HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 09-13-1985CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
September 13, 1985
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. PLYMOUTH FORUM -- Monday, September 16, 7:00 p.m. Plymouth Forum in
Council Conference Room.
2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, September 16, 7:30 p.m. Special
City Council meeting in City Council Chambers.
3. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS -- Tuesday, September 17, 7:30
p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals will meet in the
City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-3)
4. PLYMOUTH HISTORICAL SOCIETY ANNIVERSARY -- Sunday, September 15.
The Plymouth Historical Society will be celebrating the 100th
anniversary of the old Town Hall and 10th anniversary of the
Historical Society from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Town Hall Museum.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....
1. COUNCIL MEETING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ISSUES - DRAFT AGENDA --
Attached is a draft agenda for the eptember 24 City Council meeting
to discuss special assessment matters. If the Council desires any
items added to this agenda, I would appreciate being so advised.
(I-1)
2. TRAFFIC LIGHT AT COUNTY ROAD 9 AND COUNTY ROAD 61 -- The new traffic
light installation at this intersection is now working! The City
will be blacktopping a small portion of either side of County Road
61 along County Road 9 to provide for a through traffic lane, while
other traffic is waiting to turn left.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
L11T IUUNCIL 1NFOKMA11UNAL MEMORANDUM
September 13, 1985
Page 2
3. ELM CREEK DRAINAGE ISSUE -- Fred Moore has provided the attached
report on actions taken by the Elm Creek Watershed Management
Commission on the Elm Creek flooding issue. (I-3)
4. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS -- Th following departmental activity reports
for the month of August are attached:
a. Planning Applications (I -4a)
b. Building Inspections (I -4b)
5. PLYMOUTH DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROGRAM -- The six month
report covering January 1, 1985 to June 30, 1985 of the Plymouth
Domestic Assault Intervention Program is attached for your infor-
mation. (I-5)
6. METROPOLITAN TAX -BASE SHARING -- The Citizens League has published
the attached report entitled, "Preserving Metropolitan Tax -Base
Sharing - A Report to the Minnesota Legislature". The report
discusses the fiscal disparities law and the impact the Bloomington
megamall proposal to change it would have on the metropolitan area
cities. (I-6)
7. LOWERING LOCAL TAXES -- The attached article, "We Can Lower Local
Taxes", was sent to us by Mr. Kenneth Gilmore, Editor -in -Chief for
Reader's Digest. The article describes the approach taken in
Phoenix and neighboring Arizona communities, where the emphasis has
been on privatization of public services at considerably lower
cost. (I-7)
8. SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COORDINATION EFFORTS -- Attached is a copy of
a status report from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
to members of the Solid Waste Abatement Coordinating Committee, of
which Pat Hoyt Neils is a member. (I-8)
9. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter to Municipal Legislative Commission officers advising of
the City's withdrawal from the MLC effective January 1, 1986.
(I -9a)
b. Letter to Mr. Dick Lewis, President, Hawthorne Pond Homeowners
Association, from City Manager, responding to concerns of the
Homeowners Association. (I -9b)
c. Letter to Mayor and Council from Mrs. Paul Molnau, 3190 E.
Medicine Lake Blvd., commenting on trail improvements made on
the east side of Medicine Lake. (I -9c)
d. Letter to Bob Roscoe, Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, from Fred Moore on
the interruption of utility service and relocation of mailboxes
during the Carlson Center 3rd Addition improvement project.
(I -9d)
CITY COUNCIL
September 13,
Page 3
INFORMATIONAL
1985
e. Letter to Sohn Muchlinski, from Mayor Davenport, responding to
Mr. Muchlinski's letter of September 1, regarding the vegetable
stand at 10th Avenue and Highway 101. (I -9e)
f. Letter from Bill Frenzel to League of Minnesota Cities President
Connie Morrison, concerning the federal tax reform bill. (I -9f)
James G. Willis
City Manager
AGENDA
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
Tuesday, September 17,1985
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. NEW BUSINESS
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
Council Chambers
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota
7:30 P.M.
August 12, 1985
A. Mike Terry located at 18530 22nd Avenue North, variance from the
minimum building front yard setback.
B. Roger Thompson located at 2410 Urbandale Lane North, variance from
minimum building side yard setback.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT MATTERS
September 24, 1985
6:00 p.m.
I. Herb Lefler, Sr. - Discussion of statute and court cases which have
impacted special assessment practices
II. Fred Moore - Review of current City policy
III. Fred Moore - Review of survey results showing what other
communities are doing.
IV. Discussion of alternative means of financing, i.e. development
districts.
V. Future Directions/Recommendations
-�E- 3
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
DATE:
September 13, 1985 MEMO
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Fred Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT Elm Creek Drainage Issue
The Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission held their monthly meeting on
Wednesday, September 11th. One of the items on the agenda was the investi-
gative report on the flooding of Elm Creek adjacent to County Road 47.
Attached is a copy of the report received at the meeting on this issue.
On September 9th the Plymouth City Council authorized the funding of a study on
Elm Creek to be conducted by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission.
With regard to that study the Commission adopted the following motion:
The Chairman is authorized to enter into an agreement with Barr
Engineering on behalf of the ECWMC to verify the cause of flooding
of Elm Creek, upstream of County Road 47, to review the effect of
channel modifications on the flood problem, prepare cost estimates
for channel modifications and for preparation of a report summarizing
the need for and the effect of the modifications. The scope and cost
of the report shall be approved by the Cities of Maple Grove and
Plymouth, who will pay for the cost of the report. The Commission
is not committed at this time to implement the recommendation of the
report.
The Maple Grove City Council will be considering authorizing funding of their
share of this study at their Council meeting on September 16th. The Maple
Grove staff is also recommending approval for funding of the study.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:kh
Attachment: Report
cc: Howard Hunt
PLYMOUTH FLOODING
RESULTING FROM RAINFALL
By: Leon M. Zeug, P.E.
September, 1985
PLYMOUTH FLOODING
At the request of the Elm Creek Watershed Management
Commission, the Hennepin Conservation District investigated
local flooding of some private property adjacent to Elm
Creek in Plymouth. The property owners, who requested the ,
assistance of the Commission, state that the duration of
flooding is longer now than previous years because of down-
stream channel blockage. This report presents technical in-
formation necessary for evaluating the duration of flooding
due to rainfalls on Elm Creek.
The HCD offers the following alternative, which was ad-
dressed in a report during September, 1984. This investiga-
tion uses the proposed excavated channel to determine the
duration of flooding resulting from rainfall.
EXCAVATED CHANNEL
Excavating the channel requires reconstruction of cross
sections 91 and 92 by a dragline as shown by, Figures 1 and
2. The channel profile, field investigations, and hydraulic
modeling show that the hydraulic control point along mile
17.5, Figure 3, is at cross section 92.
The channel profile was surveyed during January, 1974
while establishing the control points for the following
aerial survey for topography. Field investigations found an
actively eroding gully, shown in Figure 4, at cross section
92 which is the most likely source of the accumulated
sediment. This accumulated sediment was found by soil
borings in the channel at cross section 92 during August,
1985.
Figures 1 and 2 show the revised geometry of cross sec-
tions 91 and 92, representing a practical size for equipment
operation along the stream. The one foot cut at cross sec-
tion 92 represents an approximate depth of sedimentation.
The soil sampler could not penetrate deeper than one foot
because of operations in flowing water. Soil sampling up-
stream of the gully found dense, natural soils, rather than
a significant deposition of sand and silt.
In addition to excavating the channel, the eroding
gully shall be stabilized so that approximately one foot of
the channel as shown on Figure 2 could be excavated. A
small dragline would complete the channel work though. the
gully would require other construction methods. Tables 1
and 2 list the changed flood characteristics between exist-
ing conditions and this alternative. This analysis repre-
sents a single event rainfall flood and not- the affects of
above normal annual precipitation.
Stabilizing the gully, shown in Figure 4, is necessary
before work can begin on the channel. This gully, according
to its size and maturity of trees, has been actively eroding
to Elm Creek for many years. A series of rock or timber
check dams would stabilize the water course of the gully,
preventing additional erosion. Trees within this gully re-
quire trimming and thinning since the shade has prevented
establishment of any effective ground cover on the banks of
the gully. During the stream survey, no other source of
sediment to Elm Creek was obvious.
TABLE 1
RELATIVE DECREASE IN RAINFALL FLOOD DURATION
Flood
Existing
Existing
Excavated
Excavated
Frequency
Elevation
Channel
Channel
Change
Years
MSL
Days
Days
Days
5
341
373
921.52
1
918
1.9
0.8
1.1
921.39
919
1.1
0.5
0.6
920
0.5
0
0.5
2
918
2.3
1.0
1.3
919
1.4
0.7
0.7
920
0.8
0.2
0.6
5
918
2.8
1.3
1.5
919
1.8
1.0
0.8
201
1.1
0.7
0.4
921
0.7
0.0
0'.7
10
918
3.3
1.5
1.8
919
2.0
1.2
0.8
920
1.4
1.0
0.4
921
0.9
0.5
0.4
922
0.04
0
0.04
TABLE 2
PEAK DISCHARGES FROM RAINFALL
STRUCTURE 08
Flood Frequency Discharge
Years CFS
Elevation
Feet Above MSL
Existing
Excavated
Existing
Excavated
1
170
213
920.35
919.44
2
244
282
920.88
920.05
5
341
373
921.52
920.80
10
415
439
922.00
921.39
3
This investigation also evaluated the change in the 100
year flood downstream of the excavated reach. This analysis
did not recompute thte flood profile, rather it determined
the change in stage and discharge at- critical hydralic
control points. The following table summarizes the changes
computed by the TR -20 hydrologic model for the watershed.
TABLE 3
CHANGES TO THE 100 YEAR SNOWMELT FLOOD
Struct/ Existing Excavated
Landmark XSect Channel Channel Chanqe
The excavated channel does increase flooding
downstream, mostly in Maple Grove. Consequently, the
project should include a mitigating measure for these
negative effects.
SUMMARY
The proposed alternative will certainly decrease the
duration of floods for the property owner. However,
clearing the channel of any vegetation is temporary since
vegetation will naturally repopulate the channel. If the
channel is excavated, the identified active gully should be
It
Q
Stage
Q
Stage
Q
Stage
Co. Rd 47
08
575
923.71
604
923.18
29
-0.53
Co. Rd. 10
12
681
911.52
717
911.63
36
0.11
Weaver Lk Rd.
17
835
898.69
851
898.78
16
0.09
Outlet Rice Lk.
23
1028
894.27
1040
894.29
12
0.02
Riverview Ln.
25
1115
872.78
1124
872.81
9
0.03
DS of Elm Cr Rd
59
2310
2321
11
Outlet Hayden Lk
68
2618
857.92
2627
857.93
9
0.01
Mill Pond
69
2631
2640
9
The excavated channel does increase flooding
downstream, mostly in Maple Grove. Consequently, the
project should include a mitigating measure for these
negative effects.
SUMMARY
The proposed alternative will certainly decrease the
duration of floods for the property owner. However,
clearing the channel of any vegetation is temporary since
vegetation will naturally repopulate the channel. If the
channel is excavated, the identified active gully should be
It
stabilized in order to eliminate any additional sediment de-
position. The hydraulic computations showed that the water
surface profile does not change upstream of river mile 18.5.
However, the channel modifications will displace flood
storage from this wetland downstream. The project should
also include mitigating measures to alleviate the increased
downstream flooding. To complete this investigation, the
ECWMC should request that the HCD develop several alterna-
tives and evaluate their hydrologic and hydraulic impacts.
These alternatives could then be reviewed by the Commission
and the communities and then designed for construction'by a
consulting engineer.
This analysis used the hydrologic model and the hy-
draulic model, both which determined the flood plain in the
ECWMC Management Plan. The data files used for this analy-
sis are available through the HCD.
