CCP 12-09-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Option #2: Distribute the ERF to municipalities for their use, according to a formula. Description: The County would collect the funds, develop a formula and distribute the funds to municipalities at some frequency pursuant to a grant agreement. The grant agreement would specify the uses for the funds, which would be based on those uses allowed by State law. Municipalities could use the funds in any manner they chose, as long as law allows thc use. Examples: If $700,000 were to be collected in one year, and if the funds were distributed on a per capita basis each year, then the distribution would be as follows: ERF Distribution 2001 pop. (Met Municipality COlmcil Estimates) % of Total Grant Available Arden Hills 9,660 1.9% $ 13,194 Falcon Heights 5,580 1.1%$ 7,621 Gem Lake 424 0.1%$ 579 Lauderdale 2,364 0.5% $ 3,229 Little Canada 9,813 1.9% $ 13,402 . Maplewood 35,080 6.8%$ 47,912 Mounds View 12,750 2.5% $ 17,414 New Brighton 22,215 4.3% $ 30,341 North Oaks 4,000 0.8%$ 5,463 North Saint Paul 11,923 2.3% $ 16,284 Roseville 33,949 6.6%$ 46,367 St. Anthony (part) 2,517 0.5%$ 3,438 Saint Paul 287,260 56.0% $ 392,337 Shoreview 26,374 5.1%$ 36,021 Vadnais Heights 13,151 2.6%$ 17 ,962 White Bear Township 11,384 2.2% $ 15,548 White Bear Lake (part) 24,080 4.7%$ 32,888 Total 512,524 100.0% $ 700,000 Pros . Every municipality would receive some of the ERF, so that the ERF would be equitably distributed. . Cons: . Most communities would not receive enough funding to have a substantial impact on contaminated land or property. . The County"would need to dedicat" staff to developing and monitoring contracts with each municipality, and tracking the type of projects the funds are used for. 7