Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 12-19-1986c' s �.f CITY OF PUMOUTR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM December 19, 1986 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. COUNCIL MEETINGS -- No additional Council meetings are scheduled for the remainder of this calendar year. 2. HOLIDAY SCHEDULE -- City offices will be open for business on Wednesday, December 24, and Wednesday, December 31. Depending upon the volume of activity, we will permit departments to allow employees to leave early on both days. The City Center will be closed, of course, on December 25 and January 1. 3. JANUARY CALENDAR -- The January calendar of meetings and events is attached. M -3 4. SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES -- The organizational meeting for the Special Study Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, January 13 at 7:00 p.m. Committee members are being polled as to subsequent meeting dates. Attached is a memorandum from Blair Tremere to committee members concerning committee meeting dates. (M -4) FOR YOUR INFORMATION..... 1. CITY ATTORNEY BILLING -- A copy of the Attorney's summary billing for November is attached. (I -1) 2. PLYMOUTH RECYCLING -- In accordance with Council direction, letters have been sent to Plymouth Homeowners Associations asking their assistance in encouraging their members to participate in the recycling program. A copy of the letter is attached. Also attached is notification from the Metropolitan Council approving the City's application for household rebate in the amount of $7,447.50. (I -2) 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM December 19, 1986 Page two 3. HOMESTEAD DECLARATION NOTICES -- Homestead declaration notices are scheduled to be mailed December 30, 1986. A sample copy of the notice is attached for your information. (I -3) 4. COMMUNITY EDUCATION TASK FORCE REPORT -- The Community Education Task Force was established in 1985 by Hennepin County as part of its 5 -year work plan to promote decentralization of state - licensed group homes. Councilmember Zitur has provided the attached Final Report of the Task Force for the Council's information. (I -4) 5. MINNESOTA MEETING -- The December 22 Minnesota Meeting luncheon featuring San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros has been rescheduled to a breakfast meeting. I am providing this information since Council - members may have previously received a notice on this meeting and made arrangements to attend. If you do plan to attend, a new registration form must be completed and returned. A copy of the revised meeting notice and registration form is attached. (I -5) 6. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter to Mark Ryan, Regional Transit Board, from Frank Boyles, outlining the City's request for 1986 and 1987 budget revisions for Plymouth Metrolink. These revisions are based upon infor- mation provided by Medicine Lake Lines regarding their true operating costs for Plymouth Metrolink. The Council will be asked to act upon the 1987 Plymouth Metrolink budget in January. (I -6a) b. Letter of appreciation to Frank Boyles from Sharen Hilliard, IDEA Coordinator, Wayzata West Junior High School, for Frank's participation in the School's career afternoon project. (I -6b) c. Letter from Dr. James L. Craig, 10008 South Shore Drive, to Mayor Schneider, concerning the Council's action to appoint the Special Study Committee for Community -Based Residential Facilities. (I -6c) d. Letter from Terrie Christian, 9910 South Shore Drive, to Plymouth City Council, providing information on Alpha House. (I -6d) e. Letter from Jim Thomson, to Dick Carlquist, conveying $350 contribution to the City's bullet -proof vest fund. (I -6e) James G. Willis City Manager JGW:jm attach Z ct 00 CIN En H > ► Ln ON P - cn Al En cn C) u r- Z 0r4 z z FX4 0 9W u PL4 Z E-4 C) Z L) Z w ct I - 10 E P-4 z 0 V- rp, c L) cn 44 C P4 u P64 En : 3: 11 Z:=l Lo w PL4 0 > 0 V. - E- En E/) #4 En 0-0 , - 0 r- I-- um PrVY L) c) lf)O a U C U C V C) P6*4 H Fz4 rn . 4 c 0 0 L) C) V) CY) (Y) g C) = r 4 1-4 L L 6 QI P WI 0 �-4 0. PL4 F4 0 cz M 00 a U) OD CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800 December 18, 1986 MEMO DATE: �" `_ q Members of the Special Study Committee for Community -Based Residential TO: Facilities FROM: Community Development Director Blair Tremere SUBJECT ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING AND SUBSEQUENT MEETING DATES Chairman David Davenport has asked that I poll members of the Task Force to determine that you can meet at least monthly on Tuesday nights, starting Tuesday, January 13, 1987. Subsequent tentative Tuesdays would be February 10, March 12, April 16, and May 14, 1987. The first meeting would commence at 7:00 P.M. at the Plymouth City Center. Please call me or Planning Secretary Grace Wineman at 559 -2800 to confirm these dates, or to indicate conflicts you may have. We will in turn confirm for you the final dates; it would be safe to schedule now January 13, 1987 as the first organizational meeting. You may be aware that the City Council has now selected a consultant, Resolution, Inc., with Mr. Donn Wiski, and we should have the work agreement executed with him within a week. Please call me or Grace Wineman by Monday, December 22, 1986. cc: City Manager dames G. Willis File 3243 Sampson, Glenn 0. 45.00 157.25 $202.25 3277 Project 216 75.00 $75.00 �_ 1 LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN S DRAWZ a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 -0543 December 15, 1986 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y City of Plymouth MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB TOTAL A5242699 Project 853 Vicksburg Lane 562.50 57.16 $619.66 100 Complaints 510.00 $510.00 110 General 5,092.50 257.42 $5,349.92 111 Prosecution - Court Time 5,160.00 645.06 $5,805.06 111A Prosecution - Office Time 5,984.00 10.23 $5,994.23 1024 Coaification 46.64 $46.64 1321 Thornton, Francis J. 243.75 $243.75 1883 Robert Micalemist 6th Acaition 307.50 $307.50 3036 Project 404 Eminent Domain 131.25 $131.25 3119 Laukka Larry 15.00 264.60 $279.60 3243 Sampson, Glenn 0. 45.00 157.25 $202.25 3277 Project 216 75.00 $75.00 2 December 15, 1986 Page C L I E N T S U M M A R Y City of Plymouth MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB 3281 Project 455 375.00 1.20 3360 Project 426 Carlson Center 817.50 7.20 3362 Smith v. City 412.50 3652 Project 404 56.25 3731 Begin Arbitration 30.00 3756 Menaota, Inc 4,447.50 3846 Johnson Inverse Conaemnation 52.50 3888 Police Officer Negotiations 131.25 32.29 3984 Parker's Lake Park 18.75 4037 Swan Lake 37.50 4040 Hazardous Builaing 206.25 14.40 4263 Project 544 - Fernbrook Lane N 75.00 4265 Cavanaugh Hazardous Builaings 281.25 4325 City V. Jeff Howara- Zoning 4.20 4378 Groves, S. J. Office Park 210.00 TOTAL $376.20 $824.70 $412.50 $56.25 $30.00 $4,447.50 $52.50 $163.54 $18.75 $37.50 $220.65 $75.00 $281.25 $4.20 $210.00 page 3 December 15, 1986 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y City of Plymouth MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB TOTAL 4398 Moles -- zoning Violation 570.00 $570.00 4502 Simonson Appeal 50.41 $50.41 4559 Alpha Human Services 1,560.00 $1,560.00 4560 12510 28th Ave N-- Unsanitary Conaitions 405.00 76.20 $481.20 4598 Perl Lana Registration 82.50 $82.50 4628 Park Acquisition 168.75 $168.75 4646 Project #804 56.25 $56.25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: $29,744.51 Creait, November Invoice (Parlimentary Procedure Workshop) (525.00) $29,219.51 December 16, 1986 President Homeowner's Association Subject: City of Plymouth Recycling Program Dear Sir /Madam: Attached is a chart showing the tons of recyclables collected in the City of Plymouth since April of 1986 when the curbside collection program began. It also shows the goals set by Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council which the City is expected to reach. Although a valiant effort is being made by some residents to recycle, the majority of residents do not. We have been collecting less than one half of the goal in 1986 and the goal increases in 1987. A new County ordinance now requires each City to pass an ordinance which requires all residents to recycle. If the City is not collecting its goal in tons by January 1st of 1988, the County may then take over the program, use whatever enforcement means necessary to achieve the goal, and charge the City for the costs involved. Your help is solicited to help increase the participation in your neighborhood and ultimately to reach the established goals voluntarily. Please discuss this at your next meeting and encourage all members to recycle and urge friends and neighbors to recycle also. I am available at your request to answer any questions or meet with your group to discuss this subject with you. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard J. Pouliot Project Coordinator RJP:kh Enclosure cc: Fred G. Moore Sherman L. Goldberg nAk C 1 C `s - December 15, 1986 Richard Pouliot, Project Coordinator City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 I" — Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291 -6359 RE: Application for Household Rebate Dear Dick: Staff has reviewed your application for $7,447.50 and finds it acceptable for approval. Your reimbursement has been calculated based on 14,895 households in your municipality times 50 cents, for a total of $7,447.50 The request for reimbursement has been forwarded to the Finance Department and a check will be mailed to you shortly. Sincerely, rL Sunny Jo Emerson Grants Assistant SJE:kp c. ra FR-J Of page Fr,*,V/t OrfI* J D,¢g -e 1-64NN 2) jCos t Oitoo emh 9:s P An Equal Opi>ortunicy Errpioyer r� ,�� 19R6 • i;, :l 0 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD. PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 SR 0011573 IMPORTANT xxxxxxx HOMESTEAD DECLARATION ENCLOSED DO NOT FORWARD - ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED DO NOT DESTROY JULIE E. WASHBURN P.O. BOX 2000 THURMONT. HD 21758 • TO OPEN -FOLD AND TEAR ALONG DOTTED LINE •.'xt ..