S
N 0 I r V1 V,
-ISW 7^°'o►b "I "1111P O13
_ 8
Tv
s
e
N
^N
F�
it'
7
QV�
Vjh'/
yLU
N
f
L
a
—
Til
S
N 0 I r V1 V,
-ISW 7^°'o►b "I "1111P O13
_ 8
Tv
s
e
N
e
O
L
— V1
40-^
s
1
1
I
.O
ci
'
cr
'y
All
1-4
.0
c
.o
0
V)
l
V
�
H
V
w
2
e
W w "
c qr ir
-1%W -Zrwa1d V)aA %AI
O
— V1
I
1
I
1
1
I
-
'
12
'y
1-4
c
.o
0
W w "
c qr ir
-1%W -Zrwa1d V)aA %AI
-3
- .
,.
;- i�: - -
F-;cy r` 3
cti.o„n„e t t ro�� k E nw, crep-k
= N �'-T::
-
.
- - --- ?' ::: tJ.+�;::.., J:1..�� .�_
EiF
-ir.
�~�
J� _:
.i`_
-
'i.�~..:
_�...�"-•.-:1:'.
s
_
:
:-.-
1tTI
c�::;—__-.�r.1_:"::�1
:.jTJ77!]
''.�-
?.�'j.i_
.
`:r-1::�,3
Y 1
-i•1sgy.:
''::.tt;;T—Y-^ii:2,.�
—m,
3=-.
�'.:N.,
L,J
Y-.
_ __±
- . .
24 :r
.s
_}:
-I"7.�1
_-
.1�?•t�
_T•:t'
y-::':':��»?'1:.
'.:'.
--_-t=
:�_I_::_'
_+;-jj1
-.te:�,:�J�1
:'.
:'
i:::
^a_"
._
:_2A
:.�z_1;.
0 UJ
+
2:_1_
�.::;
,_
r'It_:om_`_^
i�
.:�0i,:�i(-:�T-'1,�
�?
f7-
l AVMH0lH..AjNno:)
m
0961.
_ :t: _ 1
:_
..�.i:-.
i i: f
•'7: x.;:27
'1
:1T,,�1'J'.1"
1JS
i
��
r
.t•1�f}..�i•-•.1-rL'QQ
7 _
:`',i�#r7,`�r
r:1i:ft�
,-�__-
.2
,:
::y
.�_�;:,.1_�r•
„—
�
•
7L:
_.:`
4-
14
47-
-}"._—
i.:J.+i+
;—:•,_•-+!,
�_-.�_.
�.,�.7{If�.1.,..
..^Ji.
,....
?T•ii~-TT:?i-.
:•_Yj;1.
:'1:,_
i#'..�.�.:.:.j.,�.::,..i
:_21:.r.,��,:.J+
'i_`
�,:+'�?::i_';..:..7"';�_1i
?i.�1
".:3.••
.•::
-'��i1
�?1�I
1..?:_�rt.
+fJ-��.i
#_fJ.1,i
-
�
--•.•_.__—'_:-^•:._,-L
`•_�-_
J
.:..
_JJIi
tf»';
�:,=-;-.:_
.•,:.
�r•:-.L�=-71'--.�
.
S.�117,."
-��
.=.'
�:t,i.1��
:�2:�",1`r.3:�-;:. T'-a::
=�j'���—
:.?i
'.:�11:'?.:
FIT
...i
�:.iJ�
�:'
:,:j;7 ::•,�i=
.
'�j�
"�•ai:
./
._
«r-�.—:�"'
_—"._CO►�
l;
E4_
^
,i—t;.�
+isi
NV:W03dii
7=�-:::,.-
,_
._
_'
i{�
-:2::s'-. -
.+i:'
_'t'
0
Z~
Tit-'
a:::
�,i?l7ii..:,'��;
r om
�.
•`-
�+._
__--G
. a
�,.
�-.,�.:_
I
.
,}
t"�f.
�1jj
2j«j,�,
'.,:J�
.:::�- ..
.i-.
,..:?_
1�.
.3iii:
-♦
7-
...........f
._ice..-.
3
7: djr
-i—:j(75W1K7i0CLW3~
13
EI
F-;cy r` 3
cti.o„n„e t t ro�� k E nw, crep-k
k
Li
Ar -t -;*.t Vtl*evz. of Etr^ Crek '-
V
W
N � �
'1SW 7►�00�� �� vI •+o��ona13
IF,
w
J
ov
C
f'
L
V
D
°r
+1
V
N
o
s
H
i/1
-r
J
V
W
N � �
'1SW 7►�00�� �� vI •+o��ona13
IF,
w
e
7 V 7, O
FLLJ
N
z °v
r � o
Q
avr°W`�z
o pe 4_z
f; w L; � =
I
'►SW 3nCf9tl 133 NI Nolld�3'13
W
Vol
d
C -v
71:- -'A 0.
COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE
The following figures represent the number of applications received and in
Planning Department for the month of: August 1965
THIS YEAR THIS M014TH
TYPE OF APPLICATION MONTH TO DATE LAST YEAR
process by the
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
Site Plan
6
42
6
45
Preliminary Plats*/RLS
3
23
2
24
Final Plats*/RLS
2
37
5
39
PUD Concept Plans
-
5
-
7
PUD Preliminary Plats
1
6
-
10
PUD Final Plats
2
15
4
24
Conditional Use Permits
5
39
4
41
Rezonings**
1
10
1
13
Lot Division/Consolidation
3
25
4
20
Variances
2
34
5
35
Sign Plans
-
_
_
1
Site Plan Amendments
1
1
Rev General Development Plans
-
1
Land Use Guide Plan Amendments**
-
5
1
6
Landscape Plans
-
-
Other
TOTAL
26
245
34
265
* Other than Planned Unit Developments
**Includes Planned Unit Developments
r
—T -7 --'Ac).--.
COMPARISON OF PLANNING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE
The follo«ing figures represent the number of applications received and .in orocess hw to"'
Planning Department for the month of: August 1955
TYPE OF APPLICATION
duly
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Site Plan
10
6
Preliminary Plats*/RLS
4
3
Final Plats*/RLS
9
2
PUD Concept Plans
1
-
PUD Preliminary Plats
2
1
PUD Final Plats
2
2
Conditional Use Permits
S
5
Rezonings**
2
1
Lot Division/Consolidstiyi
4
3
Variances
9
2
Sion Plans
-
-
Site Plan .Amendments
-
1
Rev General Development dans
-
-
Land Use Guide Plan Amv-dments**
1
-
Landscape Plans
-
-
Other
-
-
TOTALS
52
26
* Other than Planned Unit Developments
**Includes Planned Vnit Developments
MONTHLY PERMIT ISSUANCE
BUILDING DIV
AUGUST 1985
BUILDING PERMITS
CURRENT
Y.T.D.
1984
L.Y.T.D
Public
1
4
0
1
Comm/Ind/New
4
10
2
10
Alteration
11
77
7
60
Residential
58
477
51
434
Multi -Family
0
16
0
6
Remodeling
41
346
43
357
Foundations
1
3
2
3
Garage
3
9
7
35
TOTALS
119
942
112
906
VALUATION/PERMITS
Public
$22,551
$1,702,016
t0
$361,000
Comm/Ind/New
2,331,638
5,941,638
10,320,000
16,372,952
Alteration
499,026
3,679,025
589,400
4,299,677
Residential
5,731,595
39,797,295
4,084,532
35,786,883
Multi -Family
2,610,000
12,120,000
0
3,546,400
Remodeling
261,690
1,959,335
306,442
2,318,188
Foundations
100,000
680,000
200,000
460,000
Garage
21,500
--------
55,185
-------
36,000
---------
176,443
-------
TOTALS
$11,578,000
$65,934,494
$15,536,374
$63,321,543
OTHER PERMITS
Plumbing
107
858
91
743
Mechanical
107
695
85
692
Signs
3
64
17
98
Grading
1
9
7
12
Wells
3
14
1
3
Moving
0
4
0
0
Septic/Removal
16
83
0
0
Demolish
0
2
1
4
TOTALS
237
1,729
202
1,552
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
$36,382
$260,398
$51,319
$261,749
PLAN CHECK FEES
$20,182
$138,512
27,148
$138,652
SAC FEES
$36,975
$339,100
$62,475
$280,925
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
60
272
24
229
I -\b
SEWER 3 WATER ACTIVITY CURRENT Y T.D.
SEWER & WATER CONNECTIONS
Sewer 72 462
Water 75 482
TOTALS 147 944
METERS ISSUED
5/8 X 3/4 inch
61
453
3/4 inch
3
34
1 inch
1
2
1 1/2 inch
5
23
2 inch
1
3
3 inch
0
0
4 inch
0
5
TOTALS
71
520
DOMESTIC ASSAUL-f- NTERVENTION PROGRAM �-- ►�
Quarterly Report (Cumulative) - 1 / 1/ 85 to 6130/85
I POLICE
A. Mandatory Reports/Arrests
# %
B. Reasons for Non -Arrests
/ %
Domestic Assault Calls
24 100
Domestic Assault Reports
TM
No Probable Cause
5
Arrests
-77
Gone on arrival
5
Non -Arrests
-77 -
No assault
1
Complaints Filed
By o ice
1 4
By Victim
II PROSECUTION
A. Convictions
G. _Sentencing_
Guilty Plea at Arraignment
3 12
Guilty Plea in Court
6 24
Behay. Trtmt/Time Std/Fine
3
B. Trial
Behay. Trtmt only
l
Behay. Trtmt./ Fine 30 hrs.
Guilty
Community Service
2
Not Guilty
__ & CD/Fine Time Std
l
C. Charges Dropped
Behay. Trtmt./CD/575 to
2 8
Intervention Project
1
D. Pending Court—CD
8 33
rtmt an ime serve
2
E. Charges
Time served
No S/S charge
1
1
1st Degree Assault
CD Trtmt/Time Std/Fine
1
2nd Degree Assault
3rd Degree Assault
4th Degree As s a u l t
__ 1
5th Degree Assault
12
Violation Protection Order
Disturbing Peace
Disorderly Conduct
H. Number assailants mandated to
Outstanding Warrant
vio ent a avior treatment
9 37
Other
I. Assailant Compliance
F. Charges Amended
On Probation
1
In Compliance
Not In Compliance
Revocation Initiated
-7-
I VICTIMS/ASSAILANTS
A. Victims (Arrests)
Nome Visits
C. Victims (Arrests and Non -Arrests
Phone Contact Only
5 42
7
Legal Information Given
20 83
No Contact
Protection Order Filed
—z -
Court Accompaniment
B, Victim(Non-Arrests
Phone ntact
6 55
D. Educational Groups
Mail Contact
No Contact
roups vai a e
I.P. Women Attending
1
Community Women Attending
77-
TE.
E.Assailants
Jail Visits
9 75
PRESERVING METROPOLITAN
TAX -BASE SHARING
A Report to t ie Mlitnesota Legislature
REP
t
r
..x' s .� .,� s
v `
,!ffi.t �� .yin K-ei., ° �/� '�a l •Fr� � � r
TABLE OF C ICUTEWIS
This report is divided into three sections.
The first discusses the fundamental flaws in using tax -base sharing to finance
Bloomington's proposed megamall and proposes more equitable ways of providing
regional assistance.
The second section is a table canparing the property tax impact on metropolitan
area cities from using a uniform netropolitan mill rate and from using the
exemption from tax -base sharing law as proposed by Bloomington.
The final section of the report c1scusses what the tax -base sharing law is, its
history, arra how Bloomington's proposal to change it would affect the Twin
Cities area.
I. A Better Way Than an Exemption from Tax -Base Sharing...p. 3
II. 1411 Rate Comparisons..................................p. 7
III. Understanding the Tax -Base Sharing Law.................p. 11
-3 -
Section I
A Better Way Than an Exemption from Tax -Base Sharing
In recent weeks Bloomington's proposal for ambitious redevelopment of the old
Metropolitan Stadium site, and the coipeting interests of Bloomington and
Minneapolis in building a new convention center, have dominated the public
policy agenda. Unfortunately, the debate has concentrated on the narrow,
competitive dimension, ignoring for the most part the broad interest of the
entire metropolitan area in the re solu tion of both questions.
