Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Packet 02-18-2020
City Council 1 of 4 February 18, 2020 CITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA Regular City Council February 18, 2020, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLYMOUTH FORUM—Individuals may address the Council about any item not contained on the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the Forum. If the full 15 minutes are not needed for the Forum, the City Council will continue with the agenda. The City Council will take no official action on items discussed at the Forum, with the exception of referral to staff or Commission or Committee for future report. 4. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. APPROVE AGENDA —Councilmembers may add items to the agenda including items contained in the Council Information Memorandum for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The Council will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. 6. CONSENT AGENDA —These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. 6.1 Approve amendment No. 1 to agreement with Hennepin County for the CSAH 9 / I-494 Interchange Project (ST190003 - Res2020-064) Agreement No. PW 56-17-18 Amendment No. 1 for PW 56-17-18 Budget Impact Resolution 2020-064 6.2 Approve Encroachment Agreement for stairway at 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive (Res2020-065) Location Map Encroachment Layout Encroachment Agreement Resolution 2020-065 6.3 Approve Wetland Replacement Plan Application for the Northwest Greenway Trailhead Project (Res2020-066) Project Location Map 1 City Council 2 of 4 February 18, 2020 Wetland Impact Location Wetland Mitigation Table Resolution 2020-066 6.4 Approve Planned Unit Development amendment for exterior façade changes for Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24 (2020001 - Ord2020-04, Res2020-067, Res2020-068, Res-2020-069) Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Minutes PUD Design Criteria Aerial Map Site Map Notification Map Narrative Site Plan Plans Ordinance 2020-04 Resolution 2020-067 Resolution 2020-068 Resolution 2020-069 6.5 Approve purchase of new street sweeper (Res2020-070) State of Minnesota Contract Quote - Environmental Equipment and Services, Inc. Resolution 2020-070 6.6 Approve Variance for impervious surface coverage for property located at 10314 South Shore Drive (Mark Hillstrom -- 2019105 - Res2020-071) Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Aerial Photo Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Variance Standards Applicant's Narrative Site Graphics Resolution 2020-071 6.7 Approve application of Walters Recycling and Refuse for Refuse Hauler License (Res2020-072) Resolution 2020-072 6.8 Amend resolutions 2019-342 and 2019-346 concerning the Vicksburg Lane and Ferndale Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (ST199005 - Res2020-073, Res2020-074) Resolutions 2019-342 & 2019-346 Resolution 2020-073 2 City Council 3 of 4 February 18, 2020 Resolution 2020-074 6.9 Approve Site Plan amendment and Conditional Use Permit amendment for additional exterior lighting at Parkers Lake Playfield for property located at the northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Niagara Lane (City of Plymouth - 2019111 - Res2020-075) PC Report Minutes CUP Standards Location Map Aerial Notification Area Map Narrative Existing and Proposed Light Poles Lighting Plans Resolution 2020-075 6.10 Approve 3.2 percent malt liquor off sale liquor license for Hy-Vee, Inc. d/b/a Hy-Vee, 16705 County Road 24 (Res2020-076) Resolution 2020-076 6.11 Approve addition of Sunday Sales to On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Latuff's Inc. d/b/a Latuff's Pizzeria, 10820 State Highway 55 (Res2020-077) Resolution 2020-077 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. GENERAL BUSINESS 8.1 Consider Lodging Tax Ordinance (Ord2020-05, Res2020-078) CVB Models of Leadership Lodging Tax/CVB FAQ's Lodging Tax Benefits for Plymouth Local Lodging Tax Authorization State Statute 469.190 Ordinance 2020-05 Resolution 2020-078 8.2 Present 2019 National Community Survey Results The NCS Community Livability Report Plymouth 2019 The NCS Dashboard -Plymouth 2019 The NCS Open-end Report-Plymouth 2019 The NCS Supplemental Online Results-Plymouth 2019 The NCS Technical Appendices-Plymouth 2019 The NCS Instrument Plymouth 2019 8.3 Consider Authorizing Contractual Agreement for Schematic Design and Construction Services with Architectural Firm for Plymouth Fire Station 2 and 3 (Res2020-079)3 City Council 4 of 4 February 18, 2020 Leo A Daly Proposal Leo A Daly Presentation CNH Proposal CNH Presentation Fire Station Project Timeline Resolution 2020-079 9. REPORTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 10. ADJOURNMENT 4 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.1 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Chris LaBounty, City Engineer Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Approve amendment No. 1 to agreement with Hennepin County for the CSAH 9 / I-494 Interchange Project (ST190003 - Res2020-064) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving amendment No. 1 to agreement No. PW 56-17-18 with Hennepin County for the CSAH 9 / I-494 Interchange Project (ST190003). 