•-- rte•.. =Tr,.- ir E3 26C.4c _r I A 9 9 9 a Dear Plymouth Residents Pl, moilh is a popular place to call home. The purchase of a home in Plymouth is a sound investment. Loca! government services are a good value to our growing population of over 40,000. jA prime objective of Plymouth City Councils has been to establish a financially sound local government; priding itself on the effective delivery of police, fire and crime prevention services, utility and street maintenance. park construction and maintenance, and development planning and building inspection services The key phrase in Plymouth City government is. "Planning for Our Future ". From a development per- spective, Plymouth has been weli- planned. We are now in the process of planning for water system improvements required by our continued growth and for the best and most economical means of im- proving our public safety and public works service : letivery system to'?ocommodate our growing community. t • I Services which you receive from your local government rep went approxiniatey 15C out of each pro- perty tax dollar. Your school district requires some 50 County appkximatey 30C, with the re- maining 5C allocated to various agencies includigg the Metropolitan Courtoil,,Park District, Regional Transit Board, and Mosquito Control District. While we are proud of our local government, we are even more proud of oiir residents. You represent Plymouths greatest resource. We invite you to actively participate in your local government, through watching City Council meetings and receiving other municipal information on cable channel 7, or through volunteering your time to serve on one of the City's three advisory commissions, or as a member of your local homeowners association. For further information, feel free to contact one of your City Council members listed below. Virgil Schneider Dave Gain Robert Zitur Mayor Council Member Council Member (559 -1111) (569 -1842) (559 -3728) Maria Vasiliou Jerry Sisk Council Member Council Member (473 -2316) (473 -0573) FROM JULIE E. WASHBURN P.O. BOX 2000 THURMONT, MD 21786 HOMESTEAD DECLARATION CARD PLEASE DO NOT BEND OR FOLD THIS CARD CITY OF PLYMOUTH, CITY ASSESSOR 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD. PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 Information About Your Homestead Application You can have only one homestead. By sigmr.g iris application, ypu declare that the p•cperty desmoeo o' the front Of this Card is your homestead that you Owned and live*p it on January 2. 1967, and that you have np other homegteyc: If the $7, —mere than two owners and there is not .=I face . the front Of 1. card to fill if. the" .signatures a Se -t numbers, attach. a sep- arate sheet with y r tX ;S. sgnatuli and Social Security numbers. rr f If you owned ant lived h%I prolli on January 2. 1987 but someone else's r i� printed on the front of this card. to have the pro atessified as your homestead please bring your;ee contact for deed or certificate of title to the City Assessors office. Because homeowners receive a consilkii ble reduction in property tax as a result of declaring their property to be their homestead, state law imposes severe penalties for persons convicted of declaring more than one homestead. You are required by law to include your Social Security number on your homestead application card, Soctat Security numbers enable the State of Minnesota to determine whether homeowners have applied for more than one homestead. Your Social Security number a private information. Under state law, your city government can give your Social Security number only to the Minnesota Depart- ment of Revenue. To ensure that your property is Classified as your homestead. you must sign this card, fill in your Social Security number, and mail the card to the address shown below no later than the date printed on the iron! or the card. l I FIRST I CLASS POSTAGE REQUIRED a .l 4— RETURN THIS CARD BY JANUARY 15, 1967 COMPLETE AND SIGN THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS CARD. DETACH AND RETURN THE ATTACH- ED HOMESTEAD DECLARATION E'r THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE. KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS IL =-3 DETACH PLEASE READ CAREFULLY F -- MN Statutes. SPC 27313 as amelded Subd 11 prowdes the! The Assessor may reoulre prof` L, or ahe—se o' the faC:_ 0- wh,c classatratron as a no —stead may be ttetermined_. I New owners since last January 2nd who have not already filed for tamesteac are reQ-ed to preser; a deed a contract for deed to p —.- ownership A NEW DECLARATION MUST BE FILED EACH YEAR Homestead declaration Cannot be filed fa property that is rented or vacant and is rot occupied by the owner. Accordin^y to State law. f/ —tea' declaration cannot be fwd before the date of acIWI occupancy by the owner. The husbano and wile, a all single persons mnng and fving at this residence must stpn this OeGaratior. Failure to relurr this Card will Cause your property to be assessed as nontgmestead and wil! result in a cohs.derabk increase in. ya:' m� estate taxes. NOTE State law provioes heavy penalties for submitting to an Assessor any affidavit or ort declanition wh is false m any maters' matte- STATE LAW NOW REOUIRES THAT SOCIAL SECURfTY NUMBERS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE REPORTED ON THIS HOMESTEAD DECLARATIy; SIGN AND RETURN THIS CARD INCLUDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER(S) O= THE OWNER(S) AND RETURN TO THE CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE NO LATER THAN JANUARY 15, 1987. YOUR P.I.N. NUMBER IS 12 34 5678 I/WE JULIE E. MASHBURN OWNED AND OCCUPIED THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AS MY/ OUR HOMESTEAD ON JANUARY 2. 1987 SIGNATURE! SOCIAL SECURITY NO S.S SIGNATURE SOCIAL SECURITY NC. DATE MOVED IN ADDRESS ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER DATE CA FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Community Education Task Force October 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND . 1 H. DEFINING CONCERNS 1 M. TASK FORCE PHILOSOPHY 3 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMMUNITY EDUCATION STRATEGY 4 APPENDIX A: TASK FORCE MEMBERS . A -1 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY: COMMUNITY HEARINGS 8-1 APPENDIX C: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS . C -1 I. LA COMMUNITY EDUCATION TASK FORCE REPORT BACKGROUND Between 1981 and 1984, the new availability of State funding for mental health residential treatment programs resulted in a rapid expansion of programs for mentally ill adults. As existing inner -city rooming houses were converted into licensed treatment programs, the facilities were required for the first time to obtain Conditional Use Permits (CUPS). The CUP notices sent to nearby homeowners and the subsequent series of public hearings focused new attention on the large numbers of community -based facilities located within the central cores of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth and other urban areas in Minnesota. In response to community concerns about over concentration, in 1984 the Minnesota Legislature passed Chapter 617, which not only prohibits further concentrations of State - licensed facilities, but also requires counties to develop plans to promote the decentralization of such programs. As part of the planning process, Hennepin County sought recommendations from a County- appointed zoning Task Force comprised of representatives from over - concentrated planning districts in Minneapolis, several municipal officials, suburban Human Service Councils, advocacy organizations, residential service providers and County staff. The resulting "Hennepin County Plan Regarding the Concentration of Group Homes" includes a 5 -year, 21 -step work plan designed to: 1) determine the need for facilities in underserved areas of the County; 2) prepare the community and facilities for any relocations; 3) assess and, if needed, expand the availability of support services required by group home residents in suburban areas; 4) relocate facilities as appropriate; and 5) improve and maintain the quality of remaining inner - city facilities. One component of the process of preparing for facility relocation is community education. The work plan includes the following task: "Coordinate a Task Force to develop guidelines for facilities to use in working with neighborhoods, and to develop materials, speakers and methods to educate municipalities about community service needs, clients and resi- dential services." Accordingly, the Community Education Task Force was named in October 1985, with representatives from the Human Service Councils, Minneapolis, suburban municipal- ities, service providers, client advocates and Hennepin County Community Services Department disability divisions. This report represents the findings and recom- mendations of that Task Force. (See Appendix A for a list of Task Force members.) DEFINING CONCERNS The development or relocation of group homes affects many individuals: the clients who utilize residential programs, their families, the program operators and staff, residents of the neighborhood, and the public officials who fund and regulate the facilities. Each of these groups has unique needs and concerns; likewise, each would have a role to play in any community education effort. Therefore, the first priority of the Task Force was to obtain a broader information base, and to define the areas of conflict and consensus between these diverse perspectives. - 2 - To accomplish this, the Task Force planned and held a series of five "hearings ", each focused on obtaining input from a particular target group: inner -city residents, suburban residents, elected officials and municipal staff, group