r-yo°�M
n �
j
Z;lc
v
�
x a
�..►
CG,
n
r ••
n o
r
C!1
O
to H
on
x�
`m z
-
X
0-3t-4
r
POcn
io ro
Z n
Z O 9
G
H V H
H V H
wC)
wG'�••
i
C
V
LD
w
O
C,
i�
10
M •
1-�
avow Km
I�7 tp
A -a
CT OD c
!
i
o
r-yo°�M
j
�O
COG7
z O
�
CG,
=
H ro v
`�
r ••
n o
r
NN->
O
on
x�
nto
X
r
POcn
10
M •
1-�
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 24, 1986
TO: dames G. Willis, City Manager/HRA Executive Director
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
F.W;L�
SUBJECT STATUS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBGF) PROGRAM FUNDING
SUMMARY: Attached is a Memorandum we received from the Hennepin County
staff which provides administrative assistance under the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program. The memorandum is a background paper that traces the
development of the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the memorandum identifies the
current status and future prospects for the program.
Long-term prospects are not particularly encouraging, and because of anticipated cut-
backs, the County staff called a meeting last Wednesday which I attended, to discuss
ways that maximum program benefits could be derived through equitable distribution and
efficient administration.
Cutback will affect the program from the City's perspective to the extent of a 33% re-
duction. This means that we can expect a 1986 (Funding Year XII) allocation of
approximately $99,197.00 versus the allocation we received for the current funding year
of $148,055.30.
The conclusion of the meeting I attended Wednesday was that a Task Force has been
established to consider specific possible adjustments to the current operating require-
ments and guidelines established by the County and implemented by the participating
cities through the point Powers Agreements. This Task Force approach has worked well
in the past and I have submitted my name to be part of it.
There is no doubt that the number and extent of programs will be impacted by this, and
the consideration of potential uses of CDBG funds will be coming before the HRA and
City Council in the near future.
I have also attached a copy of the City Council Resolution 85-271 which represents the
program and funding breakdown for the current year.
I will be prepared to discuss this further and I will keep you informed as the work of
the Task Force proceeds.
Attachments
1. Memorandum on Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program
2. Council Resolution
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
BACKGROUND AND DIRECTIONS
COQ _;,vMEH .
Hennepin County has been an entitlement recipient of Community Develop-
ment Block Grant funds from the effective date of the program estab-
lished in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Hennepin
became an entitlement recipient pursuant to the provision for Urban
Counties in the Act. In order to qualify as an Urban County, Hennepin
had to demonstrate that it possessed sufficient housing and community
development authority to be an effective participant in the program.
This was accomplished through the execution of a joint powers agreement
with other units of local government within the County.
Early in 1975; a Joint Cooperation Agreement was drafted, approved by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and executed with
twenty-two municipalities whose aggregate population exceeded the
qualifying threshold of 200,000 people. This initiated the Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the
first program year beginning with Fiscal Year 1975 and provided the
basis for participation in the program every year since.
As shown in Figure 1.; the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program began in
1975 with a total of 23 participants (Hennepin and 22 municipalities)
receiving an entitlement of $738;000. Currently there are 44 partici-
pants with a total population of 502,000 who shared $3,101,000 in FY
1985 (Program Year XI). Figure 2. shows that the preponderance of
activities programmed for Year XI are under $10,000 each. This con-
figuration is typical of the total number of activities undertaken
annually and their individual budgets.
Program dollars peaked in FY 1980 at $4,379;000 when Urban Hennepin
County consisted of 42 participants. In total; the Urban Hennepin
County program has been allocated $34,975;000 from regular CDBG appro-
priations plus $1,051,000 in a special appropriation from the Jobs Bill
of 1983. Table 1. lists the total number of participants in the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG program by year; the total amount received and the
allocation provided to each participant for use in the development of
the Urban Hennepin County program.
Opportunity was provided through the Act for communities to join the
Urban County program each year through 1977. Beginning in 1978 partici-
pation was on a three year basis; locking communities in or out for that
period. Currently, all eligible communities participate in the program
except Long Lake, who dropped out in 1981 to accept a one-time discre-
tionary CDBG from HUD. Minneapolis and Bloomington do not participate
because they are entitlements onto themselves by virtue of their status
as metropolitan cities (cities with over 50,000 inhabitants and located
in a SMSA).
Through 1985; $31;538;344 has been spent; representing 88 percent of
total dollars allocated. Figure 3. summarizes the type of activities
funded with the CDBG through calendar 1985; including funds from the
special appropriation to the program from the Jobs Bill of 1983.
Initially; the CDBG was viewed as a community development "revenue
sharing" measure and used as a public facility/improvement program
targeted to low and moderate income neighborhoods. It began as a means
to implement a national change in urban policy which in the mid 70's
moved away from an array of categorical grant programs sought on a
competitive basis to block grants made directly to qualifying units of
local government to use as they believed would best meet their needs.
The list of eligible activities was extensive and their selection guided
by a rather broad range of national and locally established objectives.
Since its enactment in 1974, the Housing and Community Development Act
has been amended four times: 1977, 1981, 1983 and 1984. With each of
the first three amendments to the Act, the Community Development Block
Grant program was reauthorized for three year periods. With each
authorization of the CDBG have come changes in program emphasis.
The 1977 amendments shifted the direction to activities which benefitted
low and moderate income persons, and made it increasingly difficult to
undertake projects within developing communities; or projects aimed at
addressing the commercial revitalization needs of older communities. It
was during this period that housing rehabilitation grants and the
acquisition of land for assisted housing development became program
activities, and the regulations governing the use of CDBG funds for
public (human) services began to be relaxed.
It was the 1977 amendments that also required a three year commitment on
the part of all participants. The eligibility of split places; those
communities located in two or more counties, was expanded which provided
for inclusion of all of Chanhassen, Hanover, Rockford and St. Anthony as
eligible program areas. In addition, it became necessary to establish a
formal citizen participation plan.
In 1982, HUD began using 1980 Census data in determining the entitlement
allocation of funds to jurisdictions. This was the principal reason for
a 14% decrease in the Hennepin County entitlement.
In 1983, through the Urban Rural Recovery Act; the 1974 Act was again
amended. The CDBG program regulations resulting from these amendments
expanded the eligibility of such program activities as public services
and economic development. This expansion of program eligibility was due
partly to offset Federal budget reductions in other domestic programs,
although another reduction in the CDBG appropriation was made, con-
tinuing a trend begun in 1981.
The 1984 amendments continued the funding flexibility for public
services, further limited the eligibility of activities designed to
prevent or eliminate slums and blight, required that all economic
E
1
development activities result in the generation of jobs for low and
moderate income persons, and increased pressure on the program through
further funding reductions.
Allocations from the 1986 appropriation to the CDBG Program have yet to be
made, although a substantial reduction will occur due to the following
factors: (1) ten percent reduction in the Federal appropriation, (2)
several new Urban Counties (including Ramsey) have been designated, (3)
the Gramm-Rudman Bill will probably impact the CDBG appropriation by about
five percent, and (4) a Presidential deferral of funds earmarked for the
program as a technique to reduce the 1986 deficit without making a like
reduction in Defense spending is expected to amount to $500,000,000,
resulting in another reduction in the program of 16 percent. In total, a
33% decrease is projected in the 1986 Urban Hennepin County allocation
over 1985 ($2,078,000 compared to $3,101,000).
Our best current information suggests that the Administration's intent is
to extend the program through 1991 at approximately the 1986 funding
level. The program must be reauthorized in 1987, however, and several
program changes are being discussed which could have major additional
consequences for Urban Hennepin County. These potential changes include
(1) a restructuring of the allocation formula to target recipients in
greatest need, and (2) splitting the funding set aside for entitlements
and small cities discretionary recipients (States) 65-35 rather than the
current 70-30. Both of these program changes, if enacted, would further
reduce the Urban Hennepin County entitlement. Introduction of the needs
formula would be hard-hitting for urban counties and under the worse
scenario could result in Hennepin's allocation being reduced to zero.
Figure 1 shows the "worst case" (and most probable) funding projection
for 1986 and the probable range for 1987 and beyond. Table 2 shows how
the projected 1986 entitlement would be distributed among participating
communities pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement and how these amounts
would compare with 1985 allocations.
Reductions of this magnitude suggest that a restructuring of the
Hennepin planning allocation to each cooperating unit for individual use
may be appropriate. In essence, with drastically reduced funding and a
rather large number of low budget activities, it is increasingly
difficult to program dollars in an effective manner and is no less
demanding in an administrative sense. Although the present Joint
Cooperation Agreement with each cooperating unit assures a proportionate
allocation to use in program development, it may well be possible to
effect a distribution system and/or program development process to
better meet the challenges being faced.
There are a variety of program development alternatives which have
potential for achieving the necessary consensus among participating
communities. Some of these include:
Using the existing formula with no changes.
Using the existing formula with the understanding that the Citizens
Advisory Committee may recommend that some activities not be funded
based upon their small grant amount, individual projects or types of
project.
Voluntary agreement among some cooperating units that their planning
allocations be pooled to allow for a limited discretionary account
competitive process. Only those cities releasing their planning
allocation would compete for the available pool of funds. Approval
of requests for funding would follow the established process for
funding activities from the discretionary account. A minimum
project budget threshold would be established.
All participant communities voluntarily forgo their Year XII
planning allocation in favor of a total discretionary program. The
funding recommendation would be the responsibility of the CAC
(perhaps with greater municipal participation in the program
development process).
There are undoubtedly other possible approaches that should also be
considered by Urban Hennepin County participants in an effort to derive
maximum benefit from declining CDBG revenues, ensure their equitable
distribution and minimize the costs of administration.
ml
OPD 1-15-86
'-I
i
U-
s;u2dLDL4JPd
4o aagwnN
-v
0
0
0
o
c
C
O
►-+ >>
1
� �
I
X �
•
CO
X
cz
r�
Q
,
=
Ib X
1
X
m
M X
CO �-
O
Q Q
'
•
00 �-•
-%
Oa-
\�`10-
w
Q
Z m
00 ► -�
>-
Q 0
i
Q
N
Q
cc
X13 0
P t
Lid
►-+ O
U U
W
� 1llll
d
\
ljfl
W Z
//I
O W
co
W Z
\
CL1 Q
\
� m
�
•`\\
•11j1j/f
Z O
llfllll/1
^ �
Lo
In o Lo
o to
o Io
0 Lo
M
M N
N
1111111/1 111111111111 f
4u2a9 L2nuuy
s,A2 L LOQ
40 suo i MW
ul
S-
00
r
r
O
D
4-
0
N
C
to
0
s
•r
Q%
CO
100+
95-100
80-85
75 -So
70 --75
65-70
Go -65
45- 50
9-0-4s
3 5 - t0
30-35
•25-30
7-0-25
1;-20
10-15
S-10
m2
7
I
Z
Number of Activities
Figure 2.
Number of Activities by Budget
Year XI Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program
127
Figure 3.
EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR ACTIVITY
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
C�
F
r
i
eo
Gl
}t
>
C
O
L
d
cns-
C
4J
CE7
m
O
•r
m
O
'r
4J
r
N
C1
C
+-)
L
•r
C1
r
Gl
4J
C
O
r
to
41
1C
>
t„ 1
r
r
N
L
•r
i
L
4J
•r•
C
4-)
•r
O
V
H
G
>
C
tC
O
rp
4•.) rt3
i
tp
i
cr
L L
V>
V
GJ
r
ij
V
47
4J O
•r
N
a
0
CA
E
•�
•�
•r O
O
C
r
C
f0
•�
c
in
v
o
E
V
E
t6
O
O
•.-
L
V
O
J
2
a
1=
¢
W
=
J
¢
o .� rl -• a r• a t f� H� o- m o M^ o N u m o N M1 o r M1 .�
r� M H H Yl ,t � •N H H� P Y9 N Y9 N P M1
m
P
m k Ar
-O O O H O-0 H M1 H N= P O m m 1.fy1 m
N H �
T N m N 00 -�O N H M1 m H T N^ 10 P-0 d 1P9 11'9 P o^ 0 0^ S O O N
m o-- M1 p a lit m in i� -0 f 'TP` m o m_ � o• o m�-0-
tr
s N
o- rP+ P-0 YC I n N p
H� N m -p P yy m YO1 0 d O pOo
m tr m O •'J H ,O T N� O = O
N M1 N H � N .�• N! H
H .-.