2. Background: The CSAH 9 / I-494 Interchange Project was the City's highest priority infrastructure project. The City, with the leadership of its policy makers and legislative delegation, was successful in securing $9,720,000 in state bond funds in the 2018 legislative session. Additionally, the City worked diligently with its project partners to fully fund the project. The project was substantially completed in late 2019. On February 12, 2019, the City entered into agreements with MnDOT and Hennepin County to memorialize obligations between parties, including the agreement to access state bond funds. Bids were publicly opened for the project on May 1, 2019 and one bid was received which was higher than the engineer's estimate. The project was awarded at the May 14, 2019 Council meeting with all additional project funding necessary for the project shown as locally funded with City funds. Since that time, Hennepin County has agreed to commit an additional $250,000 towards the project as outlined in the attached amendment No. 1. to Agreement No. PW 56-17-18. The City Attorney has reviewed the amendment to the agreement. 3. Budget Impact: See attachment. 4. Attachments: Agreement No. PW 56-17-18 Amendment No. 1 for PW 56-17-18 Budget Impact Resolution 2020-064 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Amendment No. l to Agreement No. PW 56-17-18 County Project No. 2165300 County State Aid Highway No. 9 City of Plymouth County of Hennepin AMENDMENT NO. l TO AGREEMENT NO. PW 56-17-18 FOR COST PARTICIPATION THIS AMENDMENT N0. 1, made and entered into this day of , 20 by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, liereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Plymouth, a body politic and corporate rinder the laws of the State of Mim'iesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City," arid collectively "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision l and Section 47 1.59., the Parties entered into an agreement to constmct a diamond interchange at the junction of Rockford Road (Corinty State Aid Highway (CSAH) 9) and Interstate (I)-494 between Annapolis Lane and Vinewood Lane, including the construction of traffic signals at the intercliange ramps, north side and south side trails, retaimng walls, pedestrian ramps, stormwater facilities, and the overpass bridge # 27972, as shown on the plmis for City Project No. ST19003, (County Project No. (CP) 2165300), per the terrns and conditions described in the executed agreement No. PW 56-17-18 dated April 18th, 2019; and WHEREAS, construction bids for the Rockford Road and I-494 interchange exceeded the Ei'igineer's Estimate and available project funding by approximately $1,600,000, and the City has requested that the County consider increasing its cost participation to help offset the increased constmction costs; and WHEREAS, the County has taken tlie reqriest into consideration and has agreed to increase its share of cost participation as stated lierein; and WHEREAS, the Parties liereto, therefore, desire to amend Agreement No. PW 56-17-18 as liereinafter set forth. l 32 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. PW 56-17-18 c.p. 2165300; CSAH 9 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The provisions of Section V, items relating to County's cost participation are hereby modified as follows: "The City shall submit one invoice to tlie County for the County's share of the Project costs on or after the following dates and in the following amounts: January 15, 2020 Total Not to Exceed (NTE) $2,000,000.00 The sum of the County's cost participation for the Project shall be at a NTE amorint of $2,000,000.00 toward the detailed design and constmction engineering, right of way land acquisition, and consttuction costs;' is amended to say: "The City shall submit one invoice to tlie County for the County's share of the Project costs on or after the following dates and in the following amorints: January 15, 2020 Total Not to Exceed (NTE) $2,250,000.00 The sum of the County's cost participation for the Project shall be at a NTE amount of $2,250,000.00 toward the detailed design and construction engineering, right of way land acquisition, and construction costs." II Except as provided herein, all terrns and conditions in Agreement No. PW 56-17-18, thereto shall remain in full force and effect. (this space left intentionally blank) 33 Amendment No. l to Agreement No. PW 56-17-18 c.p. 2165300; CSAH 9 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The City and the County have caused these presents to be executed by tlieir respective officers as of the date first above written. (Seal) CITY OF PLYMOUTH BY: Mayor Date: And: City Manager Date: ATTEST: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By: Deputy/Clerk of the Corinty Board Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Cliair of its County Board Date: And: Corinty Administrator ny%?ffioate: jtant qounty Attorney Da'e: )( )" ¥ hQ And: Assistant County Administrator-Public Works Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:RECOMMENDED FOR APPROV AL BY: ASSiStant County Attorney Date: By: County Highway Engineer Date: By: Transportation Operations Department Director Date: -3 34 The budget was set on May 14, 2019 in an amount of $16,200,700 which includes construction cost, design, administration, and inspection. With the additional $250,000 in funding from Hennepin County this directly reduces Plymouth's local share as seen below in the revised column: Funding Source Current Revised TH Bonds (Legislative Approval)$ 4,860,000 $ 4,860,000 GO Bonds (Legislative Approval)$ 4,860,000 $ 4,860,000 City of Plymouth MSA/Local Funds $ 4,169,700 $ 3,919,700 Hennepin County CSAH Funds $ 2,111,000 $ 2,361,000 MnDOT SRC Funds $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Total $16,200,700 $16,200,700 This Hennepin County amendment is to increase the cost participation from $2,000,000 to $2,250,000. Additional County funds have been allocated to this project based on previous agreements including design costs which is why its revised total cost share of $2,361,000 is higher than what is shown in the attached amended agreement. 