home service providers, and clients /consumers. Hearing participants included specifically- invited key informants (e.g., suburban residents who had testified at initial CUP hearings for several facilities in different communities during the past 12 -24 months). Organi- zational representatives (staff from facilities which had recently relocated, members of a neighborhood organization and an association of residential treatment facilities, etc.) were also solicited. Finally, some participants attended as a result of mass mailings (e.g., posters at group homes). The site selections, hearing conveners and invitations were all designed to encourage each group to freely express concerns in a supportive environment. Suburban residents were invited by Human Rights Commissioners, Human Service Councils or Hennepin County to a meeting at Golden Valley City Hall, where the meeting was chaired by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Golden Valley Human flights Commission. Inner -city residents, on the other hand, met at a Minneapolis community center, at the invitation of the local City Council representative. Hennepin County and two client advocacy organizations invited consumers and their families to attend a hearing chaired by a County Commissioner at the Government Center. Municipal planning staff organized and chaired the hearing for other municipal representatives at Plymouth City Hall. Task Force members who operate group homes organized and chaired the provider meeting at a community - based residential facility in Golden Valley. The hearings resulted in a wealth of information on the ways group homes are perceived by people with different experiences and attitudes. A summary of each hearing is included in Appendix B; however, some generalizations are particularly noteworthy. Surprisingly, there were striking similarities in many of the concerns expressed at all five hearings. First, participants expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. All felt that the requirements were unclear, inconsistent and misleading, suggesting that neighborhood opposition could prevent the group home from opening when, in fact, current State statutes and recent case law seriously limit the municipality's ability to restrict group homes. There was also unanimous confusion about the roles of the cities, county and state in planning, funding and regulating group homes. No one understands the bureaucracies involved or has any knowledge of any specific contacts to call with questions. All groups, however, had very clear views about the need for group homes to be "good neighbors ", i.e., blend into the community, respond promptly to neighborhood concerns, maintain the property, avoid noise and traffic congestion. They also felt that providing information about residential facilities to municipalities and community residents early in the development process was necessary, although their reasons were quite varied. Some providers saw education as demonstrating compliance with municipal requirements, neighbors and municipal residents viewed information as the public's "right to know ", and a number of hearing participants hoped that such education would increase community acceptance of disabled clients. Suggestions for effective education were consistent: letting clients "speak for themselves ", inviting the community to visit and observe a group home, including neighborhood residents on facility advisory committees, providing written materials about disabilities and group homes. On a less positive note, some areas of conflict could be identified throughout the testimony. There is a high level of mistrust between the various groups. Many neighborhood residents expressed suspicion or even anger towards Hennepin County and, to a lesser degree, towards group home providers and municipal officials. Much of this appears to be directly attributable to confusion about organizational roles, lack - 3 - of any ongoing relationship, and the adversarial nature of the CUP process. Group home providers are similarly threatened by municipal officials and neighborhood residents, whom they view as obstacles to their mission of providing community -based care and treatment. Providers also view neighbors and city representatives as significantly more prejudiced than these groups see themselves. As a result of these conflicts, no group has much credibility with the others, a fact which would prove a major difficulty to an effective education program. Both residents and providers tend to dichotomize the issue (our rights versus theirs, winners versus losers), a tendency which is reinforced by the CUP process. These attitudes are basic and pervasive, usually obscuring the many areas where consensus does exist. Even the Task Force members discovered similar biases among themselves; although they were able to find common goals, the differences were always apparent. III. TASK FORCE PHILOSOPHY After completing the series of hearings, the Task Force discussed their own views about community education as a method of creating acceptance of group homes. It should be noted that no one believed community education would resolve all areas of conflict or assure neighborhood acceptance. In fact, most members agreed that acceptance will only be achieved after the group home has been in operation for a year or more. However, since public and community education also influences acceptance, the following key points were agreed upon and formed the foundation for the Task Force recommendations. Because of the current CUP process, education has become so directly tied to the political process that it cannot even be discussed as a separate issue. Municipal- ities require facilities to educate neighborhood residents prior to CUP hearings. Because both facilities' and neighborhood residents' primary agenda is to influence the final decision regarding whether the facility will be allowed to operate, the "educational" process is too highly charged to be objective. Community residents who oppose the facility may selectively utilize information as a weapon; facility operators may withhold information they feel could be used against them. Each side is too mistrustful of the other to be very amenable to the kind of open dialogue required if real education is to occur. Therefore, while the Task Force has developed recommendations, education cannot be fully effective unless it can be separated from what is currently a very controversial political process. • The purposes of any educational effort should be clarified, and strategies selected accordingly. Bureaucratic compliance and public education about disabilities are very different goals, and the most effective educational methods, timing, content and roles to achieve them may also vary. While ideally the goals of an education program should be compatible, in actual practice they may directly conflict. When agendas are not clear, no one's expectations are met and all end up confused, frustrated, angry and alienated. • Community education about group homes should focus on areas identified as concerns by neighborhoods and municipalities, i.e.,• impact on property values, fears about crime, confusion about state, county and municipal roles, local program need, etc. In addition, information about laws which regulate and those that offer protection for group homes should be provided. Consumers should play a major role in education efforts, in part because they are viewed as the most credible spokespersons and also because interaction with consumers is the best method of dispelling stereotypes. - 4 - • Broad public education regarding the needs and rights of group home consumers and their families is also needed. This should be a large -scale effort, involving primarily reliance on passive exposure to information about group homes and disabilities. Experience has shown that people will not seek out this type of information unless they are directly affected by the issue. But by the time the issue is immediate, emotional reactions and political realities prevent any real education from occurring. Information should be provided in advance, through public service announcements, newspaper and magazine articles, ads, inserts, etc. • Municipalities, the County and the State should re- examine the current require- ments for locating group homes -- particularly the conditional use permit process. All applicable zoning laws should be reviewed to see which of the current constraints are good land use policies and which are no longer consistent with State statutes and case law. Compromises should be discussed. For example, if density, size, spacing and other realistic land use protections are in place, and if the facility maintains compliance with State licensing standards, municipalities might be willing to consider group homes as a permitted use. • Providers need to be more aware of local zoning districts and zoning issues. While group homes should have the right to normal settings, a facility for 15 -20 adults is not the same as a single family residence. Suburban zoning ordinances offer greater latitude than most providers think, and appropriate zoning should be one of the primary factors in site selection, not the last consideration. Also, providers need to do some soul- searching about their real investment in neighbor- hood education and relations. Attitude changes take time, and efforts must be ongoing even if no immediate response is apparent. Municipal relationships are also important. Officials want information before the issue is raised by neighborhood residents and need to be fully informed well before any public controvery. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMMUNITY EDUCATION STRATEGY Task Force members' third task was to develop recommendations for community education about group homes. This included a review of videotapes, brochures and other materials which might be utilized as a part of the education process (see Appendix C for an annotated bibliography of materials), as well as discussions about new materials needed. The recommendations which follow represent an integrated approach to educating the public, municipalities and neighborhood residents. Broad - based public education about group homes and their clients is combined with targeted education for speck municipalities and neighborhoods where particular facilities may re locate. While many groups should have a role in the education process (Human Service Councils, Human Rights Commissions, advocacy organizations, service providers, the County), one agency should coordinate implementation. The Task Force proposes that Hennepin County assume this lead role, coordinating community education with the 1985 Plan Regarding the Concentration of Group Homes. 1. Hennepin County should develop an "information kit" on group homes, to be provided to municipalities. Materials to be included: -- Summary description of Hennepin County's plan to relocate facilities from overconcentrated to underserved areas. -- Summary of State statutes and case law related to group home zoning issues. - 5 - -- Descriptions of the different types of community -based resident facilities in Hennepin County. -- Materials on group home clients and their disabilities, incidence statistics, etc. -- A list of key contacts and phone numbers (County, State, advocacy organi- zations, service provider groups, Human Service Councils) for further infor- mation on group homes and group home clients. -- A bibliography of relevant articles, videotapes, etc., which can be used to educate neighborhood residents, city staff and municipal officials. (See Appendix C.) 2. Hennepin County should also provide regular (at least annually) information and updates to municipalities about the relocation plan, new regulations and other issues related to group homes. 3. Hennepin County should work with the Human Service Councils, advocacy organizations, Human Rights Commissions and service providers to secure funding for the development of a series of public service announcements and other media efforts focusing on the needs of disabled people and the services provided by group homes. These PSAs would be aired prior to the planned relocation of group homes. Since the timing, content and format are critical to the success of public education, professional expertise should be sought -- possibly through donated time by ad agencies, schools of communication, etc. Additional methods could include inserts in local newspapers and arranging for videotapes to be run on local cable television. 4. Hennepin County should encourage the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to adopt a peer consultation "buddy system" to assist in group home development. Municipalities which have had experiences with new facilities could designate a staff person who would be available to consult with other cities when and if a facility may express an interest in moving into their area. Municipalities are likely to feel more comfortable accepting consultation on practical issues from another city which has already experienced the process. 5. The County should locate agencies and organizations which would agree to provide speakers for community groups and municipalities. Speakers would include consumers, their families and neighborhood residents who can dispell stereotypes, discuss the needs of various disability groups, and describe the effectiveness of group homes. The County could then act as a central clearinghouse for requests for speakers and refer requests to the appropriate organization(s). This would be critical, both prior to and during any conditional use permit process for specific facilities, but should also be available on request for general public education. 6. When a residential service provider is considering a move to a specific municipality, the County, City, provider, local Human Service Council and relevant - disability advocacy organization should closely coordinate a targeted education program of meetings, tours, articles, etc. Where Hennepin County is responsible for funding the facility, the County should initiate contact with the municipality early in the process and offer information and consultation. The County should also offer the service provider a packet of materials and methods successfully used by other group homes, such as the Oasis Program materials and - 6 - CRISP booklets (see Appendix C), and allow sufficient start -up time to enable the provider to work with the City and neighborhood. 7. Hennepin County should work with other agencies, human rights commissions and organizations to obtain funding for and develop a short community education videotape that addresses the typical concerns and stereotypes regarding group homes and group home clients. Although many useful materials and videotapes are available, there is no comparable tape which can concisely and visually address the specific fears of neighborhood residents and municipalities. Such a videotape should include consumers as speakers, show typical facilities and be narrated by a familiar, trusted figure such as Dave Moore. The tape could then be copied and used both for broad -based public education (cable TV, in schools, churches, etc.) and also for specific targeted education (neighborhood groups, municipal staff, elected officials). A professionally developed videotape would be effective for all types of programs, throughout any facility relocation process. 8. Facility operators and staff should be aware that the most important community education occurs after the facility opens its doors. Active participation in the community, open houses, including neighborhood residents on facility advisory councils and responding promptly to community concerns are the most effective methods of gaining community acceptance for clients and group homes. While staff must protect client privacy, consumers can and do speak effectively for themselves. — APPENDIX A COMMUNITY EDUCATION TASK FORCE John Jeffers, Chairperson North Minneapolis, HSC 1122 Upton Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 347- 5864(W); 529 -5309 (H) Brian Coyle Councilmember City of Minneapolis Mail Code 920 348 -2206 Bob Mayer Longfellow-Nokomis HSC 5708 - 26th Avenue South Minneapolis, 'VIN 55417 729 -1699 John Lindstrom, Chairperson Central Hennepin HSC 3324 South Tenth Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55407 825 -2354 Fred Moore Southwest /Calhoun /Isles HSC 5953 Emerson Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55419 Dan Hartman, Chairperson Northwest Hennepin HSC 7323 - 58th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55422 Susan Morrison, Chairperson West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Norris Olson, Chairperson South Hennepin HSC 9801 Penn Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 Stephen 8eske Apartment 211 10311 Cedar Lake Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 546 -1482 Paul D. Hoffman Eastside HSC 2307 Quincy Avenue Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55418 788 -7755 Dennis Ottoson Central HSC 1725 Nicollet Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 870 -1463 Neil C. Gustafson 3144 Irving Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55408 824 -8949 Mary Cayan, Director Northwest HSC 7323 - 58th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55422 536 -0327 Marcy Shapiro, Director West Hennepin HSC 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 920 -5533 Tom Esser, Director South Hennepin HSC 9801 Penn Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55431 888 -5530 Jim Auron Mental Health Association of Hennepin County 328 East Hennepin Minneapolis, MN 55414 331 -6840 Roger Engstrom Community Resources Division Mail Code 130 348 -3850 Susan Lentz Legal Aid of Minneapolis 222 Grant Exchange Building 323 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 332 -7301 Nancy Rosendahl Executive Director Omegon 2000 Hopkins Crossroads Minnetonka, MN 55343 541 -4738 David Morin Kelly Institute /Oasis 6739 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 544 -1447 John Raun Executive Director Home Away 223 West Franklin Minneapolis, MN 55404 871 -1096 Ryan Schroeder Assistant to City Manager City of Robbinsdale 4221 Lake Road Robbinsdale, MN 55422 537 -4345 Ed Jenkins Human Rights Commissioner 11102 Xavier Court Bloomington, MN 55427 888 -3547 Jim St. George 307 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 Mail Code 920 348 -2206 Kateh Keating Central Hennepin HSC 2471 Elliot Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 871 -0172 Sue Winans, Director Longfellow - Nokomis HSC 1789 Ford Parkway St. Paul, MN 55116 Kathy Klein Rem, Inc. 21 Westwood Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 541 -9421 Bud Morin ARC Hennepin County 3929 Orchid Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 553 -9214 (H); 874 -6650 (W) Charles D. Crandall Crandall Management Corp. One Groveland Terrace Minneapolis, MN 55403 374 -4854 Edward Retka, President Eastside HSC 224 - 22nd Avenue Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55418 781 -7644 A -2 Benno W. Salewski Minnesota Association of Health Care Facilities 2850 'Metro Drive #429 Bloomington, MN 55420 854 -2844 Blair Tremere City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 559 -2800 Ann Perry Director of Planning 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55343 933 -2511 Gerald Splinter, Manager 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 561 -5440 Julie Gottesleben Mental Retardation Mail Code 141 348 -5962 Chuck Heinecke Chemical Dependency Mail Code 612 347 -7794 Tish Halloran Mental Health Mail Code 165 347 -6442 Bonny Miller Community Resources Division 348 -4108 Marge Wherley Adult /Child Placement Community Resources Mail Code 130 348 -4829 APPENDIX B SUMMARY: NEIGHBORHOOD HEARINGS At hearings in Minneapolis and Golden Valley, residents of center city Minneapolis and several suburban communities (Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center, Bloomington) shared similar concerns about group homes: 1. Information Neighborhood residents are nearly unanimous in their dissatisfaction with the information that is provided to them about group homes. They have strong feelings about who gets what information, from what source, and at what stage in the process. Since there are no standardized procedures for educating communities, neighborhood residents are left to develop their own expectations - -which are never met. The concensus is that neither the city, county, nor the state is willing or able to share information, and therefore, too little information is provided too late to too few people. The accuracy of the little information which is available and the credibility of those presenting it are also questioned (particularly group home providers, who are viewed as having a tremendous incentive to give incomplete, misleading or even false information). 