YO'1 H d M tr 0 � 0� -00 Ya9 m O O
O tr N m H m Ifl N�-0 N! H P
N M1 N N
H
T= 'H O` - P m P-0
P
yM1
N Y'1 C m 0 0�
N T M� H
M M1 O N O H m m
-0 Yt -0^-0 N m O-0 11'9
M1
.�
d H^ H -0 H a �• P O O
N� �• O N J-0 11t m O U
� N. N 1fl N tr m P H M1 P
ry�
H
N
H -0
N O M m-0 rOt H-0-0= Y7 -0-0
N P H N fa �
m H H r 0-0 m M1 O P e�
N m�� N H m-0 N M
u9
N
P P N m N •O N-0 Y']
11'9 N f�� N H ^
H S
N
•? .-
7
P p m n ! m^ M1-0 Y7 m
H N H M�� �
M M P H J N m f 11"] O •� H
m •-, B H H d!
11'9
H
PH^ m m M1 mm
H .�• .O f �• - -T
N M N
H H
N y�
--
n �
�
O tr T N M1 N 11"1 M1 m� N �• M1 N��
m 119 � T! N M1 O M1 tr m H
P
11'1 -0 N^ T M1 d m-0 O •7 O
N m N 1 m H
P�
0
H d H H y
tr d 1� M 11'9 �
H M1 ..• B H N H O N d T=
N= � T � Y'9 C N H f
N 11'l H=
., T an d
f
m m
p• ' m H O M H O m P O '+ m-0 M1 M1� H 11") P Y7 Y7 N� H N`^ M1 O M1-0 H H m�' O O
O X -0 ✓Mf H r a -
= m P Y9 HteH H - Y9 H ==
-
O N 11'9 ^ O m M1_ m M1 M1 m m N P N ! m M1 m H f
N a H N N H M1 N H
m
•1, � N 0 0 0-0 tr 119 H d-0 m
-0 P O m P m m
P P-0 !_ O
m m m
� M1 N P H�^�-0
m T ffVV
H
M m T H O r m
O O
m m y
m N � m N r 9A N H tr N
O P M1 H
N m N 1 m H
P�
0
H d H H y
N
U'9 H N m N IIt H
N 11'l H=
., T an d
f
m m
d= d P H Y9
H O
�
1!9 M1 N
N d T 11'] f 11'9 P m h H^
m H H
M1 N m 11'9 P
N
S
tr == ry
�• 11"]
D
� r
i
�
W
d
pp yy -0-0 P O N }
T •�
N
m YH9
h� � d P_ �_
t
yy99
M�9 N � P H r
� U
P
m 119 Y'
p er= P r+ m H
0
mtrm
d m } N m
�T-•
m-0
N f 1N� O N N
N N
Qeae
ly
M1
1 f •m1 MN.
^ H N� N H Y9 �• m
N
H
1+1
� V9 � 119 � H N
d
.�
O m
N N���
^
_
m
y
�
W r•
y7i
_
u
� Z
� D. W = S QL �.Y Op
=
6
a¢{ � H1
G 2
O_ 1�i •/9 0 �
�
• � ap
W
i i i to Z �¢ '� �_ O O[
¢OQ yW/
V9 Z a 0 �O Y 2
0 0^ 1
�
J N O
i O O �y .>e � O
O
V$
Y.
J 2 �� O L� Z J Z
2� >�=
W •� W u�
W W O S O Oy
1.0.1
r �
.y�Y1 � a J� 2 6{ ��
� O
Y
1"1
p .[
u
� � � S � �' W W = U_ J W W 2 tNl]
� � W 1 .i ..a
Z t
� Z � � i � tJf
�
U � 6-0i
D . • • � i r O
� � �
O
•Q•��
OO � V V V V u'Z1 ai W W W � 10 � � 2
� � J � 1� = L
uuI1
L = _ = L Z O O
�
Q s •]alC
Z to -0 V9 � � r i �
u��yI
S 1SL
Table 2.
Projected Entitlement and Allocation to
Cooperating Units, 1986
Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program
Unit
'85 Alloc
Less 33
BROOKLYN CENTER
240240
160961
BROOKLYN PARK
354365
237425
CHAMPLIN
3B177
25579
CHANHASSEN
38532
25816
CORCORAN
37689
25252
CRYSTAL
140736
94293
DAYTON
30020
20113
DEEPHAVEN
19019
12743
EDEN PRAIRIE
72349
48474
EDINA
167005
111893
EXCELSIOR
16664
11165
GOLDEN VALLEY
85379
57204
GREENFIELD
9314
6240
GREENWOOD
3747
2510
HANOVER
6315
4271
HASSAN
14251
9552
HOPKINS
113293
75906
INDEPENDENCE
17856
11964
LORETTO
1934
1296
MAPLE GROVE
99961
66974
MAPLE PLAIN
8092
5422
MEDICINE LAKE
1825
1223
MEDINA
16150
10821
MINN.TONK:;
14713
-98296
MINNETONKA BEACH
1017
681
MINNETRISTA
23851
15980
MOUND
76581
51309
NEW HOPE
136577
91507
ORONO
27894
18689
OSSEO
22286
14932 —
PLYMOUTH
148055
99197
RICHFIELD
206839
138582
ROBBINSDALE
77917
52204
ROCKFORD
22826
15293
R06ERS
8083
5416
SHOREWOOD
23380
15665
SPRING PARK
11430
7658
ST. ANTHONY
34061
22821
ST. BONIFACIUS
8397
5626
ST. LOUIS PARK
251661
168613
TONKA BAY
6200
4154
WAYZATA
20087
13458
WOODLAND
4066
2724
SUBTOTAL
2790900
1869903
HENNEPIN COUNTY
310100
207767
TOTAL
3101000
2077670
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 15th day of _April . 1965.
The following members were present: Mayor Dayenpor ouncilmembers Schneider.-
Crain,
chnee er.Crain, Neils and Vasiliou
The following members were absent: none
Councilmember Schneider introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION No. 85- 271
AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF CITY OF PLYMOUTH GRANT APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
INCLUSION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION
IN ACCORD WITH THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has executed a joint powers agreement with Hennepin
County thereby agreeing to participate in a Grant Application under the Urban County
designation provided for in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and,
WHEREAS, a grant application has been prepared requesting funds to undertake a
community development program, including appropriate citizen participation, goal
establishment and implementation plans and procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority held a public hearing on April 1,
1985 regarding the expenditure of the Year XI funds for the City of Plymouth and has
recommended several projects for expenditure of said funds; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendations of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and of the City staff regarding the proposed activities and
program amounts for Year XI; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the report of the Planning Area 2 Citizen
Advisory Committee and has directed a response objecting to the conditional approval
on the basis that the funds currently not expended will be before the commencement of
Funding Year XI;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the administrative staff to prepare
and submit the necessary application for the City of Plymouth's Year XI participation
in the Housing and Community Development Plans and Programs for expenditure on the
following projects in the respective proposed dollar amounts:
Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program
$80,000.00 (54%)
Acquisition and Improvement of Land and/or
Dwellings for purposes of eliminating blight and
neighborhood revitalization $40,000.00 (27%)
Senior Citizen Housing Site Development $ 5,000.00 0%)
Page two
Resolution No. 85- 271
Support of Community Day Care Programs $16,500.00 (11%)
Other Eligible Planning and Program
Development Activities $ 6,555.00 (5%)
$148,055.00
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Neils , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Schneider,
Crain. Neils and Vasiliou
The following voted against or abstained: none
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
S iti / j e
*Includes 8.500 mills from referendum
#279/OSSEO
School
42.993
MILL RATE
COMPARISON
County
29.183
Payable
1982 - 1986
City
12.790
City of
Plymouth
Misc.
4.384
#284/WAYZATA
5.318
1982
1983
1984
School
40.675
42.982
47.631
County
29.183
28.451
29.689
City
12.790
13.134
14.877
Misc.
4.384
5.106
5.318
Voc. Sch.
1.469
1.119
1.446
Total
88.501
90.792
98.961
*Includes
6.380 mills
from referendum
#281/ROBBINSDALE
School
50.774
52.901
58.326
County
29.183
28.451
29.689
City
12.790
13.134
14.877
Misc.
4.384
5.106
5.318
Voc. Sch.
1.469
1.119
1.446
Total
98.600
100.711
109.656
*Includes 8.500 mills from referendum
#279/OSSEO
School
42.993
46.035
54.909
County
29.183
28.451
29.689
City
12.790
13.134
14.877
Misc.
4.384
5.106
5.318
Voc. Sch.
1.469
1.119
1.446
Total
90.819
93.845
106.239
*Includes 6.000 mills from referendum
#270/HOPKINS
School
44.861
45.475
45.023
County
29.183
28.451
29.689
city
12.790
13.134
14.877
Misc.
4.384
5.106
5.318
Voc. Sch.
1.469
1.119
1.446
Total
92.687
93.285
96.353
1985
46.507
29.262
14.538
5.181
1.490
96.978
56.100
29.262
14.538
5.181
1.490
106.571
51.199
29.262
14.538
5.181
1.490
101.670
42.567
29.262
14.538
5.181
1.490
93.038
*Includes 8.500 mill from referendum(s)
Sewer Dist #1- #2- #3- #4 Included in City Mill Rate (1.000 mills)
Wtrshed Dist #3 .068 .086 .281 .061
1986
51.348*
29.688
15.469
5.878
1.535
103.918
59.450*
29.688
15.469
5.878
1.535
112.020
54.345*
29.688
15.469
5.878
1.535
106.915
47.152*
29.688
15.469
5.878
1.535
99.722
N:•
* Includes Storm Sewer District #1
SCHOOL
DISTRICT 284
(Wayzata)
City Taxes
on
Typical Plymouth Homes
Example I
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City *
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 90,300
$
1,204.34
$ 174.27
1983-84
90,300
1,318.33
198.14
+$ 23.87
1984-85
92,100
1,307.99
196.07
- 2.07
1985-86
92,100
1,343.96
199.98
+ 3.91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example II
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 102,500
$
1,514.48
$ 219.15
1983-84
102,500
1,680.53
252.58
+$ 33.43
1984-85
104,600
1,671.65
250.58
- 2.00
1985-86
104,600
1,720.67
256.04
+ 5.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example III
Citv
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 131,200
$
2,244.09
$ 324.72
1983-84
131,200
2,532.59
380.65
+$ 55.93
1984-85
133,800
2,521.18
377.92
- 2.73
1985-86
133,800
2,600.64
386.98
+ 9.06
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example IV
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 157,500
$
2,912.68
$ 421.46
1983-84
157,500
3,313.39
498.00
+$ 76.54
1984-85
160,700
3,303.79
495.24
- 2.76
1985-86
160,700
3,411.31
507.60
+ 12.36
* Includes Storm Sewer District #1
SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 (Robbinsdale)
City Taxes on Typical Plymouth Homes
Example I
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 90,300
$ 1,406.92
$ 183.46
1983-84
90,300
1,531.06
207.76
+$ 24.30
1984-85
92,100
1,501.67
204.83
- 2.93
1985-86
92,100
1,503.32
207.61
+ 2.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example II
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 102,500
$ 1,750.95
$ 228.32
1983-84
102,500
1,932.40
262.23
+$ 33.91
1984-85
104,600
1,901.31
259.34
- 2.89
1985-86
104,600
1,909.39
263.69
+ 4.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example III
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 131,200
$ 2,560.26
$ 333.86
1983-84
131,200
2,876.54
390.34
+$ 56.48
1984-85
133,800
2,834.87
386.68
- 3.66
1985-86
133,800
2,857.98
394.69
+ 8.01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example IV
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 157,500
3,301.90
430.57
1983-84
157,500
3,741.72
507.75
+$ 77.18
1984-85
160,700
3,694.90
503.98
- 3.77
1985-86
160,700
3,731.85
515.37
+ 11.39
* Includes Storm Sewer District #1
-=-a
* Includes Storm Sewer District #1
SCHOOL
DISTRICT 279
(Osseo)
City Taxes
on Typical Plymouth Homes
Example I
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
90,300
1,266.69
177.34
1983-84
90,300
1,463.09
204.83
+$ 27.49
1984-85
92,100
1,402.70
200.59
- 4.24
1985-86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92,100
1,402.91
203.00
+ 2.41
Example II
Citv
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
102,500
1,587.26
222.22
1983-84
102,500
1,851.93
259.27
+$ 37.05
1984-85
104,600
1,783.98
255.11
- 4.16
1985-86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
104,600
1,790.48
259.08
+ 3.97
Example III
City
Net.