Blocmingtcn seeks an exemption from the metropolitan tax -base sharing law to
help finance development of the stadium site. Also, the mayors of both
Blocadngtcn and Minneapolis have suggested that some use of this regional pool
of money makes sense to underwrite the operation of a new convention center,
wherever it might be built. The law (sometimes called ';fiscal disparities') is
a means of distributing equitably the prosperity achieved through new
commercial or industrial development.
pRDpOSAIS TO USE THE TAX BASE SHARING SYSTEM FOR FINANCING LEVELOPMENT ARE
PROPOSALS TD RkISE PROPERTY TAXES THROLrjHD Tr THE SEVEN-CGLN IY TWIN CITIES
METROPOLITAN AREA. IF PROPERTY TAXES ARE AN APPROPRIATE; SCURCE OF SUPPORT FOR
THESE PR DJE CTS , EXR1FI' DG PRQJE1Z T5 FROM TAX BASE SHARING IS THE WORST WAY TO
PROCEED; IT RAISES TAXES IN PRECISELY THOSE CONMJNITIES WITH THE LEAST FISCAL
CAPACITY. A EMT ER WAY IS 9D RAISE THE NMEY TREATIINv ALL METROPCEI T AN CITIES
ALIKE.
The proposed Bloomington exemption would produce wide differences in property
tax increases among metropolitan area cities. The biggest increases would be
' among those cities that are below-average in tax base. The increase would be
highest in Circle Pines (1.996 mills), Saint Paul Park (1.948 mills), and
Blaine (1.827 mills) . The smallest increases in mills would be in cities that
are above-average in tax base. The increase would be smallest in Bloomington
itself (a reduction of .436 mills) , North Oaks (an increase of .127 mills),
- Orono, ( .191 mills) , Wayzata ( .196 mills) , and Edina, ( .199 mills) . The
increase in Minneapolis would be .843 mills and in Saint Paul, 1.143 mills.
By contrast, the Legislature could raise the same amount of money by treating
every city the same. In that case the mill rate would be uniform, .7% mills,
across the entire seven -county metropolitan area. All cities, regardless of
wealth, would pay the same rate. (fie the table on pages 7-10.)
The Bloomington site matters much to the whole region. It is an
extraordinarily well situated parcel, one that invites special, perhaps even
spectacular, development. Bloomington is not a self-contained coamunity, set
apart from the region; its people and its econcmy interact gaily with the
entire metropolitan region. Wiat hapfpers at this site will affect public
investment in infrastructure, in s ery i ces, in business activity, and
potentially adds to the quality of opportunities for all metropolitan
residents.
The same may be said of a convention center. They are never built for what
they are, but wantea far what they bring: a stream of people with money to
spend for hospitality, services, recreation, and merchandise. A new convention
-4-
center, well conceived as to size, design, and location, is an important
investment that affects the potential prosperity of a broad range of businesses
in the region.
The primary impact—both the benefit and the burden— of either project may
fall more on the Inst city, but the benefits particularly spread themselves
across the region. In these one -of -a -kind projects, the case can be made for
same public financial assistance; and when the project's magnitude overwhelms
the host city's fiscal capacity, it makes sense to spread the base of
assistance across the region.
That is exactly what Bloomingtonhas proposed. But the method it
suggests -man exemption from the reg ion al tax base sharing pool --is both
unfair and unwise.
It is unfair because it pushes the burden of financing the Bloomi%tan
project mostly toward those ccmmrmnities with the least commercial
develcpmennt of their own. If the project area is exempted from tax base
sharing, then every city in the metropolitan area will have to raise its
miU rates just to stay even; and this burden will fall most heavily on
the have-not c omoz ties.
It is unwise because, while it creates an illusion of a cost-free
contribution, it really amounts to an open-ended subsidy from the regional
tax base. The subsidy grows year after year as the value of properties in
the project district grows. No taxes are levied directly, but the expense
to the public is there nonetheless; if assistance is needed, the public
int ere st is better served with d ired: action, not one that results in
hidden property tax increases.
Besides, it would unravel the thread of collective support for the tax
base sharing law. Myors of other cities timat have been net contributors
to the regional pool far many years are already saying that if this
project is exempted, support for the sharing system will dissolve-
rapidly.
issolrerapidly. If we lose tax base sharing, the result will be precisely those
wide disparities in wealth that plague so many metropolitan areas around
the country; the Twin Cities metropolitan area is widely admired for a
system that mitigates those disparities. As it is, the ratio of the most
wealthy city to the least wealthy is four to one. Without this law, the
differences would be 15 to ene.
Finally, this is not just a metropci itan issue. Any reduction, not to
mention the removal entirely, of the effects of tax base sharing in the
metropolitan area creates a new class of needy cities with predictable
consequences for local government aid and school aid formulas.
In sum, good development need not be accomplished at the expense of bad
policy-imaki ng . Other ways exist:
—If property tax appears to be the preferred source of assistance to
the project, raise the revenue through a direct, metropolitan -wide
property tax levy. This approach treats all cities alike; it does not
impose a heavier burden on the have-not cities. And only the revenue
actually needed for a specific neber of years would be raised. Based
r s-�
on Bloomington's own estimate of need, the mill rate required would be
0.796. The table on purges 7-10 c cmpares this approach with what
I
Bloomington off icials have suggested.
—M -ie Legislature could establish a metropolitan redevelopment fund.
We have recanmended previously ametrcpolitan sales tax, with one of
its uses being to finance major publicly -assisted private
redevelopment projects in the metropolitan area.
'Ihe Leg i slat ure should not allow sales taxes in the me t ropol i tan area
to be levied on anything less than a fully metropolitan basis, to
avoid disparities in the sales tax similar to those which have
developed with the property tax. Thus the Legislature should not
allow municipal sales taxes to be levied in tdnneapolis, Bloomington
or any other city. If the sales tax is to be used, it should be
spread uniformly throughout the mre trcpolitan area, with the revenues
distributed on a metropoel it an basis, not returned to the place of
collection.
—Blocmingtcn could do more with resources generated Locally, without
outside assistance. Fcr example, BLooudrgton;s tax -increment revenues
are projected conservatively. Even assuming only a modest
inflaticnary growth, irrespective of whether the actual value of the
project grows, assessed value is likely to more than double Buri%
that time. Such a growth in valuation automatically increases the
dollars available to Bloomington.
If Bloomington raises a 1 eg it ima to question regarding its capacity to
handle the magnitude of bonding for the public a ssi stance proposed
(because of the size of the project relative to the size of the city; s
tax base), the Legislature could establish a metropolitan -wide
guarantee fcr the tax -increment. bonds. This step would provide the
security sought by urderwriters and also may result in a lower rate of
int ere st.
Finally, to reduce the possibility of a ruinously precedent -setting
exerptioh now cr in the future, the Legislature should set a schedule for
phasing out those exemptions left over frau date of the law's enactment.
While none has been granted since, the invitation to do so seems to linger
because of the original exenptiors.
-7 -
Sect ion II
Mi 11 Rate Campari sans
The attached table shops the results of our comparison for most cities
over 2,500 population in the sever -county metropolitan arez:.
Colum 1 illustrates that the d 11 rate would be .796 mills in every city
in the metropolitan area, if the Frcperty tax subsidy for the Bloomington
project totaled $12.1 mi ll ion ( the amount estimated by Bloomington
officials as needed from the metropolitan area's tax base) and if the tax
were spread uniformly.
Column 2 illustrates the estimated ccst in mill rates in each city if,
instead, Blocmington were granted an exemption from the ta: -base sharing
law, and the same amount of money, $12.1 million, were rai.,ed.
Column 3 illustrates the difference between Col urn 1 and Oc .l urn 2. If a
no minus sign precedes each number, the mill rate increase would be that
much more under the exemption option than with a uniform =.11 rate. If a
minus sign (-) precedes the nmmber, the mill rage increase fcr the city
would be that much less with an exemption than a uniform mill rate.
Column 4 illustrates that the additional tax paid by a home stead with an
assessor's market value of $B0,000 would be $13 if a unifo-rm mill rate of
.796 mills were imposed across the metropolitan area.
Column 5 illustrates the additional tax on an $B0,000 homestead in each
city if, instead, Bloomington were granted an exemption from the tax base
sharing law, and the same amount of mt;rncy, $12.1 million, r;ere raised.
Column 6 illustrates the diff ere nce between Column 4 and Column 5. If the
number is not in parenthesis, the dollar increase would be that much more
under the exemption option than with aunifczm mill rate. 1f the number is
in parenthesis (), the dollar increase would be that much less with an
exemption than a uniform mi 11 rate.
Af ton
Andover
Anoka
Apple Valley
Arden Hills
Bayport
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville
Champlin
Chanhassen
Chaska
Circle Pines
Columbia Heights
Coon Rapids
Corcoran
Cottage Grove
Crystal
Dayton
Eagan
East Bethel
Eden Prairie
Edina
Excelsior
't80,000
MILL
RATE
COMPARISON!
Metro
Bloom.
Differ -
Mill
Exmptn
ence
Rate
Mill Rate
in Mills
0.796
0.522
-0.274
0.796
1.436
0.64
0.796
1.316
0.52
0.796
1.258
0.462
0.796
0.4
-0.39f)
0.796
1.148
0.352
0.796
I.8i 7
1.031
0.796
-0.436
-1.232
0.796
0.972
0.176
0.796
1.347
0.551
0.796
0.656
-0.14
0.796
1.61
0.814
0.796
0.716
-0.08
0.796
1.415
0.619
0.796
1.996
1.2
0.796
1.211
0.415
0.796
1.497
0.701
0.796
0.953
0.157
0.796
1.444
0.648
0.796
1.339
0.543
0.796
1.728
0.932
0.796
0.557
-0.239
0.796
1.626
0.83
0.796
0.315
-0.481
0.796
0.199
-0.597
0.796
0.574
-0.222
't80,000
HOU' F
Tax With
Tax With
Differ -
Metro
Bloom.
ence
Mill Rate
Exmpt.ra
in doll ir.7
$13
$9
($4)
$13
$24
$11
$13
$22
$9
$13
$21
$8
$13
$7
($6)
$13
$19
$6
$13
$30
$1.7
$13
($7)
($20)
$13
$16
$3
$13
$22
$9
$13
$11
($2)
$13
$27
$14
$13
$12
($1)
$13
$23
$10
$13
$33
$20
$13
$20
$7
$13
$2S
$12
$13
$16
$3
$13
$24
$11
$13
$22
$9
$13
$29
$16
$13
$9
($4)
$13
$27
$14
-113
$5
($8)
313
33
(910)
$13
$10
($3)
MILL
RATE
COMPARISON
490,000
HOUSE
Metro
Bloom.
Differ--
Tax With
Tax With
Differ -
Mill
Exmptn
ence
Metro
Bloom.
ence
rRate
Mill Rate
in dills
Mill Rate
Exmpt.n
in dul1.r::,
Falcon Heights
0.796
1.114
0.318
$13
$13
$18
$18
$.5
$5
Forest Lake
0.796
1.102
0.306
Fridley
0.796
0.84
0.044
$13
$14
$1.
Golden Valley
0.796
0.346
-0.45
$13
$6
(17?
Ham Lake
0.796
1.582
0.786
$13
$26
$13
Hastings
0.796
1.482
0.686
$13
$25
$1.2
Hopkins
0.796
0.598
-0.198
$13
$10
($3
Hugo
0.796
1.04
0.244
$13
$17
$
Independence
0.796
0.624
-0.172
$13
$10
(331
Inver Grove Hts.
0.796
0.55
-0.246
$13
$9
($4�
Lake Elmo
0.796
0.953
0.157
$13
$16
$3
Lakeville
0.796
1.09
0.294
$13
$18
$5
Lino Lakes
0.796
1.823
1.027
$13
$30
$17
Little Canada
0.796
0.985
0.189
$13
$16
$3
Maple Grove
0.796
0.857
0.061
$13
$14
$1
Maplewood
0.796
0.699
-0.097
$13
$12
($1!
Medina
0.796
0.382'
--.0.414
$13
$6
($7
Mendota Heights
0.796
0.356
-0.44
$13
$6
($7
Minneapolis
0.796
0.843
0.047
$13
$14
$1.