2. Process The process for approving group homes was strongly criticized. First, there is a widespread lack of understanding regarding every aspect of the conditional use permit process, from the initial notification (why property owners but not tenants? why only those within a specific limited radius of the proposed site ?), through the public hearings (what is the purpose of the hearings? what is the role of the planning commission versus the city council? why is some information considered acceptable as testimony and other information "cannot be considered ? "), to the final decision (what are the factors which actually determine the final outcome ?). Several residents proposed making the process more restrictive: requiring more discussion with neighborhood residents, more time for the decision - making process, decisions based on a poll of the neighborhood, etc. Several others expressed frustration with the notice and public hearings, which falsely suggested that neighborhood opposition can influence the final decision. Neighborhood residents then organize petitions and retain legal counsel, only to be finally told (sometimes many months later) that statutory changes and case law require the city to approve the facility. They feel residents should be told the rules of the game honestly; to do less only encourages and sustains conflict and angry feeli ngs. 3. Bureaucratic Problems Considering the problems neighborhood residents have obtaining information and their general dissatisfaction with the CUP process, it is not surprising that they feel a great deal of confusion and resentment about city, county, and state governments. Citizens clearly do not understand the roles of the various jurisdictions or their relationship to the CUP process. The bureau- cracies are perceived as insensitive and inaccessible, and neighborhood residents do not trust that "the system" will treat them fairly. Hennepin County is especially blamed for "forcing group homes down our throat" without making an effort to inform the neighborhoods or consider the impact of its decisions. As might be expected, residents express feelings of powerlessness in dealing with government agencies and resentment that their needs and fears are discounted. 4. "Good Neighbor" Issues All neighborhood residents expressed their expectation that group homes be "good neighbors ", and their attitudes about what constitutes ---v- --,-A a good neighbor were strikingly similar. Group homes should be meticulous about proper trash disposal; keep their buildings and lawns in good condition; control the behavior of their clients, and not disturb the peace (i.e., police calls are very unacceptable); be responsive to neighborhood concerns; take a proactive stand towards resolving problems; follow through on all promises in a timely fashion; keep the community informed and contribute in a positive way to the quality of the neighborhood. Parking and traffic congestion are also common concerns, and while neighborhood residents are aware that persons with problems are less able to interact with the community, neighbors clearly expect them to try. Behavior which stands out is noticed, and even casual interactions may be subject to close scrutiny. 5. Location The particular sites selected by group homes is another area of concern. This is particularly true in the center city area of Minneapolis, where many facilities are concentrated. There, neighborhood residents stress that it is not so much the presence of a group home that they object to as it is the presence of a large number of facilities, which "changes the character of the neighborhood ". In general, residents of most communities prefer facilities to locate outside of areas which are exclusively single family residential. Fringe areas, areas that include other uses, such as commercial or multi - residential rental areas are preferred. Community residents also suggest property that has some form of natural or constructed barrier such as a fence, street, or undeveloped area. However, typically, they object to locations near parks where children play, an indication of the extent of the fears and stereotypes which still surround group home clients. Many residents mentioned potential safety hazards near the sites selected for group homes -- traffic, lack of sidewalks, etc. Although these hazards would also affect any other user of the property, group home residents are perceived to be less able to manage their environment safely. 6. Emotional Reactions Although they appear to be reluctant to discuss their personal feelings about the presence of disabled people in their communities, some neighborhood residents did reference the "strain" of living near a group home. They acknowledge that they did not and do not know what to expect from the people living in these facilities, and as a result, are always aware of the presence of group home clients in their neighborhood. The ambivalence and anxiety they feel contributes to their lack of comfort with the facility. While some community members have made concerted efforts to educate themselves and are more tolerant of group homes as a result, concerns remain. Residents are not invited to block parties; they are perceived as "looking at you funny "; if they "play basketball outside at night" or "throw a frisbee across the road ", their behavior is viewed as strange. Residents complain that the clients should try to blend in, but there is also the suggestion that "they should all have reflective tape put on their jackets so we don't accidentally hit them with a car ". Several community people discussed their "Christian obligations" and attempts to decide whether their resistance to the group home was based on prejudice. Their conclusion was that it was not related to stereotypes, but to legitimate concerns about the best interests of both the clients and their own neighborhoods. SUMMARY: MUNICIPAL HEARING Representatives of the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, New Hope, Plymouth, Brooklyn Center, Hopkins, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, and Minneapolis shared their concerns regarding group homes. Not only were their perceptions very similar, but they were also consistent with the concerns expressed by neighborhood residents. R -3 1. Information All of the municipalities expressed the need for adequate infor- mation about group homes to be made available to both city staff and the affected neighborhood. Currently, the only information offered to the cities is the notice sent by the State Licensing Division. Additional information may be available at the State or County level, but most often suburban municipalities are not familiar enough with bureaucratic roles to know where to go or what questions to ask. Access to information is viewed as highly limited, perhaps intentionally. Criticism is particularly directed at Hennepin County, which is viewed as having primary responsibility for developing group homes, but rarely sharing any infor- mation unless specifically asked. However, even if city staff have access to general and specific information about group homes, they are somewhat skeptical about the possibility of using that information proactively to educate their community as a method of preventing or defusing neighborhood opposition. Several representatives pointed out that in their experience people do not generally participate in education about community issues until the problem affects them directly. But by the time the public hearing takes place, it is already too late to expect any education about group homes to take place. 2. Process There are strong feelings by many municipal staff that the current process is confusing, inconsistent and ineffective. State notifications may be late, inaccurate, and /or delivered to the wrong office. State requirements specify that cities notify property owners within 100 feet, 350 feet, or 500 feet of the affected site, depending upon the zoning issue involved. But neighborhood residents never understand the distance requirements and are upset over what is perceived as an arbitrary choice of citizens for notification. Deadlines are also imposed by the State, County, or provider, based upon funding availability, program need, or purchase agreements, adding further pressure to the process. While the State requires that the city utilize citizen participation in the zoning process, legislative restrictions and case law make it virtually impossible to deny approval to a group home. An adversarial situation is thus inevitable, with the cities "lacking in any possible recourse for resolving the conflict ". In addition, even when public hearings are not required by law, politicians at any level may set up their own "hearings ". This creates a precedent, leading community residents to expect a public forum or series of forums for expressing neighborhood dissent. By the time a reactionary climate is established, "all sides feel threatened and may strike out ", escalating the conflict. In all, cities feel caught between bureaucracies, providers, consumers, and citizens. Several municipal staff voiced the need to revise the process but wondered whether the various interest groups and politicians would support any change in the status quo if it lessened their own power and influence. 