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