Minnetonka
0.796
0.379
-0.417
$13
$6
'4-1
Mound
0.796
0.913
0.11:7
$13
$15
$2
Mounds View
0.796
1.591
0.795
$13
$26
$13
New Brighton
0.796
0.923
0.127
$13
$15
$P
New Hope
0.796
1.001
0.20E
$13
$17
$4
Newport
0.796
0.988
0.1922
$13
$16
x;?
North Oaks
0.796
0.127
-0.669
$13
$2
($111
North Saint Paul
0.796
1.613
0.817
$13
$27
$14
Oak Park Heights
0.796
0.205
-0.591
$13
$3
f
-10-
10-MILL
MILL
RATE
COMPARISON
$80,000
HOUSE
COMPARISON
Pietro
Bloom.
Differ-
Tax With
Tax With
ULffer--
Mill.
Exmptn
ence
Metro
BIoonl.
ence
Rata
Mi.1.1 R:Je
in Mills
Mill Rate
Exrm, t
in d,_41 -
Oakdale
0.7Y6
1 1
0.'%%. !,
$13
$26
*13
Orono
0.796
t).191
-0.605
$13
$3
(11(>)
Osseo
0.796
1.297
0.501
t13
21
1g
Plymouth
0.796
0.432
-0.364
13
$7
(5)
Prior 1.:4ke
0.796
0.927
0.1.31
$j.:'
$15
a,r
Ramsey
0.796
1.63
0.834
613
$27
$14
Richfield
0.796
1.031.
0.235
$13
$17
$4
Robbinsdale
0.796
1.3
0.504
:1,13
$22
$9
Rosemount
0.796
0.76
-0.036
$13
$13
$0
Roseville
0.796
0.501
-0.295
$13
$8
($5)
Saint Anthony
0.796
0.614
-0.182
$13
$10
($3)
Saint Louis Park
0.796
0.517
-0.279
$13
$9
($4)
Saint Paul
0.796
1.143
0.347
$13
$19
$6
Saint Paul Park
0.796
1.948
1.152
$13
$32
$1'?
Savage
0.796
0.955
0.159
$13
$16
$3
Shakopee
0.796
0.689
-0.107
$13
$11
($2) I
Shoreview
0.796
0.666
-0.13
t13
$11
($2)
Shorewood
0.796
0.415
-0.381
$13
$7
South Saint Paul
0.796
1.682
0.886
$13
$28
$1.5 I
Spring Lake Park
0.796
1.706
0.91
$13
$28
$15
Stillwater
0.796
1.086
0.29
$13
$18
$5
Vadnais Heights.
0.796
0.896
0.1
$13
$1.5
$2
Waconia
0.796
1.1
0.304
$13
$18
$5
Wayzata
0.796
0.196
-0.6
$13
$3
($10)
Nest Saint Paul
0.796
0.863
0.067
$13
$14
$1
Fite Bear Lake
0.796
1.253
0.457
$13
$21
$8
Woodbury •
0.796
0.565
-0.231
$13
$9
($4)
i�'
-11 = 'f L40
-
Section III
Understanding the Tax -Base Sharing Law
What has been referred to as ;'fisc al di sparit ie s" and tax -base sharing';
is a law that guarantees to every unit of government in the metropolitan
area a share in the growth of the region's ccam ercial-industrial (C -I) tax
base.
Passed in 1971, the law was intended to reduce the wide differences in C -I
valuation per capita among metropolitan area comm nities. It was a way
for local governments to share in the resources generated by growth in the
region, without dismantling their ability to make their own policy
decisions on levying property taxes or e)pendirg public dollars.
The law allows ccmminities to share part of the increases in C -I tax base;
it does not raise revenues for cities to spend. It adjusts the property
tax burden people pay. Slow-grawth localities receive more valuation
because of the base -sharing law, which makes their tax rates lower than
they otherwise would be. The assessed valuation of localities with large
amounts of new C -I development is crowing fast but not as fast as it would
without the law; consequently the tax rates in these localities are a bit
higher than they otherwise would be.
The tax -base sharing law has functioned aut®atically. Because it does
not deal with raising revenues per se, nor depend ori annual appropriations
to succeed, it has not been subject to the annual adjustments that local
government aids arra other property tax measures receive from the
Legislature.
How It hbrks—Regardless of where the region's commercial arra industrial
buildings and lard are physically located, 40% of the net growth in their
assessed valuation since 1971 is shared in a regional tax base pool. (See
diagram on page 14.)
The pooled tax base is redistributed among all ccuuunities on a per capita
basis. The redi s tribut ion is a djus ted by the market value of a city's
property. If the market value of a coruunity's property is below the
metropolitan average, then the caimunity's per capita share cf the tax
base is adjusted upward. The per capita share is adjusted downward if the
ccmunity's value is above the vie tropolitan average. Thus, a comity
with little fiscal capacity receives a relatively larger share of the
regional tax base.
Under the tax base sharing law a caum l nity's tax base is made up of the
buildings and land physically located there, minus the cc aunty's
ccntribut ion to the regional tax base pool, plus the share of the regional
pool that canes back to the comuunity. This final amount represents the
wealth the city is legally able to tax.
An areawide mill rate, calculated as a weightea average of all local mill
rates, is levied against the shared portion of the tax base. Thus, each
piece of coanercial-industrial property will have two tax rates: 1) the
local taco rate, applied to that portion of the building's value that
remains local, and the areawide tax rate, applied to that part of its
value that is part of the pooled tax base.
12 -
Effects on the Win Cities Iletropolitan Area
Z (0
Year by year the amount in the pod has increased along with regional
growth, to where as of 1985, $1.3 billion in assessed value was in the
shared tax base pool, 26.1% of the region's $4.8 billion in commercial
industrial tax base.
As intended, tax -base sharing has gradually and partially reduced
differences in coamercial industrial value among cominities in the
region. Without the law the community with the highest C -I valuation in
the region (among cities with over 9,000 population) would have a C -I tax
base almost 15 times larger per capita than the city with the lowest
commercial -industrial tax base for 1965 taxes. With the law that ratio is
four to one.
Another impact of the law is to even out the tax rate paid by area
businesses. Me portion of any caamercial-industrial prcperty.s tax base
that is pooled, is taxed at the areawide mill rate. Metropolitan area
mill rates in 1965 ranged from a hici of 138.255 to a low of 86.847.
Because of tax -base sharing, the effective mill rate on C -I property
ranged from a high of 127.67 to a low of 90.369.
Legislative History
The tax base sharing idea was first introduced in the 1969 Legislative
session, and became law in 1971. Several circimstances prompted the
introduction of the bill at that time. First was widespread concern by
state legislators over the large di sparity among tax bases --aryl
consequently, property tax rates—around the region. The wide disparity
in tax bases produced a wide variation in sperrdirny and mill rates. For
instance, one metropolitan suburb with half the mills of another suburban
comou Aty produced twice the amount of per pLpil spending. Also it bei
obvious that large shopping centers generated a large tax base in only one
cc=inuty even though their markets and their effects on transportation
and sewage systems were regional.
Second, some legislators were concerned about the fiscal competition
between comaunities whidz motivated cities to refuse law -revenue
generating projects such as parks or low-income housing, and to compromise
aesthetic and environmental develcprent standards for the sake of
maximizing tax base.
Third, some feared the recently established Metropolitan Council might
stimulate land develcpment only in those parts of the region with high
potential for C -I growth, leaving few tax advantages for those parts of
the region with more limited ccamercial-industrial growth potential.
Fourth, the siting of a power plant along the St. Croix River raised
land -use and tax base concerns. Wren Washington County officials and
legislators were criticized for siting the plant along a river soon to be
dedicated .wild and scenic,'they defended their decision on the grounds that
they needed tax revenues and wand be will irg to forego the plant bar open
space only if they could share in the tax base fron elsewhere around the Twin
Cities area.
I' -13- 71i_ �O
Late in the 1969 session Independent -Republican Pep. Charles Weaver of Anoka
introduced a tax base sharing bill. I -R Senatcr Wayne Popham of Minneapolis
was the chief Senate author. The bill enjoyed bi-partisan, as well as both
city arra suburban support, and it passed the House, but it could not get out of
the Senate. In 1971 it again encoantered roadblocks in the Senate, but passed
in the special session. It has remained basically unchanged since its initial
passage.
The Court Tests—Before the tax—base sharing law could be implemented the
suburb of Burnsville challenged the laws constitutionality in court, saying it
f violated the :uniformity clause": r1he Constitution requires taxes to be
,uniform upon the same class of subjects." 'Ihe District Court ruled the act
urrxx stituticnal, but upon appeal the Minnesota Supreme Cburt reversed the
District courts decision. Thereupon, tax -base sharing was reflected for the
first time on taxpayers. 1975 property tax statements.
The city of Shakopee subsequently challenged the act in court, alleging it
violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, in
1980 the Minnesota Tax Court ruled that the act did not result in "hostile and
oppressive discrimination. because the sharing of the tax base was reasonably
based c n cities' growth and fiscal capacity. The Tax Court ruling was affirmed
unanimously by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
National Acclaim—Tax-base sharing has gained national attention. The law has
been recognized as an ingenious solution to a complex intergovernmental
problem. Soon after its passage the law was hailed ty the National Municipal
League and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as an
innovative and proadsing way to deal wi th the problems of fiscal disparities.
Numerous national organizations have featured the law in their publications.
Other parts of the country have studied the tax -base sharing law fcr possible
local applications. The Meadowlands area of New Jersey and the area around
Charlottesville, Virginia are two regions that have adopted tax -base sharing
plans. Des Moines, Iowa and Louisville, Kentucky are currently debating the
concept far use in their own areas.
During the 1985 Minnesota legislative session the Senate passed a bill
p
proposing tax -base sharing for part of the Iron Rarrje in northern Minnesota.
[� However, it failed to become law.
Closing the loopholes
�j Some exemptions to tax -base sharing existed in the original law: the airport,
"economic development areas': (South St. Paul) , and properties within Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) tax -increment districts. Nene of the growth
in these districts was counted in the calculations cf tax base growth for the
purposes of the law. Since the laws passage the Legislature has reduced these
loopholes.
In a 1974 law the Legislature legally defined "development districts'.' and
removed the tax -base sharirg exemption for non -HRA municipal development
® districts. Development districts were now required to acntribute 40% of their
base to the regional tax base pool.
14-.
Wi th amendments to the tax i ncrene nt f i narking (TIF) law in 1979 the
Legislature further restricted tax -base sharing exemptions. HRA districts
created since August, 1979 became subject to tax -base sharing. HRA
districts in existence prior to August 1, 1979 were still exempt from
contributing to the tax base pool; they remain the only exemptions to the
tax -base sharing law today.
At the same time it eliminated this exemption for the new HRA districts,
the Legislature provided a way for a TIF district to enjoy the benefit of
exemption by having other properties in the city pick up its share.
Cities could not be exempt from contributing, but could opt to spread the
cost of a specific districts contribution among all other
ccmnercial-industrial property in the city.
Localities Without Commercial Industrial Prcperty—While technically not a
locpbole, one concern frequently cited about the law is that a few
ccamunities make very small contributions to the regional tax base yet
receive relatively large shares when the pooled tax base is
redistributed. A small number of residential communities like North Oaks
and Sunfish Lake have 1 i tt le CI property and no plans for any in the
future. Because they contribute little yet receive benefits from tax -base
sharing they are pointed to as evidence of the law's unfairness.
Relative to the rest of the metropolitan area, the amount of benefit to
these cities is very small. This situation is similar to federal and
state revenue shari ng whi ch goes to all c camunities ties but in much smaller
amounts to the wealthier cities. In addition, a significant portion of
the cities; revenues will go to the county and the area scbcol district.
Proposed Changes
If Blocmingtcn;s request to exempt the Airport South district from
tax -base sharing is granted, it would be the f irst exemption granted since
the law was enacted in 1971.