3. Bureaucratic Obstacles Like neighborhood residents, municipal representatives are generally frustrated by the complexity of the planning, funding, and monitoring systems established by the State and the County. Thus, they find it difficult to find information, much less to share that information with their own elected officials and community residents. One major barrier mentioned was the lack of any personal relationship with an informed, credible contact at the County or State. Because they do not know whom to call or trust, there is always a barrier to cooperative problem - solving during the facility approval process. There is also resentment that the County does not share specific service development and dispersal plans (or their impact), the State "overrules local land use plans" and both "prohibit the local jurisdiction from monitoring or enforcing quality assurance standards ". While the County and State have assumed all authority, it u M-1 is the municipality that must be responsible for providing education to school - aged group home residents, transportation and other support services. Better working relations, i.e., more communication and cooperation, would make everyone's job much easier. 4. Overconcentration The Minneapolis representative, while supporting the views of suburban municipalities, had an additional concern which outweighed any other issue. The disproportionate number of group homes in the downtown areas of Minneapolis continues to be a major concern for community residents and municipal officials. While well- regulated group homes are considered to be good neighbors, an overconcentration of facilities and the presence of "unlicensed" facilities is a source of much frustration and resentment. This situation is viewed with alarm by inner -ring suburbs, particularly since State requirements and County plans include a strong emphasis on promoting the dispersal of facilities from concentrated areas. Most municipalities have had little experience with group homes and may fear that there will be an exodus of facilities from Minneapolis, creating new "treatment ghettos" in the suburbs. SUMMARY: GROUP HOME PROVIDER HEARING Several group home directors shared problems they encountered during the process of implementing facilities in suburban neighborhoods. 1. Information One of the greatest dilemmas which face group home providers is exactly how much information to provide to communities and municipalities. There are risks in sharing either too little or too much information. Group home operators generally try to be honest but careful. Choice of terminology, examples used, responses to questions, etc., are always carefully weighed for potential impact, i.e., possible misinterpretation or unintentional reinforcement of stereotypes regarding the disabled. It is also very difficult for providers to find local allies willing to openly support them or assist in educating residents; "even churches have constituencies ". The difficulty of finding groups or individuals willing to take the risk of alienating their own communities during a highly visible, political process means that providers must do all the education alone. The obvious lack of support only intensifies opposition which further weakens the program's ability to attract support in a vicious cycle that is really impossible to break. Group home operators often devote a great deal of effort to community education, including open houses, tours, meetings, leaflets, newsletters, etc. Yet they perceive little positive response. Often it seems as though the more the provider attempts to contact neighbors, the more controversy and organized opposition results. The more information provided, the more opportunity is created for misuse of that information - -words taken out of context, mis- quotations, selective recall. And since there is still neighborhood resistance, regardless of the amount of information provided, group home operators are discouraged and see little visible benefit to their efforts. Overall, most service providers view neighborhood opposition as directly related to the negative stereotypes society continues to hold regarding handicapped people, and they feel a great deal of professional and personal resentment about what they view as discrimination against their clients. In fact, the position taken by some advocates and providers who work with the mentally retarded is that ="'l retarded clients "have the civil and legal right to live anywhere they choose without asking anyone's permission ". Since any new group home for retarded adults has six or fewer clients and thus is not subject to any special zoning requirements, the operators do not have to inform communities prior to opening, and they often choose to provide information after the facility is established. 2. Process Group home providers are also very confused and frustrated with the process for approving group homes. First, the requirements and procedures vary widely from city to city; some municipalities have had no experience with group homes and therefore have no defined process for approval or denial. Even more difficult than finding out about the legal requirements within a city, there are numerous indirect, unspoken expectations on the part of elected officials, city staff, planning commissions, and residents. Those expectations not only vary depending upon who the provider talks to, but they also may change over time. Cities always expect providers to "work with the neighborhood ", but since there are never any specific requirements describing the timelines, frequency, extent and format, providers are rarely able to determine whether their efforts are acceptable. Providers are frustrated by the "unwritten rules" which they know may affect the final decision regarding their facility. They also perceive some cities as actively looking for ways to prevent any group home from being established in their community. Methods include excessive and unnecessarily expensive building requirements, and CUP denials which officials know would be overturned in court, but would cost the provider so much to litigate that the operator is financially unable to challenge the decision. SUMMARY: CONSUMER HEARING A large number of group home clients and several family members attended a hearing to present their experiences with treatment programs and their views about community acceptance. 1. Group Home Experiences Clients believe strongly that group homes fill a critical service need. Those who spoke suffered from a variety of disabilities and handicaps, including chemical dependency, mental illness, borderline mental retardation, and chronic physical health problems. They described their long struggle to increase their level of independence and achieve normal lives. All felt that community -based residential treatment programs were essential to their rehabilitation. Many gave examples of the ways in which group homes had enriched their lives, building self- esteem, positive relationships and the skills needed to gain control over their handicaps. Some also shared problems they had experienced in facilities that were too large and institutional, offered too little structure and /or too few choices for clients. As would be expected, people who have lived in group homes have clear ideas about what they want from a treatment facility, and their expectations are not dissimilar from those of neighborhood residents. Clients prefer small, "normal" facilities that blend into the surrounding neighborhood, are reasonably close to transportation and support services, and are well- supervised. They expect group home clients to get along with the community, avoid disturbing the peace and refrain from abusing alcohol or drugs. 2. Facility Location One client stated that the current emphasis on the dispersal of facilities from inner -city areas of Minneapolis was very frightening to the clients U -6 in his facility, and several other clients also spoke about their desire not to relocate from the city neighborhoods where they now feel at home. If forced to relocate, they are afraid they would lose access to the nearby services upon which they depend for medical care, vocational training, etc. These service networks have taken some clients many years to develop. On the other hand, some clients expressed their preference for suburban group homes. Some were originally from suburban areas and felt that the inner -city neighborhoods in which their group homes are located are not safe. A parent described her wish to find a facility for her son close to home, in an area of Minneapolis where there are currently no group homes. The conclusion by the clients who attended the hearing was that choice was the key factor. If adequate numbers of facilities were available in all areas of the County, clients would be able to select the location that was best suited to their individual needs and preferences. One client observed that facility locations should also be related to program purpose. A facility designed as a permanent home should be the most integrated into the community; clients in shorter -term programs would be less likely to develop ongoing relationships within a specific geographic area. Programs which rely on special support services in the community have different transportation and access needs than a program which is more self- contained. 