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Markct
Taxe_
Portio;
Decrease -
1982 -83
131,200
2,341.40
327.80
1983-84
131,200
2,766.65
387.33
+$59.53
1984-85
133,800
2,674.61
382.47
- 4.86
1985-86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
133,800
2,695.83
390.09
+ 7.62
Example IV
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
157,500
3,032.48
424.55
1983-84
157,500
3,604.87
504.68
+$ 80.13
1984-85
160,700
3,495.09
499.80
- 4.88
1985-86
160,700
3,529.88
510.77
+ 10.97
* Includes Storm Sewer District #1
SCHOOL DISTRICT 270 (Hopkins)
City Taxes on Typical Plymouth Homes
Example I
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 90,300
$
1,255.25
$ 176.74
1983-84
90,300
1,266.46
195.54
+$ 18.80
1984-85
92,100
1,242.40
194.19
- 1.35
1985-86
92,100
1,278.63
198.32
+ 4.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example II
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 102,500
$
1,573.91
$ 221.61
1983-84
102,500
1,619.11
249.99
+$ 28.38
1984-85
104,600
1,591.29
248.72
- 1.27
1985-86
104,600
1,640.12
254.38
+ 5.66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example III
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 131,200
$
2,323.55
$ 327.16
1983-84
131,200
2,448.71
378.08
+$ 50.92
1984-85
133,800
2,406.30
376.10
- 1.98
1985-86
133,800
2,484.57
385.36
+ 9.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example IV
City
Net
Portion
Assessed/
Valuation
Payable
City
Increase/
Payable
Market
Taxes
Portion
Decrease
1982-83
$ 157,500
$
3,010.50
$ 423.88
1983-84
157,500
3,208.94
495.46
+$ 71.58
1984-85
160,700
3,157.12
493.46
- 2.00
1985-86
160,700
3,262.50
506.01
+ 12.55
* Includes Storm Sewer District #1
1986
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX DOLLAR
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
WAY -"ATA SCHOOL DISTRICT
VST DNA L_
'u.,., i
MILL RATES
School District (Y%'ayzata) 51.348*
Hennepin County 29.688
City of Plymouth 15.469
Miscellaneous
Vocational School 1.S35
TOTAL
103.918
*Includes 6.380 mills from referendum
(City Mill Rate includes 1.000 mill for Storm Sewer Improvement Districts, but does
not include Watershed Divides)
1-15-86
S. Mauderer
JE
1986
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX DOLLAR
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ROBBINSDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT
V0C -rj DNA L-
4 - 4nnl ,
MILL RATES
School District (Robbinsdale) 59.450*
Hennepin County 29.688
City of Plymouth 15.469
Miscellaneous
Vocational School 1.535
TOTAL
112.020
*Includes 8.500 mills from referendum
(City Mill Rate includes 1.000 mill for Storm Sewer Improvement Districts, but does
not include Watershed Divides)
1-15-86
S. Mauderer
JE
1986
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX DOLLAR
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
OSSEO SCHOOL DISTRICT
V0CAT0NRL.
5choo L.
1.43C'
5.50C'
MILL RATES,
School District (Osseo) 54.345*
Hennepin County 29.688
City of Plymouth 15.469
Miscellaneous 5.878
Vocational School 1.535
TOTAL 106.915
*Includes 6.000 mills from referendum
(City Mill Rate includes 1.000 mill for Storm Sewer Improvement Districts, but does not
include Watershed Divides)
1-15-86
S. Mauderer
JE
1986
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX DOLLAR
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HOPKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT
MILL RATES
School District (Hopkins) 47.152*
Hennepin County 29.688
City of Plymouth 15.469
Miscellaneous
NEW
Vocational School 1.535
TOTAL
99.722
VOCAT I oNR L
5ctkoo L.
1.54`
M6�.
5.90
*Includes 8.500 mills from referendum(s)
(City Mill Rate includes 1.000 mill for Storm Sewer Improvement Districts, but does
not include Watershed Divides)
1-15-86
S. Mauderer
JE
K
-
-
N
-
f-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
~
�nn�n
•�
1
K
C4
m r1
J
V1
%O
%O
n
e+1 d
+
u'1
m
N
r14
e4
N
r1
m
J
O
.O
n
a0
t'1
N
c\yp .p�8
+OM aD vN1 X71 O
rn
e4
t�1
iJ
cVp
M
ares.
.7
le
a�0
Z
_.
�. .--�
..
^.
..
i
...
ae
cn
N
..pp
N
�p
ap
O N
N
�IV,
.-�
V)
lo
oo
Ol
ep
+ o
N
m
m
<'1
P1
P1
P1
f�1
tr1
f1
1
to
N
N
J
v1
D
n
1
d
bq
f 1
N
pp
p�
a
+
oQo
7
m
0%0
�
8
Opp O
a0
J
t
eU
I
~
�nn�n
•�
1
K
C4
m r1
J
V1
%O
%O
n
e+1 d
m
N
r14
e4
N
r1
m
J
v1
.O
n
a0
t'1
N
c\yp .p�8
+OM aD vN1 X71 O
.r
e4
m
w
ares.
3
le
i
Z
_.
�. .--�
..
^.
..
^.
...
ae
cn
y
..pp
�p
ap
N
VT
.-�
V)
lo
oo
Ol
N
m
m
<'1
si
:-1
7
m
0%0
�
8
Opp O
a0
J
t
eU
I
~
�nn�n
•�
1
K
C4
N
N
r1
J
J
v1
.O
n
a0
t'1
J
c\yp .p�8
+OM aD vN1 X71 O
.r
w
3
m
-u
t3
..pp
�p
VT
.-�
N
l`1
J
Vl
N
m
m
<'1
P1
P1
P1
f�1
tr1
f1
1
d
+
O1
l'1
O` d O`
P1
00
u1
N
T
N
N22
N
e'1
J
u1
v1
�O
n
P1
J
`3 ��pp pppp
00 P
Ok
I n t+1
t'1
N
N
t+�i
oppp
dN
rn
�7�
O
vii
pp�
n
a0
P1
O
a0
�n
N1
aO
�D
�n
�t1
m
Z� OG F
Cpp
6
O
b
O
a
C8+
�
O
O
x/61
N
�(O1
p6
86
�oO1
_
si
:-1
7
m
0%0
�
8
Opp O
a0
J
t
eU
I
~
00
•�
si
:-1
7
m
0%0
�
8
Opp O
~
00
•�
1
K
C4
E°
d
u
u
.r
w
3
m
-u
t3
si
:-1
m
0%0
�
8
Opp O
~
00
•�
y
k
PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON
Payable 1977 through 198,"
City of Plymouth
4,2'0
#284
HOPKINS
SCHOOL DISTRICT
WAYZATA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Payable
Market
Property
Mill
Market
Property
Mill
Year
Value
Taxes
Rate
Value
Taxes
Rate
1977
$30,100
$684
100.006
$65,200
$1456
93.487
1978
31,800
601
99.077
68,300
1459
95.636
1979
38,400
577
96.351
76,900
1425
92.487
1980
46,800
449
91.514
92,700
1258
85.609
1981
53,800
388
87.547
105,800
1421
82.358
1982
55,300
414
92.687
106,800
1568
88.501
1983
58,900
456
93.285
112,600
1771
90.792
1984
58,900
469
96.353
115,400
2064
98.961
1985
60,000
461
93.038
117,700
2053
96.978
1966
64,900
540
99.722
118,200
2131
103.918
#281
#279
ROBBINSDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OSSEO
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Payable
Market
Property
Mill
Market
Property
Mill
Year
Value
Taxes
Rate
Value
Taxes
Rate
1977
$48,900
$1,196
98.296
$ 84,300
$2,807
102.069
1978
51,400
1,157
97.854
91,200
2,712
100.598
1979
58,000
1,123
94.830
101,900
2,529
93.258
1980
70,000
865
88.232
117,700
2,062
86.104
1981
80,100
949
87.370
134,100
1,991
80.040
1982
81,100
1,110
98.600
135,100
2,344
90.819
1983
84,600
1,246
100.711
143,600
2,667
93.845
1984
84,600
1,344
109.656
144,500
3,191
106.239
1985
86,200
1,313
106.571
147,300
3,086
101.670
1986
86,500
1,321
112.020
148,000
3,136
106.915
*Mill rates
include/school district referendum where applicable and
sewer districts, but do
not include
watershed divides.
The properties
used in this study
are 4 actual houses
of various market values (one from
each of the
4 school districts
within the
city). For
purposes of comparability,
all sub-
ject houses
are classified residential
homestead, are
maintained in
average condition
and have not
been improved with
any additions.
All estimated market
values were
increased
during the years for inflation,
quartile
and/or market adjustments.
1/15/86
S. Mauderer
je
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
1986 PAYABLE TAXES
1985
WAYZATA
ROBBINSDALF
OSSEO
HOPKINS
ESTIMATED
Dist. Y,284
Dist. 4281
Dist.
8279
Dist. 4270
�4RKET
MILL RATE:
103.918
MLL RATE: 112.020 MILL
RATE:
106.915
MILL RATE:
99.722
':ALUE
TAX
TAX
TAX
TAX TAX
TAX
TAX
TAX
HOMESTEAD
NON-H.MST
HOMESTEAD
NON-HMST
HOMESTEAD
NON-HMST
HOMESTEAD
NON-HMST
:25,000
$ 215
$ 727
$ 231
$ 7841
$ 221
$ 746
$ 206
$ 698
30,000
258
872
278
940
265
898
247
837
35,000
301
1018
324
1097
309
1047
288
977
40,000
344
1163
371
1254
354
1197
330
1116
45,000
387
1309
410
1411
398
1347
371
1256
50,000
430
1454
463
1568
442
1496
412
1396
55,000
473
1600
510
1725
486
1646
454
1535
60,000
516
1745
556
1881
531
1796
495
1675
65,000
564
1891
622
2038
580
1945
541
1814
70,000
677
2036
785
2195
717
2095
639
1954
75,000
828
2182
947
2352
872
2245
783
2094
80,000
979
2327
1110
2509
1027
2394
928
2233
85,000
1129
2473
1272
2666
1182
2544
1073
2373
90,000
1280
2618
1435
2822
1337
2694
1217
2512
95,000
1431
2764
1597
2979
1492
2843
1362
2652
100,000
1582
2909
1759
3136
1647
2993
1507
2792
105,000
1732
3055 '
1922
3293
1802
3143
1651
2931
110,000
1883
3200
2084
3450
1957
3292
1196
3071
115,000
2034
3346
2247
3607
2112
3442
1940
3211
120,000
2184
3491
2409
3763
2267
3592
2085
3350
115,000
2335
3637
2572
3920
2422
3742
2229
3490
130,000
2486
3782
2734
4077
2578
3891
2374
3629
135,000
2636
3928
2896
4234
2733
4041
2519
3769
140,000
2787
4073
3059
4391
2888
4191
2663
3909
145,000
2938
4219
3221
4548
3043
4340
2808
4048
150,000
3086
4364
3384
4704
3198
4490
2952
4188
160,000
3390
4655
3709
5018
3508
4789
3242
4467
170,000
3691
4946
4033
5332
3818
5089
3531
4746
180,000
3992
5237
4358
5645
4128
5388
3820
5025
190,000
4292
5528
4683
5959
4438
5687
4109
5305
200,000
4595
5819
5008
6273
4748
5987
4398
5584
225,000
5349
6546
5820
7057
5523
6735
5121
6282
250,000
6102
7274
6632
7841
6298
7484
5844
6980
275,000
6855
8001
7444
8625
7073
8232
6567
7678
300,000
7609
8729
8257
9409
7848
8980
7290
8376
350,000
9116
10183
9881
10997
9399
10477
8736
9772
1986 payable "Resider -t, -.-
taxes at the left are ca:
ulated with the Mill Rate:
as shown. Mill Rates i.,-
clude Storm Sewer List::;s:
but do not include Water
Divides.