35 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-064 RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO.PW-56-17-18 WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 494 AT CSAH 9INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS (ST190003) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that the City of Plymouth enter into Amendment No. 1 of Hennepin County Agreement No. PW-56-17-18 with the County of Hennepin, for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the County of Hennepin to the City of the County’s share of the costs of the project along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 494 at Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 9 (Rockford Road) within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2785- 408 (T.H. 494=393). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on February 18, 2020 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ___________day of __________________, __________. ____________________________________ City Clerk 36 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.2 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Griffin Dempsey, Graduate Engineer Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Approve Encroachment Agreement for stairway at 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive (Res2020-065) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving an encroachment agreement for stairway at 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive. 2. Background: Jessica Fjelstad and Joseph Newgren, property owners, are requesting an encroachment agreement for stairway within right-of-way at 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive. The stairway is located on the east portion of the property as shown on the attached site map and agreement. The property owners request an agreement formalizing the City’s acceptance of the existence of the improvements within the right-of-way. The encroachment agreement states the property owners are responsible to remove the structure at their expense if required in the future. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Attachments: Location Map Encroachment Layout Encroachment Agreement Resolution 2020-065 37 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT LOCATION MAP 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive 38 S t e p swood O v e r h e a d W i r e sB i t u m i n o u sResidence Residence Garage Garage B i t u m i n o u s16.6F e n c e 8 9 6898900902904906908910912914916918920922924926928930932 W. MEDICINE LAKE DRIVEEVERGREEN LANE LINE 165' S O U T H O F T H E N . L I N E O F S W 1 / 4 , S E 1 / 4 , S E C . 2 6S 01°12'01" EN 83°43'14" W 1 3 8 . 1 0 N 81°00'2 2 " W 1 1 9 . 8 6 30.0 920922924922924 926 D r i v e w a y 25.5 8.0t/w b/w 4%8.18.0916918920922924926928Proposed 2 1/2" Tree 8.211.8 T/W B/W Silt Fence 929.3 926.5 929.0920.134'0"51'8" 33'4" 18'4" PROPOS E D RESIDEN C E pervious w a l k prop wall 1'9"35'9"918.0 914.0 Power Pole Power PoleL=38.40R=4000.00 =00°33'00"L=27.57R=58.15=27°09'54"L=27.57R=58.15=27°09'54" 928.4 tree 30 921.2 tree 29l 920.5tree 10 920.0 tree 6 919.5 tree 10 918.0 tree 11 916.6 tree 5 914.5 tree 6 914.2 tree 24 916.8 tree 15tree 15 tree 5 926.7 tree 36 926.7 tree 22 905.4 tree 24 912.1 tree 7 913.5 16"tree 932.2 932.7 929.9 933.7 922.3 923.0 919.3 914.1914.9 915.2 920.5 918.1 914.8 ffe 935.2 gf 924.7 ffe 923.6 928.8 929.0 931.8 927.1 925.1 893.7894.0894.3932.3 921.8 Building and Deck Setback Line lF:\survey\elmhurst gateway 2nd addition - hennepin\1-1\Eg2-1inv87711A-SITE PLAN.dwg Basis for bearings is assumed Surveyors Certificate 000.0 x000.0 Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Found Iron Monument Denotes Proposed Contours Denotes Existing Contours NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed grades shown on this survey are interpolations of proposed contours from the drainage, grading and/or development plans. NOTE: The relationship between proposed floor elevations to be verified by builder. NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Drawn By Signed Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Scale: 1" = 20' F.B.No. Project No.I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota rev Address: Legal Description 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093 DemarcInc.com Proposed Top of Foundation Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Basement Floor Type of Building 929.3 929.0 920.6 Fullbasement Walkout 87711A 1103-59 Site Plan Survey For: 1513 Medicine Lake Drive W. Plymouth, MN Site Plan Prepared this 7th day of November 2019. PRECISION HOMES Lot 1, Block 1, ELMHURST GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota Property located in Section 26, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota DE House sewer not serviced by gravity. Property zoned RSF-3 detached Setback Requirements per Zoning Ordinance: Front - 25 feet Side - House - 8 feet Garage - 6 feet Rear - 25 feet Bluff - 30 feet Proposed Hardcover Lot Area 6,630 sq ft Building 1,789 sq ft Driveway 942 sq ft Pervious Walk 0 sq ft Total 2,731 sq ft Percentage 41.19% 12-11-19 flipped house 12-17-19 bluff setback 12-24-19 ret wall 