Bloomington proposes to exempt not just the 85 acres of the old Met
Stadium site, but a total of 900 acres of developable land, east of Cedar
avenue and south of 494 to the Minnesota River. This includes Control
Data Corporation, Appletree Square, and all the hotels, motels and other
office space in that area, plus the Triple Five project. Further, it
proposes to exempt not only future growth, but all growth in the Airport
South District since 1971. Today the area in Bloomington east of Cedar
Ave. makes a contribution of about $22 million in valuation to the
tax base pool.
Fiscal Effects—Modifications to tax -base sharing will charge who bears
the tax burden. An exemption from fiscal disparities, by itself, raises
no doll ars . It would simply make Blooni rgton;s tax base larger than it
otherwise would be and make other metropolitan communities; tax bases
smaller. The property tax rate, therefore, on Bloomington property would
be lower, and the rate on all other ccominities: property, higher.
Public Policy Effects Bloonington;s proposal to exempt Airport South from
tax -base sharing wand reverse state policy which up to now has worked to
shut down exemptions. By el i ai nati ng exemptions on d evel oPment districts
L
I
and an HRA districts created after August, 1979 the Legislature has in
effect been '.'closing the door'; on tax -base sharing exeuptions.
Blocmi ngton.'s proposal to exempt one specific parcel, as opposed to a
general group of properties, would reopen that door.
Public Stppert for M3intainirg Tax Base Sharing—According to the Minnesota
Loll reported in the Minneapoli s Star and Tribune on August 25, 1985, 84% of
the Minnesotans who had heard of the Bloomington proposal agreed that property
taxes should be shared with other municipalities in the usual way, and just 8%
said the developments property taxes should go to Blccmingtcn only.
In a separate analysis of data provided by the Minnesota Poll, it was
discovered that across all levels of age, education, income, geography, and
political affiliation, the peroent of respondents agreeing property taxes
should be shared in the usual way wes very high. Even in the southwestern
suburbs of Hennepin County ( Wen Prairie, Blocui rgton, and Richfield) 70% of
those who }mew of the project agreed the property taxes should be shared in the
usual way.
USRD SEP 198S/FOB (aab]
— (I Page 39 FINAL PAGES
spa �
.4* d��
As pressures mount on municipal budgets, Phoe-
nix and other cities are proving that taxpayer
dollars can be saved even as more and better
services are provided
48 pages Ccd AG
S POKY 32 Dspiy I —
We Can
Lower ]Local
Taxes
BY RAmoy FtzzGzvALm
T&NTT D[II,i:S southeast Of
Phoenix, a new waste -water
treatment plant is nearing
completion in thefast-growing city
of Chandler. ' Because it will be a
privately owned and operated facil-
iq—the first in the nation to serve a
city this size --taxpayers will save
about si million a year.
• In neighboring Mesa, janitori-
al services were turned over to a
private contractor in 1981.. Now the
city's buildings are kept pristine for
$ego 000 less than when the city
performed the service.
• In Scottsdale, adjoining Phoe-
nix, the first U.S. city to use a
private company for fire protection
boasts of better -than -average fire -
response times, at less than half the
cost in cities of comparable size.
32
* 0 9
Across Arizona, rapid growth
and tight budgets have stimulated
new approaches to providing local
government services, with "privati-
zation"contracting out to the pri-
vate sector --u the centerpiece.
Nowhere have changes been more
rapid or far-reaching than in Phoe-
nix, the ninth -largest city in the
United States. Its innovations,
which produce more services with
fewer resources, are apparent in
subtle but significant ways:
In new residential construction,
for example, a single city inspector
checks for structural safety, compli-
ance with electrical and plumbing
standards, soundness of mechanical
systems, and adherence to the zon-
ing code—tasks which in many cit-
ies involve four or more inspectors.
USRD SEP i985/FOB [aab)
Page 40 . FINAL PAGES
'Phis consolidation alone saves the
city over $t trillion annually.
In the city's Human Resources
Department, a middle manager
takes daily inventory of her pro-
ductivity. She oversea dozens of
employees, yet her salary is not
based solely on that fact, or on how
large her budget is; her pay is also
tied to a Performance Achievement
Program, rewarding her for im-
proved performance and provision
of services at the lowest possible
cost.
A pivotal moment in the Phoe-
nix success story came in 1978, in
the wake of California's Proposi-
tion 13 and a nationwide tax revolt.
Faced with the dilemma of trim-
ming coats without curtailing serv-
ices, the city council approved a
40
48 pages Ctd AG
STORY 32 Main I I —
I
call for bids from private compa-
nies to collets city refuse.
"Are you going to compare their
bids with your own costs?" then -
Mayor Margaret Hance asked Ron
Jensen, director of the city's De-
partment of Public Works.
"Yes, and we will bid too," Jen-
sen replied ofhandecily.
When the council meeting end-
ed, Jensen realized that he had
committed his department to com-
pete with private contractors.
Doubts begun to surface. Could a
large municipal agency ever outbid
efficient private companies? Afar
conferring with his staff, Jensen
decided: Why not? In fact, why not
use contracting out as a way to
force city agencies to be more
efficient?
t
USRD SEP c985lFOB f aab] 48 pages Ctd AG
Page 41 FINAL PAGES STORY 3s Main
WE CAN LOWER LOCAL TAXES 41
To keep politics out of the bid-
pressure on our department. We
dingprocr�,a city auditor examined
had nothing to compare our per -
the books of municipal depart-
formanm against, there were no
menta, estimated equipment and
labor costs, thea inepmed the city's
real incentives. Now employees
have been seized by a competitive
scaled bids.Works lost to
spirit."
private contractors on the first four
The result: last year Public
contracts let for trash collection in
Works outbid five contractors for
various parts of the city. But these
the right to collect garbage in one
setbacks only strengthened Jensen's
section of the city, beating the next -
resolve to make his department
lowest bidder by almost $i million
more productive,
a year. This will save taxpayers
Private -sector management
$6.8 million over the life of the con-
techniqq— new technology and
tract "Morale among our employ -
other fine-tuning were added. At-
ees skyrocketed," Jensen reports
trition and transfers reduced the
proudly. 'We discovered tint we can
number of sanitation employees by
compete with the private sector."
more than a third. But the biggest
Since rVil, Phoenix has placed
turnaround, says Jensen, came tn
43 major contracts up for bid—for
employees' attitudes. "Before con-
such tasks as landfill operation,
tracting out, there was little
street -median maintenance water -
0 0 0
It
USRD SFP t985/FOB [aab] 46 pages t.ca nv
page 42 _ _ FINAL PAGES STORY 32 Main
WE CAN LOWER LOCAL TAXES
meter repair, cleaning of municipal
buildings and bill processing. City
departments have won ts; private
companies have won 28. But the
nesl winner has been the taxpay-
ers --to the tune of some $3 million a
year.
For Phoenix, contracting out
quickly became part of a larger
program to streamline bureaucracy.
City deparmnents are asked to see if
they can finance new programs
withouR new funds For exampie, the
pohm department was
ble to
costs down by replacing uniformed
officers with lower -paid police aides
on routine duties such as traffic -
accident inve:dgaoon, thereby per-
mitting- officers to spend more
time patrolling high -crime areas.
Other innovations have focused
on public-private cooperation.
When the city needed a shelter for
the homeless, it spurred formation
of a private, nonprofit group to
operate the facility, using an inno-
vative scheme of substantial corpo-
rate support, with state and local
government misance And the
$3.5 -million cost of a much-needed
road through the mountains was
shared with resort developers,
Phoenix has also begun a pro-
gram that awards employees up to
st000 for cost-cutting suggestions.
One-third of the ideas are imple-
mented. List year, 177 city employ-
ees received s5o,776 for suggestions
that resulted in st.2 million in sav-
ings For four consecutive years,
according to the National Associa-
tion of Suggestion Systems, Phoenix
42
0 i &
has saved more dollars on employee
suggestions, per too workers, than
any other state or local government
unit in the nation.
Phoenix's experience dearly has
implications for cities elsewhere in
the country. In 194 a study for the
Department of housing and Urban
Development examined eight pub-
lic semca, in each case comparing
20 different municipalities in
southern California—ten that used
public employees for the service,
ten that contracted out. Researchers
found no real differences in serv-
ice quality, but the disparities in
costa were staggering. Of the eight
services, seven --asphalt paving,
janitorial duties, traffic -signal
maintenance, street cleaning, ref-
use collection, and lawn and
street -tree maintenance—were at
least 37 percent more expensive
when supplied by local govern-
ments. Asphalt paving, for exam-
ple, was 95 percent more costly;
janitorial services were 73 percent
more expensive.
This study also demolished the
notion that lower private -sector
salaries account for the cost dif-
ferences. In fact, researchers dis-
covered that contractors actually
paid their workers an average of
sto6 a month more in salary and
benefits than did municipal agen-
cies. Contractors achieved lower
costs, the study concluded, be-
cause they made more frequent
use of incentives, operated, with
leaner organizations and fewer
managers, and tended to adopt
USRD SEP t985/FOB [aab]
page 44 - ' FINAL PAGES
48 pages Ctd AG
STORY 32 Main
WE CAN LOWER LOCAL TAXES
advanced technology more quickly.
To ensure that taunsa em-
ployees do not bear an ' bur-
den from contracting out, Phoenix
transfers affected exmployees to oth-
er departments and requires con-
tractors to offer available jobs to
city employees. "But we must re-
member," cautions Robert W.
Poole, Jr., author of Cuuing Bac
City Half "that it's not anti -labor
to make city services more effi-
cient. It's pro -consumer and pro -
taxpayer."
!br iwfie•sssneisee
an rspinis of this wticie sae per 230
TW
°`ciao to a Kid the Ball J0
JT WAS A GOOD ZV=rettl0 to watch a
boil game in the Bronx. The air was
cool, and the Yanks' Ron Guidry was
pitching. There were four of us, en-
joying boys' ni out
In the usaing, a foul ball was
hit in our direction. A boy of about
nine was reaching for it when the ball
was grabbed by a man of about 3S
With horn -rimmed glasses'. You could
sae that the kid was totally crushed.
He had on an oversized Yankee rap
that came down over bis eyes and a
baseball glove that was too big for
him. He seemed the kind of kid
.very other kid on the block beats up
daily.
Suddenly someone shouted: "Give
the kid the baht" The chant was taken
up by others around us: "Give the kid
the ball! Give the kid the balll'
Horn Rims shook his head andput
the ball in his pocket Yet. inning after
inning. the chant continued, until it
had spread throughout the lower left -
field stands.
By the seventh inning; the kid must
have had a stomachache. People
around him were buying him peanuts,
soda and we cream. Then Sam, one of
the fellows I was with. went over to
44
talk to Horn Rims. I couldnt hear
what Sam said, but I saw Horn Rims
reach into his pocket, turn and give
the kid the bail. The kid's eyes lit up.
Somebody yelled, "He gave: the kid
the ball!" The crowd was on is fax,
clapputg and yelling, "He gave the kid
the ballt He gave the kid the ball("
The ballplayers were looking up in
the stands. We were generating more
axitement than the game.
Then a strange thing happened: A
man in the front raw who also caught
a foul ball got up uand gave it to the
kid. Another thnderous ovation
rocked the left -field stands.
In the bottom of the ninth, a Toung
than with a Fu Manchu mustache was
leaving: As he passed the kid, he took
a ball frau his pocket, "Here, kid—
here's another, he yelled, flipping the
ball in the air. Surprisingly, the kid
caught it. More cheers.
Hundreds of fans who had been
halfheartedly watching a routine
game were smiling and slapping
strangers on the back. And the kid?
He had three balls in his glove and a
big grin on his face.
—arae L H -h. "—d by G-rvs tud- r
N.. Yat Ter.
a&�ociafion 0,11 C
rn ; r -o_ )�ritc)r)
n i:�`1 ; IPnIIti;--,
TO: Barry Johnson, Assistant Manager
City of Minnetonka
John Cartwright, Manager
City of Richfield
Craig Dawson, Assistant to City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
Ken Hartung, Administrative Aid
City of Woodbury
Scott Morgan, Administrative Intern
City of Eagan
Pat Hoyt Neils, Councilmember
City of Plymouth
Rick Person, Program Manager
Facilities Inventory Program
City of St. Paul
FROM: Ve 4P
eterson
RE: Solid Waste Abatement Coordination Efforts
I would like to provide a brief update as to what has
transpired since the coordinating meeting on August 22nd. in
our offices. The Met Council and the Metro County
organization (MICA) have agreed that it would be very useful
to continue meeting and working together on the many
questions and issues related to solid waste abatement and
recycling grant and rebate programs.