The calculation of the
"ASSESSED" values for thr
various property types a-
as follows:
RESIDENTIAL
1st 64,000 @ 181
Balance @ 29
Non -Horst @ 281
HOMESTEAD CREDIT:
54% of "Gross Tax"
on 1st $68,000 of E*'';
not to exceed $700.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL:
1st 60,000 @ 28%
Balance @ 43%
LAND (Vacant): @ 40`:
AGRICULTURAL (Farm):
1st 64,000 @ 147,
Balance @ 18
AG CREDIT:
Homestead 361
Non -Horst. 261
(up to 320 Acres)
BLIND/DISABLED:
1st 32,000 @ 5,
2nd 32,000 @ 18`
Balance @ 29ro
1/17/86 MMA
ASSESSING DIVISION
01/21/86
S. Mauderer
Page 1
Commercial & Industrial Properties
(Property Types "CC" & "II", Class "4C")
Payable 1986 Property Tax
Contributed (of assessed value) to F. Disp. = 31.6507% (of tax)
Balance = 68.3493% (of tax)
Total Tax Bill = 100.0000
Area Wide (A.W.) Mill Rate (F. Disp.) = 107.553 (7 County Metro Area)
Wayzata School District (S.D.) Mill Rate = 103.918
31.6507% of Commercial/Industrial property tax bills goes into the Fiscal
Disparities pool, calculated in the examples below:
EXAMPLE (A) (Assessed method)
1985 Market Value = $100,000
1st - 60,000* @ 28% _ $16,800
Balance $ 40,000^ @ 43% = 17,200
$34,000 = Total 1986 payable "assessed value"
$34,000 x .316507 = $10,761 x (A.W.) .107553 = $1,157.38 (contributed)**
$34,000 x .683493 = $23,239 x (S.D.) .103918 = $2,414.95
Total 1986 Tax Bill = $3,572.33
**Amount contributed in 1985 on $100,000 was $1,232.06**
EXAMPLE (B) (Factor method)
.107553 (A.W.) x .316507 = .0340413
.103918 (S.D.) x .683493 = .0710272
.1050685
.1050685 x 6/10* _ .0630411 x 28% _ .0176515 (1st $60,000)
.1050685 x 4/10* _ .0420274 x 43% _ .0180718 (Balance)
(variable) .0357233 (F. Disp. FACTOR)
OR: $100,000
x .0357233
Total 1986 Tax Bill = $3,572.33
*The multiplying x 6/10 & 4/10 is a variable. The multiplying fraction will change
depending on the market value and the "1st" & "Balance" parts. (ie: $60,000 -
100,000 EMV = 6/10 & $40,000 - 100,000 = 4/10)
Note: Each Fiscal Disparities "Factor" and payable tax will differ depending on
the school district in which it is located as follows:
Wayzata Factor = .0357233
Robbinsdale Factor = .0376061
Osseo Factor = .0364198
Hopkins Factor = .0347482
Commercial & Industrial Properties
(Property Types "C" & "I", Class "4C"
Payable 1986 Property Tax
Contributed (of assessed value) to F. Disp. = 31.6507% (of tax)
Balance (of assessed value) = 68.3493% (of tax)
Total Tax Bill = 100.0000
Area Wide (A.W.) Mill Rate (F. Disp.) = 107.553 (7 County Metro Area)
Wayzata School District (S.D.) Mill Rate = 103.918
31.6507% of Commercial/Industrial property tax bills goes into the Fiscal
Disparities pool, calculated in the examples below:
EXAMPLE (A) (Assessed method)
1985 Market Value = $100,000
X 43%
$ 43,000 = Total 1986 payable "assessed value"
$43,000 x .316507 = $13,610 x (A.W.) .107553 = $1,463.80 (contributed)**
$43,000 x .683493 = $29,390 x (S.D.) .103918 = $3,054.15
Total 1986 Tax Bill = $4,517.95
**Amount contributed in 1985 on $100,000 WAS $1,558.18*'^
EXAMPLE (B) (Factor Method)
.107553 (A.W.) x .316507 = .0340413
.103918 (S.D.) x .683493 = .0710272
.1050685
.1050685 x 43% _ .0451795 (F. Disp. FACTOR)
OR:
$100,000
x .0451795
Total 1986 Tax Bill = $4,517.95
Note: Each Fiscal Disparities "Factor" and payable tax will differ depending on
the school district in which it is located as follows:
Wayzata Factor = .0451795
Robbinsdale Factor = .0475607
Osseo Factor = .0460603
Hopkins Factor = .0439463
01/21/86 Page 2
S. Mauderer
1
i 7.
n
1+47
MOO* LJ kwl
JAN. 22, 19861!00JI
The rush
to burn
Local solid waste disposal
strategy leaves major
questions unanswered
By Wayne Nelson
ENNEPIN COUNTY Commissioner
John Derus calls it a "half-baked" idea
that won't work, will prove far more ex-
pensive than is currently estimated and ulti-
mately may cost the county its AAA bond
rating.
Environmentalists like Leslie Davis say it
will simply substitute air pollution for ground-
water pollution, turning a marginally compet-
itive industry into a regulated monopoly in the
process.
The "it" currently receiving so much crit-
icism is a proposal that would dramatically
alter the system for refuse collection and dis-
posal in the Twin Cities. In particular, the tar-
get of this disdain is Hennepin County's plan
to deal with a grm.,irg garbage problem by
building a plant that would burn 1,000 tons
of solid waste daily. The plant would be built
on the fringe of downtown Minneapolis, with-
in sight and smell of the state's highest -priced
real estate.
These objections to the county's $130 mil -
bon plan currently represent a minority view
within metropolitan public policy circles. Yet
just a few years ago, such a proposal would
have probably been unthinkable here.
Burning was a standard garbage disposal
practice in most of the United States
until the 1970s,when public con-
cern for deteriorating air qual-
ity resulted in a shift to land-
filling.
But only 10 years later,
landfills have become just as
unpopular as burning once
was. They pollute ground-
water, they are expensive (far
more costly than dumping
dtarges generally reflect); and
the process of siting new land-
fills has become a no-win
proposition for public
policymakers.
What to do?
Along with a
growing number
of urban munici-
palities across
the country, Hen-
nepin -County is
proposing a re-
turn to burning.
The county =
and Henne-
pin Re- i
source Ener- e
gy Corp. (a limited
(please turn to 16)
Citybusiness
The rush to burn
(continued from corer)
partnership whose general partner is Blount
Energy Resource Corp. in Montgomery, Ala)
plan to build a high-tech "mass -burn" energy
plant immediately northwest of downtown
Minneapolis beginning this summer. As pro-
posed, the facility will begin operating in
1989, handling 1,000 tons of unprocessed mu-
nicipal waste daily — about one-third of the
amount currently generated within the
county.
Under the terms of its contract with Hen-
nepin County, Blount will build, own and
operate the $70 million mass -burn facility,
which will produce electricity for resale to
Northern States Power (NSP) and steam for
Minnegasco, Soo Line Railroad and Metro-
politan Medical Center.
The county would build and operate four
transfer stations — proposed for sites in Bloo-
mington, Brooklyn Park, Hopkins and south
Minneapolis — to serve as collection points
for solid waste. Construction costs for the en-
tire system are estimated at $130 million.
In spite of the protests voiced, to date there
has been only scattered criticism of the pro-
posed downtown plant. And while opposition
to the plan may solidify before construction
begins this summer, it must be noted that the
A $355 million
strategy
HENNEPIN COUNTY'S mass -bum facil-
ity is only one of a handful of resource re-
covery facilities proposed for operation in
the Twin Cities by the end of the decade.
Metropolitan Council officials estimate the
capital costs of constructing this regional
solid waste management system at $355
million.
The catalyst for this flurry of activity is
state legislation enacted in 1980 and 1985
— supported by metropolitan canities —
to end the disposal of unprocessed munic-
ipal waste in landfills by the end of the
decade.
Following is a status report of resource
recovery plans underway in the area, by
county.
Ramsey/Washington counties. The two
counties have jointly contracted with
Northern States Power (NSP), which will
own and operate a refuse -derived fuel
(RDF) plant in suburban Newport, The
two counties have guaranteed about 70
percent of their solid waste flow to the
NSP plant, which is under construction.
mass -burn proposal bears little resemblance
to the incineration practices of just a few years
ago.
Gases emanating from the proposed plant's
213 -foot stack would be dramatically cleaner
than the black clouds that floated above
municipal dumps around the nation in the
days of open burning.
While admitting that Blount's Swiss -de-
signed technology has yet to be employed in
the United States, company officials point to
Europe, where mass burning has been a stan-
dard municipal waste -disposal strategy for
about 30 years. Widmer and Ernst, a Zurich -
based Blount subsidiary, developed the state-
of-the-art technology that its parent firm in-
tends to incorporate in thedesign of the Hen-
nepin County plant.
"We will meet or exceed the current femis-
sions] requirements of the PCA [Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency] and the federal En-
vironmental Protection Agency," says Hulic
Ratterree, Blount's technical services man-
ager. "Believe me, we are aware of how Min-
nesotans feel about the environment."
Ratterree has worked extensively with Hen-
nepin County on the plant's design. And he
insists that the company's best assurance for
a profitable plant here is to design and operate
it in an environmentally sound fashion.
Metals will be removed from the garbage,
and the remaining waste shredded. The
resulting fuel will be shipped to NSP s Red
Wing generating plant, where it will be
burned to produce electricity.
The counties have agreed to use proper-
ty taxes for five years to subsidize tipping
fees and will pay penalty fees if they fail
to deliver the required solid waste. Dakota
County may negotiate to become a third
public partner in the venture.
Ramsey and Washington counties also
have received two petitions for exclusion
from their waste designation ordinances.
The 3M Co. proposes to mass burn 110
tons of internally generated waste daily in
Cottage Grove to produce steam and elec-
tricity for the company's use. Junker Sani-
tation wants to mass burn 150 tons of solid
waste daily to provide steam heat for the
state prison in Oak Park Heights.
Hennepin County. In addition to the
Blount waste -to -energy plant, three small-
er resource recovery plants also are
planned. Each has received authorization
from the county to negotiate with supply
sources for needed waste flow.
• Reuter Inc., Eden Prairie, would con-
vert up to 500 tons daily to densified RDF.
• Richards Asphalt. Savage, would con-
PAGE % tANNEAPOLS/ST. PAUL CRMSINESS JAN. 22, 1986
BUT DOES the proposal really offer
sophisticated step toward a solution to
the county's waste problem? Or has
Hennepin County served up a simplistic ap-
proach to a complex problem that might be
better addressed in smaller -scale fashion?
Ultimately, the answer to both questions may
be "yes."
If that sounds contradictory, consider that,
to date, the proposal has generated more erm-
ronmental and economic questions than an-
swers. Among the major issues are these:
• Even with Blount's high-tech design, the
gases that emanate from the plant's stack are
certain to include minute levels of several
"noncriteria pollutants," a federal classifica-
tion of chemicals for which no safe exposure
limits have been established. The group in-
cludes several toxic chemicals and some
known or suspected carcinogens.
• ThP plant.al-o will emit encu, h st tfi+r
dioxide — the catalyst for formation of acid
rain — and carbon monoxide to degrade air
quality in Minneapolis, at least according to
the city's current federal classification. State
officials have requested a change in the classi-
fication. Without that change, it is likely that
the plant cannot be built. Reclassification
could take a year or more, according to one
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA)
official.
• Alabama -based Blount has not yet com-
vert up to 80 tons daily to steam, which
the company will use to produce oil, as-
phalt and shingles. The company already
has one incinerator in operation and may
also sell steam to nearby businesses.
• Waste Energy Systems, New Brigh-
ton, will convert up to 220 tons daily to
steam and electricity.
Anoka County. Under current plans, the
county would guarantee from 350 to 500
tons of solid waste daily to a plant that
Northern States Power has proposed to
build in Sherburne County. Similar in con-
cept to the Washington/Ramsey facility,
this proposed RDF plant would produce
fuel for electrical generation at United
Power Association's Elk River Power plant.
Canter County. Officials are considering
four options, including a Reuter densified
RDF facility in Eden Prairie or Chanhas-
sen, an RDF plant in Mankato proposed
by NSP, a mass -burn plant to generate
steam for a Bongards cheese plant, and.
joint participation with Scott County.
Smtt County. Officials have requested
proposals for development of a resource
recovery project that would use RDF, mass
bum, composting or a combination of
technologies. ■
—Wayne Nelson
Hennepin Countv's planned nzass-bum: Pia)
is slated for the "Greviround • sit,. a 15-(.: r•
parcel just northwest of downtou,;
Minneapolis. The sit( is bounded br Stz(no.
Street forth, Sixth Atrnuc .\orifi, Firl
Street North and railroad track.
pleted financing for the plant. and an-,
in construction could jeopardize financi:4
arrangements.
• Questions also remain about the impac-,
of the project on future garbage collect' ,;:
fees, counh- taxes and the waste -hauling sys-
tem. According to a representative of the
Citizens League, an economic assessment of
the project is warranted before it is begun:.
By Blount's own estimates, the combustion
of plastics and other organics in wastes will
emit small amounts of such chemicals as cad-
mium, chromium, nickel, vinyl chloride. hexa-
chlorobenzene, trichlorophenol, PCBs (poly-
chlorinated biphenols) and dioxins.
A draft environmental impact statement
(EIS) on the project released in December
concluded that the health risk posed by life-
long exposure to these chemicals at projected
emission levels is within limits acceptable to
the state PCA.