1-10-20 City comments 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-065 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR A STAIRWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1513 WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE WHEREAS, Jessica Fjelstad and Joseph Newgren, property owners, requested the City to approve an encroachment agreement allowing an existing stairway within right-of-way at 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive; and WHEREAS, the owner’s properties are legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Elmhurst Gateway 2nd Addition. WHEREAS, the encroachment agreement permits only the stairway within the easements and right-of-way and all related facilities must still meet all applicable City codes; and WHEREAS, the encroachment agreement states that the property owners are responsible to remove the structure at their expense if required in the future. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the encroachment agreement that will allow the stairway in the right-of-way at 1513 West Medicine Lake Drive is approved. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on February 18, 2020 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ___________day of __________________, __________. ____________________________________ City Clerk 47 48 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.3 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Ben Scharenbroich, Interim Water Resources Manager Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Approve Wetland Replacement Plan Application for the Northwest Greenway Trailhead Project (Res2020-066) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving the wetland replacement plan application for the Northwest Greenway Trailhead Project, NE 1/4, Section 7, T118N, R22W. 2. Background: The proposed Northwest Greenway Trailhead Project is located on an approximately five acre site on the east side of Peony Lane between 54th Avenue North and Wayzata High School. The project would construct two parking lots, a shelter building, and associated infrastructure such as utilities and filtration basins for water quality treatment. The infrastructure improvements include constructing approximately 1,250 feet of new 12-foot-wide bituminous trail and an 18-foot-wide by 50-foot-long box culvert at Elm Creek, which necessitated the wetland replacement plan application. The site plan was approved by the Council on September 10, 2019 and the shelter building was approved on January 28, 2020. The engineer for the project submitted a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan application to the City on January 17, 2020. This plan proposed to impact 6,883 square feet (0.158 acre) of permanent wetland, 1,525 square feet (0.035 acre) of no-loss wetland, 19 linear feet x 18 feet wide (0.01 acre) of temporary stream impact and 50 linear feet x 18 feet wide (0.02 acre) of permanent stream impact. No mitigation is proposed for the stream impacts as the stream flow would be maintained however permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio as a purchase of 0.316 wetland bank credits from #1649, Hennepin County, major watershed 20, bank service area 7. Wetland mitigation is outlined in the attached Wetland Mitigation Table. 3. Budget Impact: The overall budget for this Parks project accounts for the wetland replacement total of $38,578.54. 4. Attachments: Project Location Map Wetland Impact Location Wetland Mitigation Table 49 Resolution 2020-066 50 51 52 Wetland Mitigation Table Summary of Impacts Basin Size (square feet) Impacted Area (square feet) WCA Required Replacement Credit at 2:1 ratio (square feet) Wetland 4 8,741,568 6,882 13,764 Total 8,741,568 6,882 13,764 Summary of Replacement Wetland Restoration Credit: Wetland Buffer Credit: Wetland Bank Credits: NA NA 13,764 Wetland Bank #1649 Notes: Wetland bank #1649 Total Replacement Credit (square feet) 13,764 53 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-066 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST GREENWAY TRAILHEAD PROJECT NE 1/4, SECTION 7, T118N, R22W WHEREAS, SRF Consulting Group, Inc on behalf of the City of Plymouth has submitted a wetland replacement plan replacing impacted wetlands for the Northwest Greenway Trailhead Project at a 2:1 ratio; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has purchased 13,764 square feet of wetland credits from wetland bank #1649; and WHEREAS, the replacement plan meets the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the filling of wetlands and the Wetland Replacement Plan application for the Northwest Greenway Trailhead Project is approved and subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a fully executed Application for Withdrawalof Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 54 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.4 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Lori Sommers, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Steve Juetten, Community Development Director Item:Approve Planned Unit Development amendment for exterior façade changes for Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24 (2020001 - Ord2020-04, Res2020-067, Res2020-068, Res-2020-069) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached ordinance and resolution approving a PUD amendment and resolution approving findings of fact to allow exterior façade changes for Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24, as recommended by the Planning Commission. In addition, approval is requested of a resolution approving summary publication of ordinance. All items require a 4/7 vote of the Council except for the resolution approving summary publication of said ordinance which requires a 6/7 vote. 2. Background: On February 5, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing and subsequently voted unanimously to recommend approval. The applicant was present in support of the request. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes and report is attached. Notice of the Planning Commission’s public hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. Development signage remains on the site. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Planning Review Deadline: * May 5, 2020 5. Attachments: Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Minutes PUD Design Criteria Aerial Map 55 Site Map Notification Map Narrative Site Plan Plans Ordinance 2020-04 Resolution 2020-067 Resolution 2020-068 Resolution 2020-069 56 Agenda Number File 2020001 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO:Plymouth Planning Commission FROM:Lori Sommers, Sr. Planner (509-5457) through Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager MEETING DATE:February 5, 2020 APPLICANT:Marvin Management, LLC PROPOSAL:PUD Amendment for exterior façade changes at Taco Bell LOCATION: 16855 County Road 24 GUIDING:C (commercial) ZONING:PUD (planned unit development) REVIEW DEADLINE:May 5, 2020 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD amendment for exterior façade changes to the Plymouth Station Taco Bell. Under the plan, a darker brick color would be used to provide accent to the building along with changing the red awnings and windows to black. No exterior site or lighting changes are proposed in conjunction with this amendment. Notice of the public hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper. Because the request is for a PUD amendment, two mailed notices were sent out to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. One notice was sent upon city receipt of the application, and the other notice was sent 12 days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the notification area map is attached. Development signage has also been posted on the property. 57 File 2020001 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North Plymouth Station C PUD West (Across County Rd. 24)Plymouth Ponds Business Park IND I-1 East Plymouth Station C PUD South Plymouth Station C PUD Previous Actions Affecting Site In 1997, the City Council approved a rezoning, preliminary plat and PUD general plan amendment for Plymouth Station, a 141,000 square foot retail center anchored by a grocery store. The development includes Hy-Vee, Panera Bread, Holiday Gas Station, and other strip retail uses. In 1998, the City Council approved a master sign and architectural design plan for the Plymouth Station PUD. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD amendment. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. The city may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required that are deemed necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment for exterior façade changes. Under the plan, a darker brick color would be used to provide accent to the Taco Bell building along with changing the red awnings and windows to black. No exterior site or lighting changes are proposed. The Playmouth Station PUD includes detailed architectual design standards for the entire development. These standards were intended to create a cohesive and unitfied development. A complete list of architectural design standards is attached. In summary, the design standards require the use of: 1) durable building Existing Exterior Facade Proposed Exterior Facade 58 File 2020001 Page 3 materials; 2) harmonious building materials and colors throught out the development; 3) equal treatment and visual qualities on all building elevations; and 4) uniform shingles and/or roofing materials. All of the buildings are brick with similar architectual detailing. Canvas awnings, vertical columns, horizontal brick banding, and similar window treatments are included in each building. All building elevations would receive equal treatment and architectural detailing. The Taco Bell building is the only building within the PUD that has red windows and doors. All the other buildings have black windows and doors. The amount of original brick changing from brown to black is 772 square feet. The biggest change is located on the front elevation (facing east) where 27.51% of the brick would change to black brick (see graphic below). In review of the building elevations for the Taco Bell, staff finds that the design and materials of the building are smilar to the other buildings, and that the development would maintain a cohesive image with the addition of black brick elements to the façade. Conclusion In its review of the requested PUD amendment, the Planning Commission must consider the following: Consistency with the City Comprehensive Plan Staff finds that the requested PUD amendment would be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. Impact on the purposes and intent of the Ordinance Staff finds that the requested exterior façade changes would not affect the purposes or intent of the PUD. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment for Marvin Management, LLC for property located at 16855 County Road 24, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the attached ordinance and resolutions. Proposed Exterior FacadeExistingExteriorFacade 59 File 2020001 Page 4 If new information is brought forward at the public hearing, staff may alter or reconsider its recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amending Section 21655.70 of the Zoning Ordinance 2.Draft Resolution Approving Findings of Fact supporting the Amendment 3. Draft Resolution Approving PUD Amendment 4. Location Map 5. Aerial Photo 6. Notification Area Map 7. Applicant’s Narrative and Site Graphics 60 Proposed Minutes 1 of 2 Meeting of February 5, 2020 Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2020 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on February 5, 2020. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Bryan Oakley, Julie Witt, David Witte, and Michael Boo COMMISSIONERSABSENT: Commissioners Donovan Saba and Justin Markell STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, and Senior Planner Lori Sommers OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll (6.02) Public hearing on PUD amendment for Marvin Management for exterior façade changes at Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24. (2020001) Senior Planner Sommers reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked which of the buildings in the area are considered to be harmonious with the overall development. Senior Planner Sommers identified each of the buildings within the PUD, all of which have similar architectural details. Chair Anderson introduced Barry Zelickson, representing the owner of the building, who stated they have owned the building for over 20 years and would like to update the façade along with the interior updates that will occur. He stated that the look of this building is not consistent, and therefore the enhancements with the black accents will make the building more consistent with the surrounding area. Commissioner Witte asked for details on the updates that will occur to the order board. Mr. Zelickson provided details on the order board update that will occur. Commissioner Witte referenced salt damage that occurred in this overall area and asked if that was an issue for this property. Mr. Zelickson confirmed that these updates should address any issues they have experienced. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present requesting to speak on this item.61 Proposed Minutes 2 of 2 Meeting of February 5, 2020 Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to recommend approval of PUD amendment for Marvin Management for exterior façade changes at Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. 62 ATTACHMENT A Plymouth Station Design Criteria The PUD district requires that the development demonstrnte a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The following standards shall apply to all buildings within the PUD: Architectural Standards I . All building materials shall be of high quality and constructed of durable materials. Mqjor exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, or decorative block. Painted block is prohibited. 2. Building colors shall be harmonious throughout the development. Bright, long, continuous bands of color are prohibited. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes and shall not exceed five (5) percent of the wall area. 3. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by parapet or roof forms. Wood and metal enclosures shall be prohibited. Ground mounted equipment must be screened by walls designed and located so to be aesthetically harmonious and compatible with the building. Materials for screening walls shall be of the same materials as the primary structure. 4. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned walls unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, offsets, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at f tervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public rights-of- way shall be prohibited. 5. Trash and recycling storage areas shall be designed internal to the principal building, except for the grocery store which may have an external trash compactor provided it is screened from view of adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. 6. All building elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 7. Sloped roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures. Roof accents such as cupolas, belfries, dormers, gables, etc., shall be incorporated to provide visual relief from urge pitched roof areas and to help reduce the apparent bulk of large buildings. E 63 B. Uniform shingles and/or roofing materials shall be used throughout the development. Roof elements and materials consisting of bright or contrasting colors shall be prohibited. 9. Elevations of all sides of a proposed building shall be submitted with the Final Plan for determination of compliance with the above requirements. Is 64 411 Il yy ± ,' 1 Ago.: 65 K0.025 0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles SITECounty Rd. 24H w y 5 5 Peony Ln.2018022Greenway North18405, 18515, and 18535 County Road 47, 6035 Troy Ln N, and 5945 Troy Ln N Request for Requiding and Sketch Plan Medi n a R d . 