The Metropolitan Council will provide the necessary
administrative staff assistance to support the joint
coordination effort. I would expect this cooperative effort
to work on a very informal basis and meetings will be held
on an "as needed basis". You will likely be receiving a
meeting notice in the near future to review and discuss
"draft" guidelines pertaining to household and tonnage
rebate programs.
-1-
1 S3 university avenue e s:. eau!, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600
I have also enclosed for your information, a copy of the
Metropolitan Councils proposed "Landfill Abatement Fund Work
Program and Budget" which is being presented to the
Legislative Commission on Waste Management on September 9th.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to represent the AMM in
this coordinated effort and please do not hesitate to call
me should you have questions.
cc: Katy Boone,
Vic Miller,
Abatement Assistant
Metropolitan Council
Executive Director
MICA
-2-
Program Manager
zg
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE
(AMM Representatives)
Mr. Barry Johnson 14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
Assistant Manager Minnetonka, MN. 55345
City of Minnetonka 933-2511
Mr. John Cartwright
City Manager
City of Richfield
Mr. Craig Dawson
Assistant to City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
Mr. Ken Hartung
Administrative Aid
City of Woodbury
Mr. Scott Morgan
Administrative Intern
City of Eagan
Ms. Pat Hoyt Neils
Councilmember
City of Plymouth
Mr. Rick Person
Program Manager
Facilities Inventory Program
City of St. Paul
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN. 55423
869-7521
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN. 55344
937-2262
2100 Radio Drive
Woodbury, MN. 55125
739-5972
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN. 55122
454-8100
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN. 55447
559-2800
Public Works Department
City Hall Annex
St. Paul, MN. 55105
292-6122
Qty dh �� Metrcpowan Council
{, 300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
�( ! M, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291-6359
September 4, 1985
Senator Gene Merriam, Chair
Legislative Commission on Waste Management
Room 85, State Office Bldg.
St. Paul, Minn. 55155
RE: Revised Landfill Abatement Fund Work Program and Budget
Dear Senator Merriam:
Enclosed is a revised Landfill Abatement Fund Work Program and Budget submitted
by the Metropolitan Council for the Commission's review at your Sept. 9 meet-
ing. In preparing this work program, the Council has taken very seriously the
directive of the Commission to "use the Abatement Funds for things that will
make a significant difference" in the solid waste abatement levels of the
future.
The issues listed below are emerging as critical to the success or effective
utilization of the Abatement Fund. The Council solid waste staff have taken
them into consideration in developing the plans for work related to the
Abatement Fund and would like to call them to your attention.
1. Markets for Recyclables
The current markets for recyclable materials are depressed and unable to
provide the level of dollar return that recycling contractors depend on to
stay in business. The Council has initiated a major study of the markets
and market development issues as an extension of the Solid Waste Plan
development process. We expect to have information by October 1985 on
recyclable materials and market conditions and recommendations by March
1986 on market development priorities.
2. Commercial/Industrial Waste
Because it constitutes half of the waste stream, there is a need to focus
more attention and effort on commercial and industrial waste. The Council
is working with the Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry (MACI)
on solid waste education materials and meetings for businesses and a solid
waste survey of all MACI members.
3. Multiple Funding Sources
There are a number of funding sources available for solid waste activities,
all with their own eligibility requirements and use restrictions. It is
important that the Council integrate the Abatement Fund effectively into
this funding system. The Council's Solid Waste Abatement Assistance Team
can also help solid waste organizations identify the most appropriate
source of funding for their needs.
An Eaual Opportun tv Employer
Senator Gene Merriam
September 4, 1985
Page 2
4. "Ongoing" Funding
Many of the solid waste funding sources have been set up to supply only
"startup" funds for activities and programs, and there is a need to begin
to discuss the responsibility for and projected levels needed for ongoing
funding of abatement activities in the Metropolitan Area. The Council
proposes to initiate discussion of these issues with representatives of
cities and counties.
In preparing this work program, the Council has identified a number of
activities and decisions that will take place over the next two years related
to the Abatement Fund. For this reason, the Council would like to respectfully
propose that periodic reports be provided to the Legislative Commission on a
regular basis regarding the execution of the work program.
Sincerely,
Katy BnA
Abatemistance Program Manager
KB:jb
Enclosure
L d
N
L
N Y N
c+-
NCdC
C C L A
v
C
A Y
N
O
�r
w�N d
Ai AT
�
2 •- L !, V V
z w
O� •- C L L
E
- L-. L L
O L^
V,. 39^
LY
L d
O + N O
6 C
O
Y A
L
O AQ O
A G
L 0. 0
C
r
O d
dTv ql
•�$ E6
OI
T A
C s
A
ESQ^
8O
Y
L c:;
Y A A d
O
d
2 Y + C
+ u
O L
1L1 Y
d
ANNEO+
d OQL
C
1rA
C d L 0 0 0
�m
- d c
-
V S C10
A Y
Yw O>f
OC
L OV^
Y i
d 7
C d
_O
-YCC
N
- A r >
T
y =
cv
cS
W
- NY0 N
L
v O
C Q- N
G -C
L d
O d
U L O w d
w d +C-
C N -
w L C V
d Y D D
O O d
E
YL- A U O.
E
Q L r
41 C C
N f7
S
JC---o
E
rn
G
a
W
►N
10
\
O
d
N
L
a m W -
c+-
o+ -
N d T O w C
Acw i,
O
N d N
w W
n� Wwy
O L 1 1
W
L o•- co
2 •- L !, V V
z w
O� •- C L L
E
- L-. L L
O L^
W-
W
C
-
O Y-
> I
M 9 N w•• y
Y N E• C
N
1�
/w
1
C s
A
d A
= C d W N A
C
co
1\
T d
d
ANNEO+
c0•� .LEL
c
C d L 0 0 0
�m
L N
D+
L 6
mo C dc L
W
>
1 �p
w
0� • L '^
EEL
- d W
o- 3 A 6c� d
u
c N rnu u
W
p A 6
CO
C OI
V C U d L n E
w N
O L N- Www
W N d C> N
1
W
yA O Q+ C
a 4 Cd>
-
41 C C
T d
L Q w C--$
I
•- C •- O L
O
6% n W •- A
.2 C L
lw-6
d w d C31--
L A
V
I
E v d
A d L d
J E N w d L
CLO L A
O U O Y d
A N A- -O
> Y w U 6J
O d
LL
cc
I
1
v A N
yQ
(O
V
M
r C C
L 2 G r A W
w; L
cc
co
C-
O
V w
d d d O A
A L u 0
Y 6 Y yE d N
n v
A-
O,
1 r•1
V Ir
C
S L L
C 7 L C
C O
I
6 �► O
N O
d
r C d
d T U
d d v A V O
N C C 6 0 d 6
O L
d
_ _
L
1
y A
O c 7
GG T A 6•^
Y O G
W cz
A Y
1.
6 N N OI d>
W Z w
V O u L C- .•+ C
6: -+ >+ A> C
+ N
C Y
>
O
w
d C N
d A L A
L C
W
Of L ldil
<
m
O Q
A d o
C O V
cw
Cd L 7 y
C -t O u E
Y d AY Cv O
T L - C L
Ow
10
co
1 1
%n�p
�[f
O d
►^
N
O A
O >> A
3 d A 6
O, v
O,
m m m
V C L
O
t+ 9
WY 6
N d t 7
Y A Y w d N OI
M G
A
\\\
r.l
O0
dY IEO
r
10' C'O
SU TT OY-
C
.., .•.
L d a
N LLC
O S d 6 N U >>
A
O6
C
=E-1,mm
NC d96G1i
A
rA
6
3 u
m
C
u L O
N v� W .0 3 E
a
def
N> L
N+06
O0
C d d
3v >
J
OQLC_
L P-
d
w
vw
n(p
O
L
nN d
N 0O
!1d
w
d
>UV
_ 6 - Yn-
L
N
N A C d N
J
!
C L L Y d
O
C O C O Y C w
7
d
N
d
w A
C -
w o u L
O d+ L
W d N O L
W
V O N •
-d-loc>,
U N V> d Y E
C N
p r
m
d O V C N- V w
E
-
W
L-- N LC d 0 U u
J.0 d
L
r
fJ
> w
c
c
Q
^
N
en
c
d C
- G w w
- A-
O L O A
C
N
L d
a m W -
c+-
o+ -
N d T O w C
Acw i,
O
N d N
w W
n� Wwy
O L 1 1
W
L o•- co
2 •- L !, V V
z w
O� •- C L L
E
- L-. L L
O L^
W-
W
C
O V� O i •..
N 6, n d9-
Z d O L d C w
C A N
w W W 0-
N V• -L- A
Ql
- IC L 7 N A Y
A •-J w
G- w c
C -> C C
A d A O•-
6 L- E
A- •^ C O
L- V W•- w
rn o v
C
- O w d •- C O
U A W EE A V
C, L L C. w
C Ir O W A A
O u O 7 W d
L P A L L
60 u Aw
••--
E
Cdr A -C
O�od -o
CW AN 00
cwvEdvw
ONW
vowm>c
G
c
E > v o-
A v A C
A N a •- W
c • c a: ••-
c�
C d L 0 0 0
6 3 O O- _V -
W� E • w�
C
d
A n O w d 0
C
O- L N w L 7
w M A E •,c
C G A- O
>
E G N C CSG
�► - G V O D •
0� • L '^
C
- d W
o- 3 A 6c� d
u
c N rnu u
W
O
N L C A N
L A ,r L C d
O L N- Www
W N d C> N
c-- V w
Q O
W
yA O Q+ C
a 4 Cd>
d> v •^• C O O •^
L
.L
r
L Q w C--$
•r U Q. L N A
•- C •- O L
O
6% n W •- A
-- L
�-v V TA
V
O A U Y C -
w U L C d w
d •- A A A C
T •- L A dC
3 r n L lr u
C E •^
A d L d
J E N w d L
2
w C W C L
7 A N 0"Z L
d ••- O W
W
•
L 2 G r A W
w; L
w C '� G-
C N G a E L
O •- - C C G O
G
- S z o C •-
O G V N
E A ^ J
a L A a N ca
✓ W 2 W Q^
J
^
>-
a
_ - a, u E
c G ^
-
- C G C A
G - T
'-
- Cf' C N-
T C ••'o
•
` -
G
- L
_ _
L
O c 7
GG T A 6•^
V W O
C:
AIc- J N w
W Z w
V O u L C- .•+ C
6: -+ >+ A> C
W • W 61 A L .-
- S L
W
<
m
O Q
O
1
OI d
•^ L N 1
v N 1 OY-1N
d N o N Q d W p c 00
.0 CLY 7 N D A C L O nY _N L
LL C M !I A Y C N d A Q
d OI d o YQ A- v o c
Y E A -
ty�D L C d 01A
c Y IO n- Z llu::2 w Y=^
N C 7 L EE^ Cp Y O Y O
9 C E L
CLO.;
E CZ L O
yY d C N N C Y C M d
1r N Y- L 7 A A C L Z
OAA^d0 D>>
^' S T d W t •. A w w d
V L 9 C v Y^ d^ Y
O= O �Y A O ••.. Y C
U A N N d N 7 C^
d L C Y D C d L Y
A C U C
o
t C �
L.