"The amount of dioxins and other hazard-
ous organic chemicals involved is extremely
small, below the health risk thresholds that
seem advisable today," says Wayne Nelson,
a senior environmental planner responsible
for the Metropolitan Council's review of the
draft EIS. "But there's risk, we cannot deny
that'
The document also predicts emission levels
of two inorganic pollutants that might stall or
even block construction: sulfur dioxide and
carbon monoxide.
According to the draft EIS, the threat has
more to do with current federal classification
of the metropolitan area than with predicted
emission levels. Currentiv. the metropolitan
area is classified as being in noncompliance
with standards for these pollutants set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)_
PCA monitoring has shown excessive levels
of these two pollutants to be a problem in a
handful of local "hot spots" outside downtown
Minneapolis, which has led the PCA to re-
quest the federal agency to reclassify down-
town Minneapolis as being in compliance.
The EPA already has indicated that it's like-
ly to reclassify Minneapolis as complying with
its carbon monoxide standard. The sulfur
dioxide standard, however, could prove far
more nettlesome. According to PCA air quali-
ty engineer Louis Chamberlain, EPA redes-
ignation for sulfur dioxide may not come for
another 12 or 14 months, well past the an-
ticipated start of plant construction this
summer.
That not only makes a construction delay
likely, it also threatens the financing that
Blount is still seeking. "It could be a prob-
lem;' Chamberlain says.
Chamberlain also notes that some states —
including New York, New Jersey and Califor-
nia — have taken the initiative, setting their
own emission standards for mass -burn and
other resource recovery facilities.
Several small resource recovery plants al-
ready operating in Minnesota have been re-
quired by the PCA to retroactively upgrade
their pollution abatement equipment. And it
is conceivable that Blount may be required
to install additional equipment to minimize
dioxin emissions in order to secure its need-
ed state operating permits.
F MINNESOTA follows other states
and establishes its own resource recov-
ery emission standards, that could
mean additional costs to the proposed Hen-
nepin County plant.
' According to Derus, the county likely would
be responsible for those additional costs.
Blount's debt obligation in the project was
C&Business
originally set at $32 million, then reduced to
$23 million. The change was opposed only by
Derus and one other commissioner on the
seven -member body. Derus thinks the change
was a mistake.
"we gave [Blount] the best deal I've ever
seen," he says, predicting that county res-
idents ultimately will pay close to $100 million
for the mass -burn system.
But Derus' interpretation of the contract
amendments is challenged by officials in Hen-
nepin County's Department of Environment
and Energy, who also view as unwarranted
his concern that the plant will not work and
that the county ultimately will pay more for
the project than planned.
According to the department's Luther Nel-
son, the contract dispute centered on interpre-
tation of Blount's equity participation in the
Risky
statistics?
A MAJOR function of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is to assess the
health risks associated with a proposed
project or activity.
The draft EIS prepared for Hennepin
County's planned mass -burn plant con
cludes that the cancer risk to area resi-
dents posed by lifelong exposure to ex-
pected emissions from the facility falls
within the state Pollution Control Agency's
guideline of not more than one death per
100,000 population.
In other words, the study predicts less
than one cancer death among any group
of 100,000 residents living their entire
lives across the street — or anywhere
downwind — from the plant as a direct
result of its operation.
By comparison, the draft EIS estimates
that, in a population of 100,000, the follow-
ing number of deaths would result from
these other risks: exposure to medical X-
rays, 70 to 140; air travel accidents, 70; liv-
ing in Denver versus on the Eastern or
Southern coasts, 70 (cancer due to higher
radiation exposure); being struck by a fall-
ing object, 42; hunting accidents, 70; liv-
ing below a dam, 700; gunshot, poisonous
gases or liquids, 140 to 280; lightning or
tornadoes, 3.5; driving a car, 1,750.
That means that an area resident's risk
old from being struck by a falling ob-
ject is over three times greater than his or
her chance of dying from exposure to the
proposed plant's emissions, according to
the draft EIS
So Hennepin County's plan poses ac-
ceptable risks, right? But Consider that
federal and state scientists are still in the
process of determining safe exposure lev-
els for many of the pollutants that the plant
will produce.
Also consider that the above-mentioned
comparative risk statistics were calculated
based largely upon information derived
from official death certificates.
But findings of medical schools — which
conduct extensive studies of cadavers —
suggest that 70 percent of all death certif-
icates incorrectly or incompletely report
the cause of death, says John Rafferty, a
senior environmental planner at the Met-
ropolitan Council. That means the statis-
tical basis from which the estimates are
derived is flawed.
"Every assumption [in developing the
draft EIS] is that you do not understate the
risk;' says Rafferty. "The PCA will have
to take a hard look at the health risk
assessment'"
Rafferty points out the one risk in life
about which there can be no dispute. One's
chances of dying during a lifetime? One
hundred percent, of course. ■
—Wayne Nelson
mass -burn plant. not on its debt obligation.
If the plant costs more to build or operate than
Blount has estimated, the company alone is
liable for those costs, he adds, explaining that
"this is a fixed -cost [not a cost-plus] contract"
The county is obligated to share only those
additional costs that stem from a tightening
of state emissions standards, says Nelson.
While the unanswered questions about po-
tential health risks may be unsettling, perhaps
even less is known about the effects that such
projects underway in Hennepin and other
metro counties (see related story) may have
on regional garbage collection charges and
local taxes.
Haulers currently have a choice of a half-
dozen privately operated landfills in the met-
ropolitan area, and disposal or "tipping"
charges reflect at least a degree of competi-
tion. Critics wonder if the large-scale collec-
tion systems needed for the new projects will
eliminate the competition completely.
In order to entice bond houses and investors
to finance the construction of large waste pro -
,erring plants, counties have found it neces-
sary to guarantee a major share of the waste
stream to those plants. That arrangement
worries some observers, who fear that plant
operators with exclusive rights to large
chunks of solid waste will end up with all the
cards when it comes time to negotiate tipping
fees with their host counties.
The Citizens League has expressed concern
about these exclusive agreements. "It seems
clear that [Hennepin County's mass -burn
plant] will have some [air quality] impact. But
we think a lack of economic analysis is a
greater problem," says Citizens League re-
search associate Jody Hauer. "The plant's im-
pact on tax,s and garbage collection charges
deserves further examination"
Officials in Hennepin County's Department
of Environment and Energy say that such
concerns are unwarranted. Warren Porter, the
department's project manager, notes that the
mass -burn project will handle less than half
theso&d waste generated in the county.
Furthermore, he says the project will re-
place and alter only the charges imposed on
haulers for landfill disposal, which account for
just 20 percent of the overall costs of handling
garbage. The remaining 80 percent of a cus-
tomer's current bill reflects the hauler's trans-
portation costs, which will not be affected by
the proposed changes, he says.
Meanwhile Metropolitan Council planners
estimate that a metropolitan area household's
average annual garbage collection bill will rise
from about $95 to as much as $150 by 1990
as a result of the proposed changes in solid
waste handling.
If that sounds steep, keep in mind that the
current problems associated with landfill dis-
posal illustrate dearly that present-day collec-
tion charges fall far short of the real costs of
removing and disposing of solid wastes.
Critics still worry about the lass of competi-
tion from the system, however.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
already regulates the purchase price of elec-
tricity sold by resource recovery Plants.
(Remember, the Blount plant intends to sell
electricity to Northern States Power.) And
Davis, executive director of the environmen-
tal group Earth Protectors, predicts that with
the move to large scale handling of garbage
underway, the state Commission ultimately
will regulate all fees assessed for waste
handling.
"I'm quite confident that composting and
[recycling] facilities could be built for far less.
They would be safer and less expensive," he
says.
Davis also notes that irreversible decisions
are being made on the design of resource re-
covery facilities that will produce energy or
energy fuel at a time of net energy surplus.
"Suppose we find down the road that this
was not a good idea," he says. "We'll be stuck
with [the costs], and we still will not have
abated the need for landfills" ■
R Ch air, P, Iii
Y0,1"
t �
Those days can be history See us 11
a complete Beverage Center for
� office For extra great tasting coffefie
e
hook in with our filtered water units' 111111L'
--- , FREE USE OF EQUIPMENT • FREE SERVICE & OELIVr'
W. Ib lubrc. iron br 9 tl011 —P hu Wwr ei0n N¢ec pa0e
,Mim..krn�rn rtlnprlWn. eM'innc. IIIIerM rrllu .eMnee ren morz
- BERRY COFFEE CO!,"
call us: 612/937-8691'
THE PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
PROUDLY WELCOMES ITS
1985 TENANTS:
Alliance Capital Corporation
American Dairy Queen
Amerisource
The Barbers
Barkalow Brothers
Brown Photo
Campbell-Mithun, Inc.
CNA Insurance
Equitable
Five Star Travel
Hassan & Reed
IBM
JMB/Carlyle
Katz Communications, Inc.
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly
& Lindgren, Ltd.
Maddux Properties Inc.
Northwestern Bell
Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A.
Norwest Venture Capital
Management, Inc.
Phillips, Gross & Aaron, PA.
Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood. Inc.
Stone. Ribble, Bremseth, Meycr.
Collins & Wood, P.A.
Waldorf Cleaners
JMB Propertv Management Corporation
Maddux Properties Inc.
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL CITYBUSINESS JAN
%C PUBLIC SERVICES
REDESIGN PROJECT
Humphrey Institute =`-7
University of Minnesota
909 Social Sciences
267 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Ted Kolderie
Project Director
(612) 376-9795
1,
THE TWO CONCEPTS OF 'PRIVATIZATION'
'Privatization' is a hot topic, currently much in
discussion and highly controversial.
The magazines have been filled with articles about it --
both those serving government and public administration and those
aimV at business readers. 'Privatization' now threatens to
displace 'partnerships' as the number one topic where people
gather to talk about the contribution that business can make to
the solution of the problems that beset government.
There are whole books on the idea -- some boosting it, such
as E.S. Savas' Privatizing the Public Sector or Stuart Butler's
Privatizing Federal Spending; some condemning it, such as Passing
the Bucks by the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees. 'Centers' are being formed to study or to
promote the cause.
'Privatization' is a common topic at meetings where people
worry about the future of the public sector; sometimes praised;
sometimes condemned. It is a live issue on the agendas of state,
county and city governments. It is becoming an issue in
political campaigns, In Michigan the executive of Oakland County
has announced he will make privatization a central theme in his
campaign for the Republican nomination for governor in 1986.
Some particularly unusual and controversial proposals
-- especially, involving prisons -- have most recently brought
'privatization' more to the attention of the media and of the
general public. It is now the subject of close coverage, for
example, by the New York Times.
It remains, however, a very confused discussion.
And the reason is simple. There are two quite different
ideas trying to use the same word. And there are very different
interests, with very different implications for public policy,
inside each of those different ideas.
This memo is an effort to sort out those conflicting
definitions of 'privatization'. We hope you wil it useful.
We invite your comments about it.
The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
The Humphrey Institute fuses policy analysis, miacareer education for leadership, and training of younger students for roles in the policy process
The Public Services Redesign Project is dedicated to creating diversity and choice, access and equity in the provision and production of public services.
What Are We Talking About 'Privatizing'?
Typically in a discussion about 'privatization' it will be
said that the Postal Service or transit or day care or some other
service should be "turned over to" the private sector.
No useful discussion is possible in these terms. What does
"turned over" mean? What precisely would be "turned over"?
As regular readers of these PSRP memos know, government
performs two quite separate functions. So it is essential to be
clear which function would be dropped, under 'privatization'. Is
it the policy decision to provide a service? Or is it the
administrative action to produce a service? Is government to
withdraw from its role as a buyer? Or from its role as a seller?
We cannot talk about 'the public sector' and about 'the
private sector'. Only a four-part concept of the 'sectors' --
combining providing and producing, government and non-government
-- will let us have a useful discussion about the roles of public
and private, and about the strategy of 'privatization'.
An example will help. Let's take the service called
'security'. There are two pure cases and two mixed cases.
Case 1: Government does both -- The Legislature
writes the law and provides the money; the
state or city police catch speeders on the
roads. Neither function is private.
Case 2: Production is private -- The City of
Bloomington decides to provide security
when the high school hockey teams play at
the city arena, and contracts with
Pinkertons for the guards.
Case 3: Provision is private -- Government
sells to amarket of private buyers. The
North Stars hockey team wants security at
Metropolitan Sports Center and contracts
with the Bloomington city police.
Case 4: Both functions are private -- A department
store decides that it wants uniformed
security and employs (or contracts
privately for) its own guards. Government
performs neither function.
Case 1 is the pure -case public sector. The policy decision
is governmental. A public bureau, at the same or at a different
level, produces the service.