2020001Plymouth Station - Taco BellRequest for PUD Amendment 66 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwwwwwwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w K0.03 0 0.03 0.060.015 Miles SITE County Rd. 24H w y 5 5 Peony Ln.2018022Greenway North18405, 18515, and 18535 County Road 47, 6035 Troy Ln N, and 5945 Troy Ln N Request for Requiding and Sketch Plan Medi n a R d . Legend C, Commercial CC, City Center CO, Commercial Office IP, Planned Industrial w w w w w w w w w LA-1, Living Area 1 w w w w w w w w w w w w LA-2, Living Area 2 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LA-3, Living Area 3 LA-4, Living Area 4 LA-R1 LA-R2 LA-R3 LA-RT P-I, Public/Semi-Public/Institutional 2020001Plymouth Station - Taco BellRequest for PUD Amendment 67 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 1/9/2020 Buffer Size:750Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of anykind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveyingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryor loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 68 69 1 SITE PLAN SITE PLAN 1" = 16'-0"1 VICINITY MAP 1" = 30'-0"2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1799, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify the this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota SIGNATURE: REGISTRATION: RYAN SCHROEDER PRINT HISTORY DATE PROJECT:2019.06.13 DRAWN:DM CHECKED:RS 16855 COUNTY ROAD 24 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 70 5 EXISTING AND NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ENTRY ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DRIVE THRU ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING NEW I hereby certify the this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota SIGNATURE: REGISTRATION: RYAN SCHROEDER PRINT HISTORY DATE PROJECT:2019.06.13 DRAWN:DM CHECKED:RS 16855 COUNTY ROAD 24 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 71 CITY OF PLYMOUTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2020-04 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (ZONING ORDINANCE)OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE TO AMEND THE PLYMOUTH STATION PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16855 COUNTY ROAD 24 (2020001) THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Chapter 21 of the City Code, Section 21655.70, is hereby added as follows: 21655.72 PLYMOUTH STATION PUD: AMENDMENT FOR TACO BELL FAÇADE CHANGES, PLYMOUTH STATION PUD: Subd. 1. Legal Description. The property affected by this PUD amendment is legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1799, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subd. 2. Incorporated herein by reference is the amended PUD Plan received by the City on January 6, 2020, except as may be amended by City Council Resolution 2020-067, on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator under File 2020001. Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall take effect immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED by the City Council on February 18, 2020. _________________________________ Jeffry Wosje, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Sandra R. Engdahl, City Clerk 72 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2020-067 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT FOR MARVIN MANAGEMENT, LLC FOR TACO BELL LOCATED AT 16855 COUNTY ROAD 24 (2020001) WHEREAS, Marvin Management, LLC has requested approval of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) amendment for exterior façade changes for Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1799, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and does approve the request by Marvin Management, LLC for a PUD amendment for the site located at 16855 County Road 24, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD amendment for site modifications is approved in accordance with the plans received by the City on January 6, 2020, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. All conditions of previous resolutions approving the Plymouth Station PUD and any amendments relating to Plymouth Station shall remain in full force, except as may be specifically amended by this resolution. 3. Prior to commencement of the work, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the Building Division, including a grading permit, sewer/water permit, and sign permit. ADOPTED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 73 Resolution 2020-067 (2020001) Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on February 18, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ____________day of ____________________, _____. ____________________________________ City Clerk 74 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2020-068 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATED TO PLYMOUTH STATION PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT (2019025) WHEREAS, Marvin Management, LLC has requested a PUD (Planned Unit Development) amendment for exterior façade changes for Taco Bell located at 16855 County Road 24; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1799, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance requires a text amendment for a PUD amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance text. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and oes support and approve the request by Marvin Management, LLC for a PUD amendment and related Zoning Ordinance text amendment, based on the following findings: 1. The amendment is consistent with the objectives of the City’s comprehensive plan. 2. The amendment would not affect the purposes or intent of the PUD. ADOPTED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 75 Resolution 2020-068 (2020001) Page 2 of 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on February 18, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ___________ day of ___________________, _____. ________________________________ City Clerk 76 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-069 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2020-04 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE TO AMEND THE PLYMOUTH STATION PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16855 COUNTY ROAD 24 (2020001) Ordinance No. 2020-04 amends Chapter 21 of the City Code to amend the Plymouth Station PUD for property located at 16855 County Road 24 (2020001). A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office during regular office hours. APPROVED for summary publication by the City Council this 18th day of February, 2020. 