Y A L C V Ir T A L E
!I NQ O- M-:5AU Y
D c ICO U^ •C^ 6 U 0 d D QQQ
v �1 T •^- d- Ir Y- A G
d E N -v OI^ O }
A O 2 SCV CL
O C 6 C->^ O
d n 0 Y }L O A •� C Y W ti
D Com+ .YYY g A 0 A C M
d N- C MO L V A
^ v Z T} E dE C^ Y O^ d
d
U
N C Y U A^ - A -EE W OI
C -C OId>dY'p Odd 7
�di
E-=r�-c L ICOQ^aD D
A�� .wt AAA c
d O- V
N a! yC O0 S Y C
U
^O C d d C V-^- E
GL>- d Y E A d z A Y Q
Alr no— -
L N C A 7 E
VN O L O -
- Ir Y u f-
m
D o^^t—
^ A r- 2^
^ O d L N N
s^.0
ENE0
a Y 7- O A
LV O S L d
O d V n L
0 CLo. W 'O W
C1� N d L
N d A c`LIY
C L
CY^ • T
r
cm L A 01
Y O
Y
Sc d O
QCQ1 N d C L L Y
E9 L A Y
d C Y- 0 O L
A r
A d L G- C
^ Y L L w d
^ 7 Y 2 N
w d d N 0
d_ Z C O.^
A ICO - )
c 2 Y n OI L
d V L C 6-
o o
11.^ s c c�'
O U NE O C-
}7 od. YY11 Y
uA C
Y7;'cc N o
A > A D Y V
N Y L Y^ d d
A -D Y
cE ^ .p+ c loi+ i - 1Yi1
d^ C A^ p- q
67 Q A-- A co 2 2
C
N Cc L N U
O Y L d .•I A d '�
cn
GN Y 9 N 7 dD-
C O 2 QI w O 00 L T V O A V C •p
6/ O d^ U N O d D O •► N d d D 1 N O d 61 C C
a Y E A N L '• Y ^ D r C .- C V G L A A
d0 N A H N O A T N q
d A N O C E L V N^
C A G C N a A E rI O d L C C L O L N 6, 2
72
'll A
ap+•rC d d> E G! O A A A OY.r L++
d p A N O a),=
9 u d d C C 0 0- U d
L L C d •r 'J' A Y A d Y N y L Q W N Ir A d
v n C t Z ^ C d u C N Y U a d 0 E G d- d ++
_ O L n7 L A O C N t O G d V D
Y d Y W OQ O O C•^ CY~_ ++ f O YII- A Y C
C O > .� Y V Y d •� Y d
O O d A 3 W C C N d •r ++ O d d- d L
L Y S A 2 E D .+ nr 7 C O d A d L C D d
r+ 3 OL a d^
• C A t/1 g C O Y L C O ^ C C n d.•••'- d 0 7 L
d N N ^ C 0 6 Y O - A A 7- N I► .-. 00 V d A
U^ d Y L N A vO A Ir - 01 •+ O 2 L N D d N 6
C; VA'^ V1 E L N ��CYLV OCd LaLN
S O •� L d Q aY ^ N� •� C Y 9 Or' AD O C 79
> Y t d C d^ d o O L 9 Qi N d C L u 'r d V d
7 d N Z N d S LIT x U C Y N G OI C l- A
N C C ^•' AD d O X V Y C O•� TOIL A 70•�
q ;•r Z 2 L^ C d d N C A- L^ L^•E•0 C O U
d a O Z a Y— N N d •� D\ Y A y^ •.• E 9 '^ N d 0
6 N C Y a Q C C V d .� A^ •^'� - C O d-� N
d •� � J .� S C C aL ' A S d C Y S dq�^ I L N
a.+ ^ •� d C 7 C ++ C N N •r V ^ A
V L Z '- C O O V N O d N O C d'•"1 N 6d S d
V VdNdA 7C•^d G ACG NC GCD O^ L
=.-
A y 7 Y N L A N U L C nv A O
C: 3- Y 7 n.^ d V N N nN^_aj
aj
D
p 0 C .d+ V ^n L
_ r _c S G A u i _L N L> i �_ El co
_
_ n N � C
3 > to
y-
G
C
W
N
Y v Wc —
L d O > q n
d O t N
L S Y A
all" A L d Y N
7 d d D t L C L I-
0
O 2
N 7 Y A 7 {V
d L d C
L�.O+IYn-ETv E
O Y^ s
N g! u d d V L d N C l
A EG CL L C T} >>d
d> cp
d W v d N L d L
Y v M N YY C L¢ d d
C Y L N rCO • E @ A Y
d O O V d L GGG O G
N L •r 7 Y N
e E c c o v N Y
w 0 W A OIIr M O N O
d- E 31 Y
AYY A-
yy d N
A C> A Y E n v N
A- Y OIY O M a O G
Y
p A A d N L
Y ? LLw^•. to d n•
Y d L- dMlr -
V
2u U Y Y Y o o 7
%^- 9
'0c
Cw D O
d D > C L d AU
0 L J Y O N
^_ 6 d IL Y C C d
N N Y O O L•
C T•O C -D^ Y Y
o d 7
V E d = A A V E C
O ICO
d V GAY N A n rp A
i d¢ luo i A A= u
C
c �
_ O
o a L
C
=-: g
ID
C
O
y
; rE
c
.-I
O
Y L OYY
D
q0
d V
L
C O
Y x
d
L d
Y L
r W
L
N Y
L N
Y Y
Y
O C
L •� C C O
N
L L
A
q'sA .Aa
n
a
v c
w •r
v L
o
J Ir
J
•r N
L
3Fv
O. A
�
N A
C A
3 u cYv=
m
�•a
L OI
n�
C Y
L
O
=
J A
N ~
Y
d C
N O
L C
p A
O
6 C
n^7
O O
C
L
L
d o N
IO
N
'o
� rn
7 E A
A ...I
O O L
Y
N co
2 V OI
O
T.••I
r > n
7
C Yom(
D
C O
7 A ppL
C7 Aco
d C: c
L Ct
O: to ^•1 •7
O
� J J
d
W
y
C Q
CO
Ir Y •�
C
y
; rE
a c
Y L OYY
C
r -
L •� C C O
a ov r q v
C •^ H L N
q'sA .Aa
n
a
t NCO CJ
V1 > 0 L p
C J COI C
^
•� T Y
L Y T L n N
V: C- C
3 u cYv=
N O TOY
IO
C Y
GNU► i0 C G
0
C
J A Y ^
Q
T T 0 N A
w•w
N
N C
=3c_Lm
= Y
C 7 N
V1 > 0 L p
^
•� T Y
V: C- C
C L 6 J
^J
q L
C C V
C^ 'SGC C
C
-
N
N C
CD U
7 C A
�
O
C O L Y
O N J O
y
N 61
Ir Y •�
L C O� C
L U N
J O A
V y^
O
CB N
CD 0 ^
2
V
L
Z
0
A G
^
u0, my
7 0
¢
61 cg c
Y
-v o r-
o
'O
N
d '� U A
0
i q
r O N A
N
A D
A
C OI C
V Q
'�
10
O C
L
10 coCLQ
cu
VY-WYY
O
\ Q
C J Y C
Q
ANL
J
N C N^
L
�D m IO
I
V Y C�
A
A B Y N A
w..l .••I
y
0
ICU
I I/
G
I I
q
�
A •^
Z
�► C
V^ .•• O V Ir
= c `I
c c - o
- c u u a �
✓
3
1
'
n
September 10, 1985
CITY O
PLYMOUTH
Mayor Connie Morrison
President
Municipal Legislative Commission
1313 East Highway 13
Burnsville, MN 55337
Dear Mayor Morrison:
=-q C,
This letter shall serve to notify you and the Commission that the City
Council of Plymouth has elected to withdraw from its further participation
in the Municipal Legislative Commission effective January 1, 1986. A copy
of the City Council's resolution is attached in accordance with the
requirements of Article 12 of the point and Cooperative Agreement of the
MLC.
Yours truly,
c
James G. Willis
`\ City Manager
JGW:Jm
attach
cc: Mayor & City Council
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
CITY OF PLYMOUTH � �cA, _-
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 9th day of September . 1985.
The following members were present: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Crain,
Pdeils. Schneider and Vasiliou
The following members were absent: :none
Councilmember Schneider introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 85-706
RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING FROM MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION (MLC)
WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has previously joined with other suburban
municipalities under the terms of a joint and cooperative agreement to form the
Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated its membership in the MLC and has concluded
that It desires to withdraw from the organization; and
WHEREAS, Article 12 of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement provides that a municipal
desiring to withdraw from the agreement must do so prior to September 15 of the year
preceding said withdrawal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Plymouth
that Plymouth hereby notifies the president of the Municipal Legislative Commission
of its intent to withdraw from the MLC pursuant to Article 12 of the Joint and
Cooperative Agreement establishing the Commission effective January 1, 1986.
The motion for adoption of the .foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Vasiliou , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Crain,
Schneider and Vasiliou
The following voted against or abstained: Councilmember Neils
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
--vi-Qb.
September 11, 1985
s
CITY OF
PLYMOUT4
Mr. Dick Lewis, President
Hawthorne Pond Homeowners Association
17620 - 6th Avenue No.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Lewis:
It is my understanding that your Homeowners Association recently met and
discussed several items which were referred to me by Mayor Davenport for
response.
The first matter dealt with the development and drainage on Block 3 of your
plat. One question dealt with whether the drainage Swale on the southerly
edge of the Wayzata Free Church property has been constructed or
reconstructed in accordance with Council approval. I have discussed this
matter with the City's Director of Public Works, Mr. Fred Moore, who assures
me that the work directed to be undertaken by the City has been accomplished
and is, in his view, satisfactory. If there is a more specific concern with
respect to that matter, I would invite you or a member of the your Associ-
ation to contact Mr. Moore directly.
I also undertstand that there is some concern with respect to the house
under construction on Lot 4, Block 3, where the contractor is apparently
dumping construction debris on Lot 2. According to our records, the owner
of Lot 4 is also the owner of Lot 2. The City building inspector has indi-
cated to the builder that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued for
the structure until the construction debris is removed. We are informed
that the construction debris has been placed on Lot 2 as a means of keeping
it from blowing around or otherwise being more of an eyesore to neighbors.
In any event, however, be assured that it is to be cleaned up prior to the
occupancy of the structure on Lot 1.
Still another question arose with respect to possible soil conditions on Lot
2, Block 3. We are not aware of the specific soil conditions on this lot,
although we may presume that they are not good, given the fact that a home
has not yet constructed on the site. I have informed the Building Depart-
ment of the possibility of poor soils and asked them to be alert to that
possible condition in the event some individual applies for a building
permit on that lot. To date, the City has not been requested to issue, nor
has it issued, a building permit for Lot 2, Block 3. However, because it is
a platted lot, the City would issue a building permit for the construction
of a home on the site so long as the plans met the city codes. At such
time as a home is built on Lot 2, it will have access not to Highway 101,
but to Narcissus Lane through a 30 ft. platted access. The City's zoning
code provides that a paved driveway could be constructed within 3 ft. of the
lot line.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
VIL . U1CK Lew15
September 11, 1985
Page 2
Finally, a question was raised with respect to the new house under construc-
tion on Lot 10, Block 1, which was divided sometime ago. As I understand
the matter, there is some concern as to whether or not the erosion control
Siltation fence along the northerly portion of the lot is adequate. I
visited the site and it appears that the siltation fence has largely
achieved its purpose in retaining soils on the property. I do not know
specifically where the lot line is in this area, so it was not possible for
me to determine whether or not there may be some soils washing onto the
property to the north. I did note some ponding of water in the low area,
which is undoubtedly on the northerly lot. It would appear to me that the
"natural" drainage from Lot 10 has been northerly along and around the edge
of the cul-de-sac, given the fact that there is a drainage Swale from the
cul-de-sac and a culvert underneath the driveway on Lot 11. If you or a
member of your Association has an additional concern, however, with respect
to the erosion control on Lot 10, please feel free to contact Mr. Joe Ryan,
our City's Building Official.
I hope this responds to your Association's concerns, however, if I may be of
further assistance, please contact me.
Your truly,
Ja es G. Willis
Cit Manager
JGW:jm
cc: Dick Dunn
Wayne Bjorn
Mayor and City Council
Joe Ryan, Chief Building Official
Fred Moore, Director of Public Works
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: September 9, 1985
TO: Blair Tremere, Fred Moore
FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager'
SUBJECT HAWTHORNE PONDS U
Mayor Davenport has asked that I look into the following and report to
him, if possible, by this evening :
Th:S 1. Has the Wayzata Free Church restored and/or reconstructed the
—� drainage swale along their south property line as per the
a k approved plans and/or Council direction? Apparently the owner
�`- of the home located on Lot 1, Block 3, has raised some concerns
in this regard.