Case 2 is also well understood, since it is essentially
contracting. There are, however, as will be seen, some difficult
issues associated with it.
F
Q
b
Case 3 is less familiar, although examples of government
agencies selling to private buyers are not uncommon.
Case 4 is, again, well understood: the pure case of private
agencies selling to private buyers.
Each function can be broken down into several parts; any of
which might be 'privatized' separately. The complexities of the
producing function have been discussed before (See the PSRP memo,
"Contracting as an Approach to Management"). We will look here
only at the elements that make up the function of provision.
A service is privately -provided where individuals and non-
governmental organizations (a) make their own decisions whether
or not to have it and, if they choose to have it, (b) pay for it
in full out of their own resources whatever these may be, and (c)
select the producer themselves.
Y
The service is publicly or socially provided, on the other
hand, (a) where the decision to have it (and the decisions about
who shall have it, and how much of it) is a political decision,
(b) when government arranges for the recipients not to have to
pay for the service themselves directly, and (c) when the
government selects the vendor that will serve them.
(Clearly there can be mixed cases here as well. The
responsibility for financing may be shared between public and
private, for example; with users paying a part and government
paying a part of the cost. Or, some individuals may be asked to
pay the cost in full themselves while government pays the full
cost for others. Or government may pay the cost but allow the
user to select the vendor. And so forth.)
Services provided publicly may be financed through taxes.
Schools are, for example. But government also uses non -tax
devices. One of these is regulation: Government provides us
with clean restaurants by requiring their owners to clean them
at their own expense. Franchising is another: Government
provides all parts of a city a uniform level of service by
creating a monopoly that permits the utility to average its
prices, over -charging some residents so as to subsidize others.
With this concept of the different functions clear we can
now consider the two different concepts of 'privatization'.
'Privatizing' Production
Let's begin with the function of service -production. Here
'privatization' means simply that a governmental organization
that had been producing a service is converted into, or is
replaced by, a non-governmental organization.
This can occur either where the producer is serving private
buyers, as in the United Kingdom, or where it is serving public
buyers, as in the United States.
3
* The British Example
a
In Britain 'privatization' means transferring to private
parties the ownership of a 'state industry' that had been
producing for private buyers.
Over the years a number of private businesses had been
'socialized' by successive Labor governments: British Steel, the
Coal Board, British Gas, British Air, British Telecom, etc.
These 'state industries' served each other and the government, of
course, but did business very largely with private firms and
private households.
These are now being sold . . . sometimes to other firms;
sometimes, through a stock issue, directly to individuals.
Critics say it amounts to "selling off the family silver". But
some of it has been popular (especially the sale of public
housing units to their occupants, which has transformed tenants
into owners). And it has been profitable for the government.
As 'state industries' these enterprises had been under
pressure to hold down their prices. So year by year there were
deficits, which the government had to cover. Year by year the
effort to limit the subsidy, as a way to force these industries
to reduce their costs, had failed. So the Thatcher government
turned to 'privatization'. As private organizations these
producers will have to earn their revenues. Presumably, too,
private owners facing private buyers will be able to control
costs and improve service in ways that public owners could not.
* The American Application
A few proposals for the sale of government enterprises have
appeared here. Conrail is to be sold. Late in 1985 there were
reports that President Reagan might propose to sell the mortgage
business of the FHA. There are others. But this country does
not have many 'state industries' (beyond the Postal Service). So
the U.K. example has limited application here.
In this country 'privatization' has come to mean mainly the
government moving more to contracts with private firms, for
services for which government remains responsible and which
government continues to finance.
There is nothing new about contracting, of course, in
American government. Contracting is traditional in public works
at all levels, and it has been common in the rapid growth of
human services since the 1960s. The idea now is simply that it
should be greatly expanded, and applied to service areas in
which it had not previously been considered.
Proposals have appeared, for example, that a county board
might (as we say here) 'privatize' its hospital by turning over
the management (or ownership) to, say, Hospital Corporation of
America. Or that a city might retain a private firm to finance
F1
O
Z�
• and to operate, as well as to design and to build, a new waste-
water -treatment plant. Or that a state might bring in the
Corrections Corporation of America to run a state prison.
These facilities and services would be "turned over' to
private organizations in the sense that private organizations
would run them. But in all cases the responsibility for
provision . . . the buyer side . . . would remain governmental.
Issues in 'Privatizing' Production
The debate about this idea is now fully under way. While it
has its ideological side, most of it is intensely practical. It
is very much a clash between competing producers, both of whom
want the government's business.
The organizations of government employees, who would like to
hold on to the business, say 'privatization' will mean poorer
service at higher cost. AFSCME has been running ads in the
magazines read by city public -works directors, warning about the
dangers of contracting, and has mailed copies of Passing the
Bucks to 5,000 government officials.
Private firms, who would like to get into the business, say
'Privatization' (contracting) will offer better service at lower
costs. In 1985 a number of firms created the Privatization
Council, with offices at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York. It
sponsors conferences and publishes a journal, the Privatization
Review, to promote this concept of 'privatization'.
It is a complex issue, falling roughly into five parts.
The Question of Competition -- What actually happens as a
result of a shift to contracting depends largely on whether the
change is only the substitution of a monopoly private supplier
for a monopoly public bureau, or involves also the introduction
of competition among producers.
If the change is simply from one monopoly supplier to
another then neither cost nor performance is likely to change
significantly. The government -as -buyer is still caught with a
sole -source arrangement. Some of the 'privatization' in Britain
has been of this sort. British Telecom has been sold to private
owners, for example, but other communications companies have not
been allowed to enter the market freely to compete with it. It
is privatization -without -competition.
An argument is always made for this. Private organizations
like public organizations are quick to tell you how much better
they could serve you if only they did not have to compete for
your custom. But any real 'privatization' will involve an effort
to make the producers competitive. In effect this has been the
effort in the United States in the deregulation since 1978 of the
commercial aviation, over -the -road trucking, banking, health care
and telecommunications industries.
5
The Question of 'Creaming' -- A common charge against
'Privatization' is that it will result in service going just to
the easy and profitable customers while the difficult and
unprofitable customers are neglected.
This is an error with respect to the production of service.
'Creaming' is a problem when the buyers are private. It should
not be a real problem where government is the buyer. Government
can get the service it wants to pay for. It will have to pay for
what it wants. But if it wants rockets to the moon it can get
rockets to the moon. If it wants kids in poor neighborhoods
educated it can get kids in poor neighborhoods educated.
It will have to be a smart buyer. 'Creaming' can occur if
the government is careless. Private contractors and public
bureaVs alike may tend to avoid the difficult work required in
the poorer neighborhoods of a city. 'Creaming', like corruption,
can be a problem with producers of either type. The government
must be careful about the way it specifies the work and in the
way it inspects the work to make sure it gets what it wanted.
The Question of Corruption -- When a government buys from
private firms there need to be efforts constantly to detect and
to suppress anti-competitive behavior.
People do not talk in the same way about the relationship
between elected officials and their bureau. But this is also a
non-competitive arrangement. And public employees like private
contractors have been known to give money to elected officials
(or to their opponents) at campaign time. Both are trying to
protect their legitimate private interests. A good defense is to
de -politicize the vendor -selection decison, through free -choice -
of -vendor, or 'voucher', arrangements.
The Question of Costs -- A powerful coalition could
conceivably be put together in support of 'privatization'. It
would include the business firms eager for a chance to sell to
the government, top officials in government frustrated by their
dependence on an unresponsive public bureau and citizens eager to
see programs made more effective without increases in their cost.
As the discussion goes along, however, there is beginning to
be a concern about a cost -increasing effect of contracting.
Public agencies are not always skilled at (or not always
aggressive about) persuading the public to expand the service
they produce. Some value security more highly than growth. But
commercial firms might be very skilled and very aggressive . . .
as the firms on contract to the Department of Defense have been,
and as road contractors have been, traditionally.
This concern about contracting . . . or, as he once
described it, "incomplete privatization" . . . comes through
strongly in the book Privatizing Federal Spending by Stuart
A
Butler, head of domestic policy studies at the Heritage
Foundation in Washington.
Butler argues that contracting simply expands 'the spending
coalition' that drives up the federal budget. "Moving the supply
(producer) function out of government may simply replace a muted
bureaucratic pressure for bigger programs with a well-financed
private -sector campaign. . . . This significant drawback means
that contracting should be viewed with great caution as a means
of privatization", he wrote. "Contracting can certainly lead to
more efficient government, but it does not guarantee smaller
government".
So: How you view contracting will depend on what you are
trying to do. If you think programs ought not to be expanded you
will probably want to resist its use. If you favor larger public
programs you may find it highly strategic to expand the use of
thisrform of 'privatization'.
A good example of this just now is in the field of
corrections. One group wants to put more people behind bars, and
is advocating contracts with private firms to build and operate
state prisons. Another thinks the industry of locking -up people
(especially, kids) has already grown too large, and wants to
block contracting. The two groups disagree -- except in their
belief that contracting would mean more jails.
The Question of 'Community' -- The idea of (and the very
term) 'privatization' can convey a sense that the public purpose
of a program is somehow lost. Persons committed to the idea that
a society should care for its members frequently see
'privatization' as a reflection of, and as a reinforcement of,
the individualistic ethic of our time. They resist it.
Here again the issue is the definition of 'privatization'.
So far we have been talking only about a change in producer
roles. There would be a question whether the 'public' character
of a service depends on its being delivered by a specifically
governmental producer.
For some persons, or with respect to some services, the
answer may be 'yes'. This is clearly a part of the resistance to
the contracting of prison services. And this kind of feeling
probably shapes, still, the common definition of public education
as a specifically public school.
On the other hand, there seems no strong sense today that
the public character of the program is lost if people needing
medical care do not go to the county hospital, or if people
needing housing are not required to live in the government-owned
project.
When we're talking simply about non-governmental producers
the social commitment to the program is maintained -- and, as we
have seen, may even be enlarged under 'privatization'. So this
VA
Z
kind of change does not put 'community' seriously at risk.
The danger to 'community' comes from the other major concept
of 'privatization', to which we now turn.
'Privatizing' Provision
The essence of government is in the decision about what it
will provide: what it will require, and buy, and make available;
where and when and to whom and to what standard.
It is quite possible, of course, to 'privatize' the
provision of benefits and services. Government would simply
withdraw from (or at least reduce) its role as buyer . . .
regulator . . . standard -setter . . . decision -maker. People (or
at least certain people, for certain services thus 'privatized')
would then be on their own, to decide whether or not to have a
service and to pay for it should they decide they want it.
This is the real -- or, as Butler says, 'complete' --
'privatization'. The responsibility for health care is not
'privatized' when the county board contracts the management of
the public hospital to a private firm. Or when it sells the
hospital, to be run by a private firm. Or even when it closes
the hospital, and buys care from the community hospitals. The
responsibility to provide is truly 'privatized' when the county
board says it will no longer pay for the care of the indigent.
The Reasons for 'Privatizing' Provision
Two very different interests . . . forces . . . are coming
together to reduce or limit the role of government as provider
both in America and in other western countries.
The first and more conspicuous of the two is the effort to
restrain public expenditure . . . to relate needs and wants to
what the city, state or nation can realistically afford to pay.
The combination of client -advocates, the media and the
political process works powerfully to turn needs into rights,
rights into entitlements, entitlements into programs and programs
into budgets. At the same time, the combination of international
and interstate economic competition, taxpayer resistance and the
need to stimuiate entrepreneurship and investment is working
powerfully to constrain the resources that come into the economy
and the amount available for public service -provision.
In most every country public services have come under
pressure. Something has had to give. One response -- visible in
the case of the public libraries in New York -- is to reduce
service across the board, making no distinctions among users.
Another is to shift from a universalist to a 'selective' approach
to social policy. That is: from a policy that makes services
available to everyone, at no charge regardless of ability to pay,
to a policy that asks those who can afford to pay to do so and
L
reserves the limited public resources for those who genuinely can
not. For those with resources of their own the service is thus
effectively 'privatized'.
The second of the two efforts to limit the scope of
government rises from social rather than economic concerns.
In recent years some persons representing the poor and
disadvantaged have increasingly resisted government housing,
health-care and other social -welfare programs. They see these as
programs which -- despite the sponsors' good intentions -- work
mainly to enlarge the income, status and power of the industry of
service -producers . . . bureaucratic or commercial/professional.
These people resent and resist the extension of law and
regulation that steadily deprives non-governmental and non-
professional institutions of the right to care for themselves and
for Each other in the way that people always have. Their effort
to maintain these rights for individuals, families and voluntary
organizations forms part of the support for 'privatization'.
