CCP 02-12-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- UZ7l.T~/:::Jb nor. Lbprn rrom-.ad1 L. J"!o 1 one I' a 9 e--O lIT --Cfr---(TU z. -~ .~. CITYOF ARDE~ HILLS _I l\IBI0RANDU\I I I DATE: February 2, 1996 I TO: Vem Peterson, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities I FROM: Paul L t\lalone, Councilmember. City of Arden Hills SUBJECT: Bill appropriating funds f,x communities complying with the 1995 Land I Planning Act - House File 2460 I Vern: I Thanks for asking for Metropolitan Agencies Committee members' thoughts regarding tbe funding formula that might be used to allocate the potential $5 million in grants that this -- Icgislation is calling for, and which would serve to offset the costs communities will face in complying with the 1995 Land Planning Act. As you know from my earlier correspondence in January of 1995, we believe that Arden Hills will have to spend an amount ranging from I S52,500 to S67,500 to rewritc its Comprehensive Plan as required by the act. Thanks, too, for having enclosed the guidelines for the distribution of grant funds in 1977 and I 1980-1981. I wasn't im'olvcd in our government during these times and this information was helpful in understanding how the allocations were made in the past. In reading through the prior years' guidelines it would seem that just over Sl million was I distributed in 1977 and about $900,000 was allocated in 1980-1981. Although the guidelines for these two periods were apparently similar, the 1980-1981 write-up seemed 1110re clear. In I any event. it looked to me like the grants to the communities were broken into two parts; a base allocation and a needs-based disbursement. Further. it would seem that the allocations varied depending upon the type of area in which a community was located. For example, a fully I developed area received a different proportion of funds than one that was developing, an urban area was granted a different fraction than one which was rural, and so on. Finally, a key part of the fOrt1lUla was based upon need, which was detined based upon per-capita property valuation, I 1 believe that my basic understanding is correct to this point. As was noted above, grants were composed of two parts, a base component and a needs-related component. The base component was divided in half and one-half was awarded in all I circumstanccs. The second half was then adjusted eithcr upward (in areas with low pcr-capita valuations) or downward (areas with high per-capita valuation) and made up the needs-related -. component. The base amounts were $300 in 1977, and S2,000 in 1980-1981. If this is all I