My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1984/02/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
Agenda Packets - 1984/02/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 2:19:07 PM
Creation date
3/17/2025 2:19:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/27/1984
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1.1U14ICIPAL LLCISLATIVE COMMISSION <br />PACE TWO <br />the State's allocation <br />previous average. Pox example, if <br />a <br />is approximately $600 million, based on population.of <br />capita, the NT:HRO formula <br />4 million residents times $150 per <br />$510 million to cities. Of <br />would allocate 85 percent or <br />80 or $408 million would be allocated <br />that amount, percent <br />to the historical users. If the cumulative issuance of those <br />be eligible <br />historical users has been $500 million, each would <br />to issue approximately 82 percent of its previous average <br />82 <br />($408 million divided by $500 million equals percent). <br />The remaining 20 percent of the local allocation would be <br />is trying <br />distributed to a pool, The task force presently <br />for how that allocation would <br />to identify objective standards <br />to those cities with less than a $1 million <br />be task. <br />awarded <br />average Industrial Revenue Bond issuance history. The <br />date each year, <br />_,____ -F+-or a certain <br />force also conLuaaelEiCC, --- <br />in the pool would revert for distribution to <br />money not spent <br />historical users. <br />At this point, it appears that the best approach for the <br />is to monitor <br />Municipal Legislative commission to follow <br />NAHRO has obviously done a <br />the NAHRO and League positions. <br />and data collection, which probably <br />considerable amount of work <br />be duplicated. The Committee's recommendation, <br />should not <br />therefore, is that it continue to follow developments at the <br />if <br />• <br />NAHRO and League of Minnesota Cities level, and when and <br />odevelop a specific position for the Municipal <br />appropriate, <br />Legislative Commission at that time. <br />JFM/bn <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.