The Methods for 'Privatizing' Provision
Government can reduce or withdraw from the provision of
service in a variety of ways.
It can withdraw from the production of a service and simply
not at the same time redesign that program into a purchase -of -
service arrangement (in terms of the model, can shift directly
from Case 1 to Case 4 rather than to Case 2). This is 'load -
shedding', in the vocabulary of alternative service delivery. A
city that simply stopped plowing snow or collecting refuse would
be 'privatizing' production and provision simultaneously.
Sometimes this occurs. In Britain the sale of a 'state industry'
will presumably mean the government subsidy will be withdrawn.
Sometimes, on the other hand, it does not. When government
reduced its role in the production of housing services (i.e.,
moved away from building and owning 'projects') it redesigned
'public housing' into a program for the purchase of housing for
low-income families, from private builders and owners.
Government can also reduce or withdraw from its role in
provision by•introducing fees and charges for a service it
continues to produce, shifting from a Case 1 to a Case 3
arrangement. In many cases (such as transit) the financing
responsibility will still be shared between taxpayers and
users. But the proportion paid by users will rise.
Charges can be introduced at a flat rate, for all,
regardless of ability to pay. Or they can be introduced for some
people and not for others; or set at a higher rate for some than
for others. Discount transit fares for the elderly, sliding fee
scales for day care and checks to some people for winter -heating
bills (while other people pay full rate) come quickly to mind.
4
�f`7
A sort of 'privatization' also occurs as tax liability is
extended to cover the cash payments received and the cash -value
of services received under benefit and entitlement programs.
Above a certain income level, for example, Social Security
payments are now taxable, and Colorado's Gov. Lamm has suggested
this as a general policy where the pressure to offer services and
benefits uniformly in the first instance cannot be resisted.
The Issues in 'Privatizing' Provision
The essence of government is in its function as provider;
not in its function as producer. So the discussion about
'privatizing' the provision of service is really a version of the
fundamental discussion about the future scope and role of
government -- about the future of the Welfare State -- now under
way here and in other western nations.
It is a discussion that is reappraising the idea introduced
about a century ago: the idea of the possibility of a
conscious control of social forces, and of a beneficient State as
the mechanism for that application of reason to human affairs.
There is no way this complex debate can be summarized here.
And there is little need to try: It is familiar to everyone who
follows public affairs. Two points, only, may be useful.
First: About the nature of the debate over 'privatization'
The recent resistance to the further growth of public
responsibility has encouraged greater private responsibility for
service -provision. Not surprisingly, it has been attacked as an
abandonment of the concept of public needs, of the general
welfare, and of society's responsibility to the poor.
The term 'privatization' contributes to this sense of a
movement away from 'community'. But it is probably a mistake to
think of the debate as one between the idea of community, on the
one hand, and the idea of individualism, on the other. It is
very much a debate between different concepts of the way a
community . . . a society . . . can successfully be operated.
Second: About the requirements for the success of any
effort at 'privatization'.
The proponents of 'privatization' strategies are deeply
concerned about the future of . . . about the economic success
of, and about the viability of democratic institutions in . . . a
society more than half of whose members have their incomes
determined politically.
They are acutely conscious of what is sometimes called
'public -sector imperialism'. They seek to reduce the proportion
of decisions made in a political process they see as incapable,
realistically, of resisting the pressures for irresponsible
10
decisions about other people's resources; and to increase the
proportion of decisions made in a process where private parties
make responsible decisions about the use of their own resources.
The clear requirement for the success of any such change is
almost certainly the provision of an adequate income -- through
transfers or through work -- to those now without adequate
income. It is hard to see that the effort at 'privatization' is
yet adequately sensitive to the practical and ethical importance
of this idea of social equity.
For the moment we seem caught still in the old ways of
thinking . with traditional concepts of government that are
insufficiently sensitive to the need for economy and
responsiveness, and with emerging concepts of a new private role
that are insufficiently sensitive to the need for equity.
A con6ept that combines these elements in new ways -- an
arrangement of provider and producer, of government and private,
that will be at the same time equitable and competitive -- has
still to be articulated politically.
A Reasonable Program for 'Privatization'
'Privatization' can serve a useful purpose. It also carries
some dangers. The effort should be to secure the former while
avoiding the latter. Such a program ought to be possible.
It would not look much like the 'privatization' going on in
Europe. Not having 'socialized' many industries we do not have
many state industries now to return to private ownership.
Rather, 'privatization' here will focus mainly on (a) maintaining
the right and enlarging the responsibility of people to provide
for their needs privately and, in the area where government is
responsible, (b) enlarging the opportunity for elected officials
and for citizens to secure those services from private suppliers
as well as from public agencies if they wish.
Specifically with respect to the responsibility to provide
a service, such a program would include:
* Selectivity. Targeting eligibility to those in need.
* Continued use of fees and charges, with income -offsets
for people of low income.
* Taxing benefits, where benefits are granted uniformly in
the first instance. All of the above will 'privatize' financial
responsibility and thus help restrain expenditure.
* Fixing -- appropriating -- the revenues for programs, and
managing the eligiblity, as demand for the service changes.
* Voucher systems or other user -side subsidies, that
'Privatize" the vendor -selection decision where the service is
11
governmentally provided -- and even where it is governmentally
produced. De -politicizing the vendor -selection decision will
guard against the problems that can arise in contracting (where
elected or appointed officials select the vendor). It will also
indicate more clearly the sort of service people really want.
Specifically with respect to the production of service, such
a program would include:
* A policy to avoid sole -sourcing, whether the supplier is
governmental or private. This will ensure competition.
* An effort to disaggregate the elements of a service.
Breaking a service up into pieces will enlarge the opportunity to
use different kinds of suppliers. That will permit more
incremental change, and thus lower the risk involved in change.
* Divestiture. A public policy body that serves also as the
board of directors for the public agency producing its service is
caught in a dual role which can at times become a conflict of
interest. Separating the roles of provider and producer can make
it easier to 'privatize' production. And a board responsible
basically to the electorate (taxpayers and consumers) will be
freer to concentrate on policy, and on ways to reduce the cost
and to increase the quality of service.
* Capitating the producers. That is: paying the producer a
lump sum, up front, and allowing it to keep whatever it does need
to spend. This will introduce an incentive for the producer --
for a governmental producer as well as a private one -- to
innovate; perhaps by moving away from 'service' and toward
strategies of prevention and 'self-help' which can be, at the
same time, less costly for payers and more supportive for users.
As all this should suggest, a key in thinking about
'privatization' is to avoid talking in terms of service areas --
refuse-collection, transit, police, etc. -- and to talk instead
in terms of functions -- providing (planning and financing), on
the one hand, and producing (managing, operating), on the other.
Finally, it is worth noting that it is possible to have
competition without 'privatization'. A government can contract
with other governments, and free -choice -of -vendor arrangements
can be introduced where the choice is simply among public
agencies. Gov. Perpich's proposal in 1985 for open enrollment
among public school districts is an example of the latter.
*
The views expressed are those of the Public Services
Redesign project and not those of the Humphrey Institute or of
the University of Minnesota, which do not take positions on
public issues.
(TK 1/86)
12
t
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
January 9, 1986
Page 1
Present: Commissioners Anderson, Beach, Edwards, LaTour, and Reed; staff Blank,
Brown, Busch, Patterson and Pederson
Absent: Commissioner Mullan
1. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Edwards called the January meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Reed and seconded by Commissioner LaTour
to approve the December 12, 1985, minutes as presented. The motion carried.
3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
These were no visitors at this meeting.
4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION
There was no past Council action to report.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Annual Report. Draft copies of the 1985 annual report were reviewed
for changes, corrections and additions. A type -o was pointed out by
Commissioner LaTour in the "Commission Highlights" section under Item
3 of the category "Community Requests." This will be corrected before
the final copies are made. Commissioner Reed suggested that a title
be given to the page with the pie charts. It was also recommended
that the charts showing the Shade Tree fund be eliminated since they
have not changed in the last few years. The commissioners had mane
favorable comments for staff on the new recreation programs introduced
in 1985 and encouraged staff to continue these programs in 1986. Final
copies of the annual report will be ready at the February meeting when
they will need the Commission's approval so that they can be forwarded
to the City Council for their February 24 meeting.
b. Parkers Lake City Park Update. Director Blank and staff from Brauer
will be drilling holes in the ice in the next week and taking core
sample from the lake bottom. The Minneapolis City Council recentl\
approved development contracts for the Minneapolis property north
of County Road 6 and west of Niagara Lane.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. New Plats. There are no new plats to discuss at this time.
b. Review Yearly Meeting Dates. Director Blank reminded commissioners
that meetings will continue to be on the second Thursday of the month
unless conflicts arise. A new commissioner should be appointed by the
February meeting so that the training session can go on as planned at
the March meeting.
C. 1986 Park Facility Rental Policies and Fee Schedule. Commissioners
reviewed the proposed 1986 park facility rental policies and fee
schedule. Director Blank noted that fees have not been increased
for the coming year. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LATOUR AND
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE 1986 PARK FACILITY
RENTAL POLICIES AND FEE SCHEDULE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. The motion
carried with all ayes.
PRAC Minutes
January 9, 1986
Page 2
d. Neighborhood Park Improvements. Director Blank stated that Imperial
Hills and Queensland neighborhood parks are scheduled for improvements
in 1986. Also, new park construction could take place in the park
located north of County Road 61. Staff will be sending letters to
residents surrounding Imperial Hills and Queensland asking for their
input in designing these parks' improvements. An architect will be
hired to assist staff in this park design work. By not hiring a
full consultant firm, we should reduce our design costs. Director
Blank pointed out that architects no longer wish to design new play-
ground equipment because of liability laws. Playground apparatus
must be purchased directly from large playground manufacturers who
are able to insure themselves. Director Blank mentioned that a seminar
swill be held in St. Paul on January 30 regarding new liability laws
affecting park and recreation agencies. A MOTION WAS MADE BY
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REED TO PROCEED
WITH PLANS TO IMPROVE IMPERIAL HILLS AND QUEENSLAND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
IN 1986. The motion carried with all ayes.
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Commissioner Reed indicated that he would be interested in serving on the
new Hennepin Parks Advisory Committee. He recently read an article in the
Plymouth Post which announced that Hennepin Parks was seeking members from
park and recreation boards in surrounding cities including Maple Grove and
Plymouth.
Commissioner Edwards stated that she had been contacted by a resident living
near Pilgrim Lane requesting that the City re -open the Pilgrim Lane warming
house. Director Blank commented that this was unlikely considering the
close proximity of the Plymouth Junior High warming house. The decision
to close this warming house was made by the Commission and City Council
in 1984.
8. STAFF CON24UNICATION
The Gamefield fitness court for Zachary Playfield has arrived. Director
Blank said that the Rotary Club will donate $1,000 this year and $1,000
next year for the fitness court.
Skiing in Plymouth is Saturday, January 18, at Plymouth Creek Park, beginning
at 10 a.m.
In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask Theatre will put on a performance
of "LaBefana" on Sunday, January 12, at Wayzata High School. Tickets are
$2.50 in advance and $3 at the door. This program is sponsored by Wayzata
Community Education, the Art Center of Minnesota and Plymouth Fark and
Recreation.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
= —1
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS
FIRST NATIONAL-SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291 (AREA CODE 612)
F I LE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
Please distribute to governing body members
January, 1986
We have just had a most unusual half year with its unprecedented supply of tax exempt bonds matched only
by unprecedented demand. Everyone predicted a year-end crunch of offerings by issuers attempting to beat
the December 31 tax law deadline that was sure to force up interest rates. What few did not anticipate was
that investors, too, saw a phantom deadline, and their demand overpowered supply. The BBI dropped from
9.35% on September 23 to 8.51% by December 5.
Much of the buying was by institutions speculating that reduced supply after January 1 which would reduce
tax exempt interest rates and increase bond values. However, if a large supply of speculative tax exempts
overhangs the market, the expected increase in bond values may not materialize.
Variable Rate Bonds: Who's the "Stuckee"? It is possible to get much lower interest rates on long term
financings if you allow the bondholder to "put" the bonds back at short intervals -- every day, week, month,
six months or a year. Thus, an 8% or 9% long term rate becomes, say, 5% (plus letter of credit and other
costs).
The obvious risk is that holders might put the bonds to the issuer who might be hard pressed to come up with
the cash. The issuer then has to be prepared to "up the ante", raise the short term rate, to make the bonds
attractive to holders.
Short term rates might increase dramatically, higher than long term rates. It has happened before. Then, so
they say, the issuer can convert to long term, fixed rate obligations. However, short term rates are likely to
rise because long term rates have risen so high so that borrowers may not want to commit to them. The
issuer may be trapped.