2. Is the contractor building the new house on Lot 4, Block 3,
Hawthorne Ponds (corner 5th Avenue and 101) dumping construction
debris on either Lots 1 or 2? He apparently is the owner of Lot
2 according to the Mayor.
3. Has a building permit been applied for or issued for Lot 2,
Block 3?
4. The soils on Lot 2, Block 3 are said to be very poor. Dave is
concerned that we don't get ourselves caught in a future bind
because of the issuance of a building permit and the resulting
possibility of a home being constructed on the site with drain-
age problems.
5. Lot 10, Block 1 was divided a year or so ago. A home is
presently under construction on the northwesterly portion of the
site. A question has been raised that the soil from the lot is
not being restrained by the existing erosion control fence, but
is, in fact, going onto the property on Lot 11.
6. Are there side yard setbacks for the paving or construction of
a driveway in a single family residential zone? You will note
that there is a dog leg to Narcissus Lane from Lot 2, Block 3,
Hawthorne Ponds. The owner of Lot 1, Block 3 apparently is
concerned about the possibility of a paved driveway along his
south property line which is the access to the public street.
= -q C--- ,
September 9, 1985
Mr. Bob Roscoe
Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc.
630 Twelve Oaks Center
15500 Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
Subject: Interruption of Utility Service and
Relocation of Mailboxes
City Project 426
Dear Bob:
Recently on the Carlson Center 3rd Addition Improvement Projects problems have
occurred with the relocation of the mailboxes and the interruption of utility
service. These specifications require the contractor to relocate the mailboxes
in order to ensure delivery of mail during the construction of a project. In
connection with this project the mailboxes were not moved for two or three days
after mail delivery was interrupted since the post office could not gain access
to the mailboxes. Please make sure your inspectors are aware of this require-
ment in order that this situation will not occur on future projects.
Also, gas service was interrupted to several homes without notification. I
realize the City or our consultant has no control over what the private utility
companies do, but if we are aware that they will be disconnecting services, we
should inquire of them whether they have notified the property owners. I
believe this should also be made a standard item for discussion at the precon-
struction conferences.
If there are any questions with regard to these two items, please contact me.
Sincerely,
'std
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
Frank Boyles
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
' (CITYOF
PLYMOUTFF
September 12, 1985
Mr. John Muchlinski
17710 10th Aveue North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter of September 1st.
In the September/October issue of "Plymouth on Parade" and
specifically in my column "Message from th Mayor", I make
reference to the dilemma that a conscientious office -holder
is faced with when he or she tries to resolve inconsistent
demands.
In your letter you indicate that you represent a group of
concerned neighbors who are opposed to the conduct of the
vegetable business that is being operated out of a private
residence at the corner of Highway 101 and 10th Avenue. You
have taken your complaint to both the Police Department and
Plymouth's Community Development Department but disagree
with the action that was taken by the Director, Blair Tremere.
The use is not in compliance with the City's zoning ordinances
and the business will not be permitted to reopen in the summer
of 1986 unless a specific permit is sought and obtained from
the Plymouth City Council. In the event the homeowner
conducting that business makes such an application I, by
copy of this letter to Mr. Tremere, am directing him to
notify you of any such request so that you can appear before
the City Council and register your protest.
You should be aware that there is a State statute that permits
individuals who grow vegetables on their own premises to sell
them from the same premises, but in the present case the
vegetables were purchased from farmers so the statute would
not apply, but please be aware that there is such a law.
John, I refer you to my "Plymouth on Parade" article though
only because I have received one other letter and two telephone
calls from other residents in the area complaining about the
3400 PLYMOUTH ROUL FVARD PL YMOUTH MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE 1612) 5592800
Mr. John Muchlinski
September 12, 1985
-Page 2 -
City's attempts to put this person out of business when all
that person is trying to do is earn a little extra income.
Most recently I was taken to task at a meeting of the Rotary
Club to which I belong because of the callousness the City
has demonstrated in dealing with this particular person.
As Mayor of Plymouth it is my responsibility to try and
manage conflict as best I can and our staff is charged with
that responsibility day in and day out. In doing so, we all
try to exercise some common sense and reasonableness. I
endorse Mr. Tremere's action in regard to this situation
because there is not time left in this growing season for
that particular person to make formal application to the
City Council and be heard in timely manner. The vegetable
market activity will cease on October 7th, if not before.
It will not be permitted to reopen pending further decision
of the City Council after input from you and others, including
some who may speak for the proposed use at a future Council
meeting, assuming the person involved elects to seek a City
permit to reopen.
My own bias is to speak against what I refer to as "home
use" occupations for the very reasons you mentioned in your
letter. Regardless of how small or unoffensive they may be,
they are commercial uses in residential zones and should be
tightly regulated. I will stop short of saying what my
position would have been had this individual come before the
Council, except to say that.the individual would have had a
significant burden to overcome my bias against these home
use occupations.
As far as your suggestion about a farmers market is concerned,
it sounds like a great idea but obviously it is not something
that the City should formally pursue. Rather, it should be a
project of the Twin West Chamber of Commerce, or perhaps it
could be organized by the various farmers who currently sell
their crops in Plymouth.
Thank you ain for your letter.
Since
David J. Davenport
Mayor
DJD: cap
t
� mu*fdv p'a.t
S acv p ts-u".�,-'-tif°"' a
�ewv Ctdolu4.a,ecLta �,z� �-oG.cv ,b��,,k,�r�tt amd Co'r��mw.u�f,
h,caul-�'v. Fru.�owed � •tlra� ,�e�e�v I ituewect ,�e��,l z/uJ
It(cpqat �:�.ati,�,�.� .o�✓ ,�/w
.GoznercJ.o� /off anal /o � ,�✓r�n.ue� N• �'�m,�' ,�O .moi a.6vrr�
tv� at 2&''d
p� va4a4., ,ory �(v �fi,Gdt.iio-DtL C�naL ,�: ,ocvt/
,�:1'uldu,,•� a-n.�L �teccti�ccL no .c7nmzcoLcaty Ao&z��
/s�.era,titrn�,a a�uv .uxtfv���ay � ,
z do n.at �ev .un�
�.l�L�i �Am.Erct b"�fiu�inLP�n.� �co>✓ -to a,CGrcu�
htotr� ,,�uti,J u .�.eav
G.vnl
not .oyw AU✓v,unyt
'a� Put z"!u> 9a,nw,ovnui l t`aiLv �'"gym
at
.c�c� ,w
�cq�u� .z -,N ,tiv m
S,dnt .�.Cd �� -� .Gn��.c.G•rt.Gnt ,,,,� .t�c�.i. dcac�t�o�
�a�-e� �vv-�r" .�e�.ry-c��cazt.ut ,�n ��� �.ct c�er•-'
�-�,v c�/r.Fi �no2v�i �itCt� Cvty ,a,�C� a.CC�rwZcC fa
.c'44t`vrn.Lty Xo
.t.4rr✓ fwi.oU dv aG
I.t dou au�✓� 2c y�,,t .fat-exGlAon.d a -w madv
a 2cla.� aw .6 -WIC)r, t�
.Cay a%�lrurEd �o .C,o-rv�vnu-P%•
1 a&o 1Lc.<. wj.t t4k.G.0 P"&/Mo-utii
/h-tv� � �u /1�
,�in�t�icl�etL ✓.,�-(.e-tcfc� C�0 �d i1L{.� f�il.��Y�ur�ccc�.
iIwL .WU'U.�lt I'Y�CC-�CtJ lLG�.�/ �LG2�.1 Cvn.lC ,
�°,(.ynwu.�> .a-�rhl anc� P,Cyrnau,Z`�v a rnaw�tiuic-Z�
Law 16
,cx6� '`�tivau.�ar
104 eve/ro,
HxI
ss447
August 29, 1995
Mr. John Muchlinski
17710 10th .Avenue North
Plvmouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Muchlinski:
CITY 01
PLYMOUT4
I received the August 21, 1985 correspondence you sent to the Plymouth Police Depart-
ment regarding the vegetable stand at 10th Avenue and Highway 101. I have looked into
this matter from a land use standpoint and, as you know, the police have investigated
the matter relative to traffic.
I have talked with the party involved and have learned that the resident was operating
with the understanding that sale of produce was permitted.
That is not entirely so and I have advised the party that in this Zoning District, the
sale of produce grown on the premises requires a Conditional Use Permit.
The party understands that the present activity should not continue unless a Permit
has been issued by the City Council. I have informed the party that the present
activity should cease on or before October 7, 1985 which in my judgment is a
reasonable time for compliance since the requirements of the City Codes were not fully
related to the property owner.
Finally, I believe the party involved is aware of the need to control traffic and
parking; I have informed the party that parking and access are major concerns when
(and if) a Conditional Use Permit application is considered.
If a Conditional Use Permit application is submitted, a Public Hearing is required and
notices are sent to all property owners of record within 500 ft. of the subject prop-
erty. In any case, I expect that the use will cease this fall and restart with the
appropriate permit being issued. I would appreciate it if you would convey this in-
formation to the others who signed your correspondence and petition.
Questions regarding this may be directed to me or to Associate Planner Al Cottingham
who is familiar with the situation. Thank you for your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Blair Tremere, Director
Community Development
BT/gw
cc: Al Cottingham
Public Safety Director
^.r.^.
01 VAAnI IT" 91r1i II r:VLPn PI YMOUTH MIN NFROTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
THIRD DISTOPM MI—CSOTA Roow S
6120 PENH AV[NUE SOUTH
WADIRNOTOH O"ncc:
B lO0Y1NOTON, MIHHCsoTA 554-.4
1026 Lome WORTH o11ILDING 612-661-4600
202_M-=07' Congreog of the Uniteb btateg
y. ^_
�ouoe of Repreontatibeg
1"ington, 3B.QC. 20515
September 10, 1985
The Honorable Connie Morrison
Mayor, City of Burnsville
1313 East Highway 13
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
Dear Connie:
SEA 13 :1.:3
Thanks very much for hand -delivering the League of Minnesota Cities letter
of August 29th signed by yourself and a couple of dozen other Mayors within
the 3rd Congressional District. I particularly appreciate the extensive
effort you exerted to be sure the letter was in my hands prior to my de-
parture from Minnesota. I also appreciate the visit of yourself, Mary and
Bea to my office yesterday.
As we discussed, it now appears that the House Ways and Means Committee
begin to markup the President's tax reform bill in the 4th or 5th week
September. Our Chairman is very anxious to have a bill, and a majority
of the Committee has at least some sort of a commitment to try to work
a responsible tax reform bill even though there is no consensus now on
the bill should be.
Nobody knows for sure what the chances
In addition to the controversial items
remains the larger question of whether
changes in our tax system at a time of
the more basic question of whether the
prove, or retard, growth.
will
of
out
what
for passage of such a bill might be.
which you cite, and many more, there
our economy can stand fundamental
less than vigorous growth, or even
bill as proposed will actually im-
All of us are working gingerly on this matter. None of us want to be
identified as the slayer of this wonderful animal. Local taxes is such an
important element, that it is alleged that its removal or substantial
change would kill the bill's chances. I don't subscribe to that theory
but it does have some currency so I am obliged to work very carefully on
what has come to be known as the "high -tax -state -problem".
Your counsel and your support for retaining the state and local tax deduc-
tion has already been invaluable. Whatever special information or research
you or your school boards or other local organizations can provide in
addition will be greatly appreciated as well. Counties, townships, and
school boards, who also have a large stake in the outcome, should continue
to be active. I look forward to the scheduled meeting on the 24th.
I wish I could reply more definitively, but the development of both support
and opposition to the bill and many of its elements is at a very tender
stage. I will however keep you and your co-signers as closely informed as
possible during the next few months as the bill moves, or does not move,
through the House. Again, thanks for your special effort in communicating
on this matter. re ards
g ,
BF:mjn Bi renzel, M.C.
coov to all THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FI8ER6