3. Community Acceptance Versus Stereotypes Clients are clearly aware of the myths and stereotypes about the disabled which lead to neighborhood opposition to group homes. They view distorted and sensationalized media portrayals as the greatest contributor to prejudice and discrimination. But while they are in obvious agreement about the negative effects of stereotypes, they are divided in their opinions about what, if anything, should be done about community resistance. Some clients care very much about whether their neighbors accept them. They know "it's hard to get accepted as we are - -not perfect, disabled, but trying ". They believe that clients and group home staff should try to open communication by offering tours of group homes, open houses, and opportunities to talk with clients, particularly successful clients. Other clients, however, are less concerned about neighborhood attitudes. Several felt that they were so actively involved in treatment that they rarely even interacted with their neighbors. Acceptance "would be nice, but isn't necessary" and "unless neighbors are abusive, it doesn't affect me ". These clients felt the visibility that would be created by a real educational effort would be detrimental to them; their preference is for "neighbors not to know who we are ", so they can proceed with their treatment program in privacy. APPENDIX C EDUCATION MATERIALS Videotaaes About Clients and Programs "Just Like Me, Just Like You" with Dave :Moore, narrator, Association of Residences for the Retarded in Minnesota /McKnight Foundation, 1985, videotape 19 minutes. Regarding de institutionalization of mentally retarded persons and community -based residential facilities. Six clients are represented. Used in high schools, parent and provider groups, staff training. Hennepin County and ARM have copies. "With Open Arms" '_Mental Health Advocates Coalition, 1984, videotape 48 minutes. Regarding mentally ill clients and continuum of services, community support. Three persons' lives depicted. Useful with community groups, municipal staff, elected officials and for public education. "There's No Place Like Home ", West Hennepin Human Services Council, 30 minutes. Children living in a group home for mentally retarded. Useful for public education and education of municipal staff, elected officials, community groups. "Perspectives on the Development of Suburban Mental Health Residential Facilities ", Northwest and West Hennepin Human Services Councils and Mental Health Association of Hennepin County, 1985, videotape 1+ hours. Panel of persons involved with siting of Oasis in Golden Valley from perspectives of history, clinical, provider, consumer, rules /funding, mayor, and city staff. Developed primarily to educate municipal staff. Written Materials for Providers and Communities "The Neighborhood Advisory Committee: Prompting Interaction Between Residence and Community "; Community Residences Information Services Program CRISP , 66 Fulton Street, White Plains, New York 10606 (914) 328 -7802. A 51 -page handbook for facility operators who want to develop Neighborhood Advisory Committees. Practical information on role, functions, committee guidelines, membership, recruit- ment, selection, training and problem resolution. "A Guide for Site Selection and Leasin.g Community Residences ", Community Residences Information Services Program (CRISP). A booklet for group home operators. Discusses community zoning issues, site selection factors, working with real estate agents and lease negotiations, with sample forms for assessing potential sites. "Gaining Community Acceptance: A Handbook for Community Residence Planners ", CRISP. A 40 -page booklet for group home operators, County planners and municipal staff. Includes articles on education and planning strategies; zoning and other legal issues; working with the media. Also includes a model statutory site selection process, guidelines for organizing a community education meeting, establishing a speakers' bureau. "There Goes the Neighborhood ", CRISP. A 74 -page summary of studies addressing common fears about the effects of group homes on neighborhoods: declining property values, crime, detenorating quality of life and loss of local control of interest to elected officials, municipal staff, community groups and group home providers. C -2 "Community -Based Residential Facilities: Perspectives and Choices ", The Mental Health Association of Minnesota and the Minnesota Mental Health Law Project. Includes articles on the human, legal, planning and regulatory perspectives, regarding group homes, as well as the Public Welfare Licensing Act and a list of agencies to contact for further information. Most useful to municipal officials and staff. Oasis Program Provider Resources. A overcoming neighborhood opposition, and suburban facility for mentally ill adults education "newsletter ", etc.). packet of articles on property values, materials used by Oasis in developing a (support letters, clippings, a community Scriptographic booklets, Channing L. Bete Co., Inc., Greenfield, MA: (1) "What Everyone Should Know About 'Mental Retardation "; (2) "What Everyone Should Know About Mental Health "; (3) "Who's Who in Mental Health Care "; (4) "What You Should Know About Mental Illness in the Family "; (5) "About Prescription ',Medications for Mental Health "; (S) "Let's Talk About Mental Health" - An Information Activities Book (for children). Basic public /community education resources using easily understood pictures and descriptions. "Attitudes Awareness and Communication ", regarding understanding disabilities, "Do's and Don'ts" for relating to hearing impaired, visually impaired, and physically disabled persons. Courage Center. Community groups, neighborhood residents. •' a MINNLSOTA VEFIFING 411 LNMN PLAZA 333 NORTH \%A-,H I.NG'I'ON A\ E. \11NNI APOLIS. NJINNLSOTA :x:.101 m]2134'1-27:r4 SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT MINNESOTA MEETING Featuring Mayor Henry Cisneros RESCHEDULED The MINNESOTA MEETING luncheon on December 22, featuring Mayor Henry Cisneros, has been rescheduled as a breakfast meeting. Date: Monday, December 22, 1986 Place: Marriott City Center Grand Portage Ballroom 30 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Time: 7:00 -7:30 a.m. breakfast 7:30 -9:00 a.m. speech by Mayor Cisneros We just learned this morning that due to an emergency budget meeting in San Antonio, Mayor Cisneros will be unable to address the MINNESOTA MEETING luncheon as planned. We have rescheduled the meeting and Mayor Cisneros now will address the MINNESOTA MEETING at a breakfast session. The program will be from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. at the Marriott City Center in downtown Minneapolis. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused by this change in schedule. Enclosed is a new registration form for the breakfast meeting. Please complete the form and return it immediately. (If you have already sent your check for the MINNESOTA MEETING luncheon, and cannot attend the breakfast, we will refund your payment.) Again, please inconv "nce. / erely, J' a ecek Exec ve Direc 349 -2754 accept our—, apologies for the =- s Please check one of the following: Please reserve places for me at the MINNESOTA MEETING featuring Mayor Cisneros at the Marriott City Center on Monday, December 22, 1986. reservation(s) are for members ($15 each) and are for guests ($20 each). I've enclosed a check for $ , payable to the MINNESOTA MEETING.* I have already sent in my reservation for the Cisneros program, and will attend the breakfast on December 22, 1986. I have sent in my reservation for the Cisneros program, but cannot attend the breakfast meeting on December 22, 1986. Please send me a refund in the amount of my reservation. Name Company or Affiliation Telephone Guest(s) Name Company or Affiliation Telephone *Please return this form, with payment, in the enclosed envelope. We request payment by check only. Thank you. MINNESOTA MEETING 411 UNION PLAZA 333 NORTH WASHINGTON AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 - p OL/ December 12, 1986 Mr. Mark Ryan Project Manager Regional Transit Board 270 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 '/ CITY O� PLYMQU i �- SUBJECT: 1986 & 1987 BUDGET REVISIONS FOR PLYMOUTH METROLINK Dear Mark: At the December 4th RTB Finance and Administration Committee meeting, you advised committee members that a request would be forthcoming from the City of Plymouth to revise the 1986 contract amount over than originally approved, and to revise the 1987 contract amount over your staff recommendation to the committee. This letter outlines both requests. Since its inception in October 1983, Plymouth Metrolink has had the good fortune not suffer from declining ridership as have most other bus systems. Instead, we have consistently added passengers system -wide at a rate of 10 to 12 percent per annum. The table below displays daily ridership averages by month for calendar years 1984 through 1986. The table verifies total system ridership increasing 11 percent between 1994 and 1985, and 12 percent between 1985 and 1956. -:00 PLYMOUTH BOU_-_:',RD. PLY^." UTH. PAINNES- 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800 DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY MONTH FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1984 - 1986 SERVICE TYPE Commuter/ Internal Total Reverse Commuter Circulator System 14ONTH: 1984 1985 1986 1984 1985 1986 1984 1985 1986 January 330 307 351 21 51 40 351 358 391 February 310 292 350 25 50 47 335 342 394 March 307 311 338 25 56 64 332 367 402 April 301 295 354 27 55 44 331 350 398 May 295 298 332 27 36 35 322 334 367 June 276 314 349 41 53 64 317 367 413 July 277 297 328 42 52 62 319 349 390 August 266 292 328 47 57 73 313 349 401 September 275 322 354 32 42 33 307 364 387 October 276 312 384 36 55 40 312 367 424 November 271 311 396 35 57 50 306 368 446 December 265 320 39 52 - - - - -- 304 --------------- 372 - - - -- -------- - - - - -- YEAR LONG ------------ - - - - -- ------------ AVERAGE 287 306 351 36 51 50 321 357 401 -:00 PLYMOUTH BOU_-_:',RD. PLY^." UTH. PAINNES- 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800 Mr. Mark Kyan December 12, 1986 Page two We are pleased that unlike most contemporary transit systems, we are adding rather than losing ridership. Added ridership, however, is a mixed blessing. Increasinq ridership has made it necessary in 1984, 1985, and 1986 to regularly add vehicles to accommodate our new patrons. As early as 1983, it became necessary for Medicine Lake Lines to activate one spare bus to carry additional ridership. The same thinq occurred in 1984, and has occurred once again In 1986. We have grown from a system of seven buses with two budgeted spares in 1984, to ten buses with no spares beginninq the last month of 1986 and for calendar year 1987. In 1984 and 1985, the budget negotiation process for Plymouth Metrolink for Medicine Lake Lines did not capture the true costs of the additions of these vehicles. In other words, the pressure to control annual budgetary cost growth was controlled to the point where the contracts written between the City of Plymouth and Medicine Lake Lines provided an insufficient amount for Medicine Lake Lines to recover their true expenses. Consequently, both in 1984 and in 1985, and now again in 1986, Medicine Lake Lines will suffer non - recoverable losses in operating funds unless the RTB authorizes an amendment to our 1986 budget and 1987 proposal. For information purposes, I have assembled the table below showing total system operating costs for 1984, 1985, 1986 as originally proposed and as requested, and the 1987 requested budget. MLL Total Operating Expenditures Revenue Net MLL Plymouth Expenses PLYMOUTH METROLINK COST COMPARISONS 12/10/86 1986 1984 1985 Original 1986 Contract Actual Contract Requested $ 305,928 $ 398,323 $ 437,000 $ 483,350 85,093 112,461 126,800 121,300 220,835 285,862 $ 10,000 7,115 310,200 45,000 362,050 45,000 1987 Requested S 526,700 124,250 402,450 40,500 TOTAL SUBSIDY REQUIRED $ 230,835 $ 292,977 $ 355,200 $ 407,050 $ 442,950 Total subsidy costs required for Plymouth Metrolink have increased from $230,835 in 1984 to $407,050 in 1986. In large part, this substantial increase is brought about by the fact that Medicine Lake Lines did not fully account for the fiscal impact of ridership increases upon the budget costs each year since 1984. In other words, Mr. Mark Kyan December 12, 1986 Page three �. Lock,,/ subsequent year budgets following- 1984 were based upon inflationary increase and not actual increased costs due to increased demand. This fact has been exacerbated by substantial insurance increases and reduced charter revenues. Moreover, an additional vehicle has been added in 1986 as a direct result of increases in the peak period beginning in November. We would expect that this additional vehicle will be required throughout 1987 and have budgeted accordingly. If it is not necessary during the normally slow summer months, there would be an associated savings in the 1987 budget. The bottom line is that our request is for a one -time adjustment of $51,850 (i.e. the difference between the original contract of $355,200 and the requested budget of $407,050) to respond to the added costs to the system caused by incremental vehicle additions since 1984 as the result of increasing ridership. The 1987 requested budget is $35,900 more than the requested 1986 budget. Of this request, $37,950 is directly attributable to the added peak period bus made necessary by added ridership. We will endeavor to reduce this increase during the course of 1987 if we find that it is unnecessary to operate the additional peak period bus because of the normally lower ridership experienced during the summer months. No one, least of all the City of Plymouth or Regional Transit Board, wants to see precipitous increases in transit system costs. However, success can be a two -edoed sword. The addition of riders ultimately translates into additional vehicles, drivers amd associated costs. Those costs have to be recognized as the price of success. I am attaching for information, the Regional Transit Board financial plan projections prepared by Medicine Lake Lines for the requested 1986 and requested 1987 budgets. We are asking that the Regional Transit Board approve the request to revise the 1986 budget and the 1987 budget recognizing the following factors: 1. No enhancements will be made to internal circulator service in 1986 and in calendar year 1987. 2. Service to Prudential or other major employers will be investigated first on a cost sharing basis and not normally as part of the Plymouth Metrolink program. 3. Assuming the 1.5 mill levy contribution by Plymouth in 1987, the community will contribute $900,000 to regional transit. Of this amount, $442,950 or just less than half of Plymouth's contribution would be required to subsidize Plymouth Metrolink. The remainder remains available to assist other communities in enhancing and maintaining their transit service levels. 4. If Medicine Lake Lines' 1988 requested budget increases outside of added service by an amount exceeding inflation, I would be willing to publicly bid the system in order that all parties can rest assured that the fees charged are reasonable and realistic. Your positive consideration of this request is needed to keep Plymouth Metrolink in operation for the remainder of this year, and for calendar year 1987. dim Johnson of Medicine Lake Lines and I will be present at the December 15 Regional Transit Board meeting to respond to any questions you or members of the Board may have. Mr. Mark Ryan Lock-,,, December 12, 1986 lock% Page four Yours ver trul Frank Boyles Assistant City Manager FB: f m attach cc: dim Johnson, Medicine Lake Lines PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District 284 WAYZATA WEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL WAYZATA BOULEVARD & BARRY AVENUE WAYZATA, MN 55391 (612) 475 -4580 December 8, 1986 Mr. Frank Boyles 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth,MN 55447 Dear Mr. Boyles, Thank you so much for your participation in our career afternoon at Wayzata West. The response from our ninth graders was very positive. We believe that many seeds were planted and that students have gained very valuable insights into career possibilities. The entire Wayzata West staff would also like to express our sincere appreciation to you for giving your afternoon to this project. We realize the importance of community support and involvement in the education of young poeple. Cooperation between business and education can only bring benefits to all concerned. Thanks so much for helping. Sincerely,L� Sharen Hilliard IDEA Coordinator WWJHS SH /mh 0 A.• C� i -T- v��� December 1, 1986 10008 S. Shore Drive Minneapolis, MN 55441 Hon. Virgil Schneider, Mayor City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mayor Schneider: I thank you for your recent action in appointing a Study Committee to evaluate the Ordinances covering residential areas in the City of Plymouth. Specifically, I appreciate your studying the effect of facilities such as Alpha House on the Medicine Lake area. If I can be of any assistance to you in this regard, I would appreciate your letting me know. Best wishes. JLC /AI43 Sincerely yours, James L. Craig, M.D. December - i, 198 9910 South Shore 'rive r ly;nouth, I`, :i' S5;' ` 1 ,'argil Schneider w Council :,_embers 11520 446h Avenue I' orth lymouth, P:innesota 55 :2 Dear I�Ie:mbers of ;lymouth City Government, The following is some recent information that has come to my attention that may interest you: Keith Hartman, I�.D., listed as a consultant for Alpha House no longer consults for them and has not for quite some time - at least a ,,ear or more. Mr. Kaplan is no longer thought to be a J -eader for treatment of sexual abuse in Minneapolis. Dr. Hartman•F office now refers patients to Bill Seals & Assoc. ;" n 'ark Ave. ti outh, ;Minneapolis, phone #,'`870 -7329 (,�.r. -Donahue from childrens theater was referred to ',' r. Seal.. Aaron P,iark :':. _ . F.�c Iciedica?_ arts Building, Minneapolis, 1�_n. ' 0' e �� nh-ysicals on .re e � -F 4 c prison to 'J 4 �-� ���.: �"fi ^= �:o ionr er accepts these the :�111_ta House pro` ;:_c ". .i �� - patient:- du- --o r,,*), - -,,)-- ^_cnt of the bill by Alpha House. I ancy memter of alpha House has resigned from board - reasons given: personal safety and belief that Kaplans choice of a site ir. .'lymouth i� inappropriate. I v!ould also like each of you to know that I respect the positions trcu have each taken and feel warmly towards each of you and also the members of the planning commission because of the way you have all conducted this process. Sincerely, Terrie Christian -^ Loll Sincerely, LeFEVERE1, LEFLER, KENNEDY, t1BRj0 & DRAILIZ me,. T111 Thomso JJT/kjj cc: James G. Willis Enclosure Lclu%cic 1,01cl Iv-1111f(I., 0" I _. 4- DEC IS WK V HP Ulf ff ffit"1111014 11 ­4 ?oon r it q, fiitii, rin(­ *ost December. 17 1986 Mum-)IIA1,; MiIIII-o-) 551102 16121 :Ml 051,1 I Irilwit P I "fl"I ,I P-m-AMIwil Mr. itichard J. Cai-lquist , I , 11, 1 r- 111 t,. , 7 rl:,,Jdj Public Safety Director ,11.1,,1 11 P­­, C1111)' OF PLYMOUTH C;1"1111 F 3400 Pl.vinouth Boulevard plymnlitii, Minnesota 55447 Allit ... ZA 111,1111""11)'.11 RE: Contribution to Bullet-Proof Vest Fund Plinlif 161n Dear Chief Carlquist: A)IIII N. 1:1• .,,j Chvjq 1A F, n c I o -, n d i. s a check in the amount of $350.00 as a contribution to the City's bullet-proof vest fund. We stromily support this worthwhile endeavor that has been spearheaded by Bob Nesbitt and Roger Redmond. If there is anythinq else we can do to motivate others in the Cot, I,)" A community to make a contribution, please feel free to ,i1r r, contact Mo. c.(-)()(1 .].uck in your fundraising efforts. Sincerely, LeFEVERE1, LEFLER, KENNEDY, t1BRj0 & DRAILIZ me,. T111 Thomso JJT/kjj cc: James G. Willis Enclosure