We can protect the issue with a letter of credit, but the LOC bank protects investors, not issuers. If the
bonds are put to the issuer, and if the LOC bank has to take them, the interest rate typically will go to
prime plus 1% -- much higher than short term or long term tax exempt rates. This will force the issuer to
remarket the bonds, either short term or long term, at what could be surprising rates. So the issuer is the
"stuckee."
Meet Jim Thoreen, Our Newest Associate. Jim comes to us from Clay County, Minnesota (Moorhead) where
he was Executive Secretary to the County Board following service as a representative to the Minnesota
Association of Counties. Before that he was County Auditor and Executive Secretary to Beltrami County,
MN. Jim is a graduate of Bemidji State University. He and his wife. Bonnie, live in Minnetonka.
Have a good r! We look
C
Ehle and Assocates, Inc.
ng with you in 1986.
:`t
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 23, 1986
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager ,
FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation �-
SUBJECT PRAC TRAINING SESSION
Mayor Schneider asked that I supply some information to the City Council
regarding the upcoming Park and Recreation Advisory Commission training
program scheduled for Thursday, March 13. The session will begin with
a supper at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council conference room.
The purpose of the training is to re -acquaint the members of the Commis-
sion with the process that was used for the development of the Compre-
hensive Park and Trail System Plans in 1982. Currently, only two
members of the Commission were involved in the development of that plan.
We believe that it is most important that all of the commissioners
understand the process an6 the reasoning that was undertaken by the
Commission in 1982 to form the basic framework of the Comprehensive
Plans.
We have hired Paul Fjare, President of Brauer and Associates, to conduct
this training workshop. The Brauer firm was the consultant that worked
for 14 months with the Park Commission on the development of this plan.
By reviewing this information in detail, we believe the Commission
will better understand the plan and be more prepared to work with
updating the master plan in future years. I believe this will be
valuable information for City Council members and perhaps one member
of the Planning Commission to sit in on also. Further information
about the workshop will be forthcoming about two weeks prior to
March 13.
/np
Z--\ \cam,
Mr. & Mrs. Fran: J. Burns
4285 Lanewood LarE
Plymouth, NII. 5544E
January 21, 1986
Mr. Jim Willis.
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Road
Plymouth, MI;. 55447
Dear Mr. Willis:
We recently purchased a new home at the above listed address
in Plymouth and experienced problems with inadequate water
pressure. I was referred to Mr. Don Kilian and at my request
he came to our home and inspected the plumbing.
The purpose of this letter is to commend you on the personnel
you have working for the City of Plymouths specifically, Mr.
Don Kilian. Through his efforts in talking with our plumber,
Mr. Kilian was instrumental in resolving this problem. Our
hat is off to him for the concern he has for the home owner
and the speed and manner in which he handled this matter.
Mr. Kilian is a great representative for to City of Plymouth
and is to be commended for his thoroughness.
Sincerely, f
Marian & Frank Burns
January 22, 1986
Mr. & Mrs. Frank Burns
4285 Lanewood Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Burns:
Thank you for your very kind letter of January 21 regarding Don Kilian.
I am happy that Don was able to work with you and your plumber to have your
water service problem satisfactorily resolved. Don, in assisting you, is
carrying out the basic objective of all our employees; that is, to serve the
public. I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to share your satis-
faction with me. You can be assured that 1 will not only share it with Don,
but others within our organization.
Thank you again for your kind letter.
Yours truly,
mes G. Willis
City Manager
DGW:jm
cc: Blair Tremere, Director of Planning & Community Development
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
Breck School
12 A Ottawa A%enue North
Minneapolis. Nt\ ;;-+2'
161 2) i---;000
From the
Parents Association_
January 16, 1986
City of Plymouth
ATTN: Mr. James Willis,
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Willis,
City Manager
I am writing to express our appreciation to the City
of Plymouth for allowing a member of your police
department to participate in our parent education
PAR program at Breck School on January 14, 1986.
Investigator William Hanvik volunteered to make a
presentation on drug and chemical identification,
awareness, and prevention measures. His very
enthusiastic and thorough approach to the subject
added a very significant factor to our opening meeting.
Of particular interest to us came from the fact that
Bill is from a private school background, both as a
student and now as a parent of two young children
attending a private school. Although he is obviously
a highly trained, professional law enforcement
officer, throughout his presentation he was able to
make many meaningful and genuine statements as an
involved, concerned and responsive parent as well.
Bill's use of props, his varied selection of facts
and anecdotes, his extensive first-hand knowledge of
the topics and his overall presentation methods all
contributed to making it a very successful and highly
informative meeting.
He is definitely to be commended for his preparation
and his energetic and creative speaking ability, his
personal interest and commitment to drug/chemical abuse
and prevention and his very professional approach. He
is a real credit to your community as a public
information resource. We thank you for sharing his
talents and information with us.
Sincerely,
Peter Clark
Chairman
Health Education
Parent Education
Task Force
Sub -Committee
An F,pi,copal, coeducational, college preparatory day school for grades preschool through 12, founded in 1886.
\\3
January 24, 1986
Mr. Robert L. Melamed
Managing General Partner
Medicir#e Lake Apartments
1212 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Melamed:
Thank you for your kind letter of January 23 regarding the expeditious
service which you received from the City's Building Official Joe Ryan.
Service is, of course, our product and we appreciate letters such as yours
indicating that our efforts are achieving their purpose. I am particularly
pleased to have received your letter because the staff of the building
office is frequently under a great deal of time pressure from a variety of
interests seeking to execute developments in our community. Mr. Ryan and
his staff have been diligently working to improve their ability to serve the
public and it is through letters such as yours that we can evaluate the
effectiveness of that effort.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me. Your letter is indeed
appreciated.
Yours truly,
a s G. Willis
y Manager
JGW:jm
cc: Blair Tremere, Director of Planning & Community Development
Joe Ryan, Building Official
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (512) 559-2800
Lake Associates
1212 EAST WAYZATA BLVD. • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 473-2588
ROBERT L. MELAMED
THOMAS A MIDTBO
January 23, 1986
Mr. Jim Willis
CITY MANAGER
CITY ,,OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minn. 55447
Dear Mr. Willis:
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the
very fine efficient and courteous manner in which Joe Ryan,
Building Official, and his staff attended to an emergency
administrative matter for Medicine Lake Apartments.
We are in the process of refinancing this property and were
advised very late yesterday that the mortgage lender will not
commit to the loan without having in its possession a certifi-
cate of occupancy. Our office first contacted Mr. Ryan late
yesterday and he advised that no certificat of occupancy had
ever been issued at the time the building was compieied.
I spoke with Mr. Ryan at 9 o'clock this morning and followed
up my telephone call with a hand delivered letter explaining
why we needed some kind of evidence that the building had
been dually inspected and approved for occupancy.by the City
of Plymouth and the time was extraordinarily important to us.
Mr. Ryan assurred me that he would do everything possible to
locate the necessary documentation in order for him to pre-
pare a letter which would meet our needs.
While courteous and attentive, he did not make any undue
promises nor did he commit himself to anything in advance
that he could not perform.
None the less Mr. Ryan and his staff followed through deligently
and luckily were able to locate the necessary material in order
to prepare a letter that will completely meet our needs.
Mr. Ryan called me this afternoon and told me that the letter
was prepared and I was able to send a messenger for it in
time for it to get into todays outgoing mail.
As a former member of the City
I can tell you from first hand
of courteous efficient service
office which goes a long ways
community. It also certainly
and his entire staff are to be
of Wayzata Planning Commission,
experience that it is this kind
by staff personnel in a city
toward efficient operation of a
is excellent PR policy and he
commended on my behalf.
I thank you too for the efforts that were extended as they
were greatly appreciated.
Si c ely y s
iOBERT
L. MELAME
Managing General artner
Medicine Lake Apartments
RLM/ vs
\C.
January 22, 1956
Mr. Peter Clark, Chairman
Health Education Task Force
Parent Education Subcommittee
c/o Breck School
123 Otto Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Dear Mr. Clark:
CIiY 0
PLYMJUIH
Thank you for your very kind letter of January 16 regarding the
contributions of Bill Hanvik to your Parents Are Responsible Program.
I share your enthusiasm for Bill's ability to present in a clear and concise
fashion a program on chemical dependency and drug awareness. I'm
particularly pleased that Bill was able to participate in your program and
hope, through his presentation that some parents may have benefited. We are
all concerned about the hazards of drug abuse and chemical dependency and
believe, through presentations such as Bill's, that the public will be able
to better deal with these problems and hopefully, reduce the number of
families and individuals who suffer from chemical dependency and drug abuse.
Thank you again for your very
in seeking to become aware
dependency and drug abuse.
Yours truly,
G. Willis
ty Manager
JGW:jm
kind letter and best regards to those involved
and deal with the problems involving chemical
cc: Dick Carlquist, Public Safety Director
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVAPD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
January 22, 1986
Mr. Richard Rosen
18715 - 27th Avenue No.
Plymouth, MN5555447
Dear :
PLYMOUTH -
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your appointment to the Plymouth
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. You were selected from among nine
well-qualified candidates. I and members of the City Council are pleased
that you have expressed an interest in serving on this important city
commission. Eric Blank will be in contact with you within the next week to
provide you with materials and information about the Park and Recreation
Advisory Commission and the responsibilities of a commissioner. I would
expect that you would Join the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission at
their first meeting on Thursday, February 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Center
council chambers.
Once again, congratulations on your appointment and welcome aboard!
Yours very truly,
Z4-xjy-=-�
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:Jm
cc: City Council
Barb Edwards
Eric Blank
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-28CC
January 22, 1986
Brian Knox
16805 12th Avenue No.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Brian:
-�T-= `� b
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest.
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by calling
wvv ucfGic Friday, Jaiwary 31.
Yours very truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612), 559-2800
January 22, 1986
Gordon Ortler
515 Zircon Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Gordon:
I7
PLYMOUTR
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board o`
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by calling
559-2800 before Friday, January .31.
Yours very truly,
/I
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
340^ PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
\ab
January 22, 1986
� it y r)
PLYMOUTH -
Stephen D. Weld
5605 Juneau Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Stephen:
-7--\Qb
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information,
Zoning Adjustments and
Board's responsibility
for this appointment,
559-2800 before Friday,
Yours very truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
a position has become available on the City's Board of
Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
for your information. If you wished to be considered
please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by calling
January 31.
z �
V
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULE`1AP:l PL)'f,,OJTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
January 22, 1986
Michael Sankey
4630 Terraceview Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Michael:
IiY
PLYMOUTH
-T-- \a r�
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by calling
559-2800 before Friday, January 31.
Yours very truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
a l r1 (� � p•,t
S �.
�r
v /
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYf,"OUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE 1612 559-280.
January 22, 1986
PLYMOUTH
Janie B. Wright
5065 Forestview Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Janie:
_=_ gi b
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by calling
559-2800 before Friday, January :1.
Yours very truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
a
`ho/11 w 1 4-0
.� � � �
141
m�
��y
1 �
�� f
dsel'-Ikey
2-
3
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULE'ti`APD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
\f
January 22, 1986
PVMOUT�+
Jelle DeBoef
18120 - 18th Avenue No.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Jelle:
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by callino
559-2800 before Friday, January 31.
Yours very truly,
-14"Al"',�4-
7y
Virgil Schneider 5 � p
Mayor a
VS:jm
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. FLY%'OUTH. MINNESOTA 5547. TELEPHONE (612) 5592800
January 22, 1966
Kenneth R. Anderson
2500 N. Nathan Lane
Apartment 209
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Ken:
�F.
PLYMOUTH
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by ca.;,ng
559-2800 before Friday, January 31.
Yours very truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
�aal�r� - a
cs 011
w
r1,11+
--
3400
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLY LOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-280^
January 22, 1986
Peter Reichardt
5570 Rosewood Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
Dear Peter:
Thank you for taking the time to submit an application and interview for the
vacancy on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. I and
members of the City Council continue to be impressed by the interest shown
by Plymouth residents in serving their community, as well as the excellent.
credentials possessed by those individuals. Our experience reenforces our
conviction that the residents of our community are Plymouth's greatest
asset.
While it was difficult to make selection, the Council has selected Mr.
Richard Rosen to serve on the Plymouth Park and Recreation Commission.
For your information, a position has become available on the City's Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. I am attaching a brief summary of the
Board's responsibility for your information. If you wished to be considered
for this appointment, please advise the City Clerk, Laurie Houk by calling
559-2800 before Friday, January 3i.
Yours very truly,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:jm
J 0,1,A, 4 6z-,Cjl �11
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 5547. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800