77 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.5 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Ben Scharenbroich, Interim Water Resources Manager Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Approve purchase of new street sweeper (Res2020-070) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving purchase of new Tymco 500X street sweeper. 2. Background: The City has developed a street sweeping program to assist in meeting the mandated requirements of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Street and parking lot sweeping in the City has been used as an effective best management practice for reducing the amount of solids, nutrients, and chlorides entering water bodies throughout the City. Historically, the City had contracted for street sweeping services; however in 2018, the Council reviewed and approved the Sweeping of City Maintained Streets and Parking Lots Policy to bring these services in-house. The City currently owns two mechanical broom sweepers which are effective at collecting large amounts and heavy debris found in streets and parking lots. The 2020-2029 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the purchase of a new regenerative air and vacuum style street sweeper which is more effective at collecting fine sediment and debris. Staff conducted field demonstrations and reviewed regenerative air and vacuum assisted street sweepers from multiple companies, and the Tymco 500X is the preferred sweeper to enhance the City's street sweeping operations. The City is pursuing funding from the Bassett Creek, Shingle Creek and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commissions and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to help offset the purchase cost of the street sweeper. A separate agreement will be brought to the Council for approval if funding is awarded. The funds would reimburse the Water Resources Fund. 3. Budget Impact: A street sweeper was included in the CIP in the amount $350,000 from the Water Resources Fund. Environmental Equipment and Services, Inc. has the state contract (#153285) for the recommended Tymco 500X street sweeper and has provided a quote of $296,665. Funding source is the Water Resources Fund which is consistent with the approved CIP. However, funding sources successfully received from other sources would be placed into the Water Resources Fund to help offset the purchase. 78 4. Attachments: State of Minnesota Contract Quote - Environmental Equipment and Services, Inc. Resolution 2020-070 79 STATE OF MINNESOTA TYMCO 500X PRICING 1OF6 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT S-843(5)#153285 RESPONDER'S NAME: Environmental Equipment & Services, Inc. SWIFT EVENT NUMBER:8956 Following is a list of all distributors that are authorized to sell the equipment listed above. All distributors will providethe required insurance certificates to the State as outlined in the Swift Event Special Terms and Conditions beforeany State Contract may be executed. The SWIFT Vendor number must be complete and include the vendor location number and the vendor location number, i.e., 0000123456-001. COMPANY SWIFT VENDOR COMPANY PHONE CONTACT NAME & LOCATION NO. STREET ADDRESS STATE NUMBER NAMEEnvironmentalVN0000229018_1 27365 Zachary Ave.MN 952-461-3650 Alan WalfordEquipment &Services, Inc. 80 STATE OF MINNESOTA TYMCO 500X PRICING 2OF6 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT S-843(5)#153285 Vendor Name:Contact Person:Street Address:PO Box:City, State, ZipPhone #:Toll Free #:Fax #:Email Address:Website: Version of Excel used:Excel 2013 3.1 4-WHEEL STREET SWEEPER Manufacturer TYMCO, Inc. Make / Model Chassis Type of Dump Side High Dump Height of Dump Variable 2-11' Type of Hopper Stainless Steel Size of Hopper 5.7 Volume Metric Drive Engine HP 215 HP Drive Engine Type Cummings ISB Engine: Tier 4 compliant? Yes or No Yes Auxiliary Engine Type John Deere Auxiliary Engine HP 115 HP Turning Radius 23' Fuel Tank Capacity (in gallons)50 gallons Frame, Chassis 32,000 GVW STREET SWEEPER : 4-WHEEL SWEEPER UNITS BASE UNIT REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATION NO. 3.1 EVENT NO. 8956 Environmental Equipment & Services, Inc. Alan Walford 27365 Zachary Avenue Elko, MN 55020 952-461-3650 877-461-3650 952-461-3689email@environmentalequipment.comwww.environmentalequipment.com 81 STATE OF MINNESOTA TYMCO 500X PRICING 3OF6 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT S-843(5)#153285 Vendor Name:Contact Person:Street Address:PO Box:City, State, ZipPhone #:Toll Free #:Fax #:Email Address:Website: Version of Excel used:Excel 2013 STREET SWEEPER : 4-WHEEL SWEEPER UNITS BASE UNIT REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATION NO. 3.1 EVENT NO. 8956 Environmental Equipment & Services, Inc. Alan Walford 27365 Zachary Avenue Elko, MN 55020 952-461-3650 877-461-3650 952-461-3689email@environmentalequipment.comwww.environmentalequipment.com Transmission Type Allison 2500 Five Speed w/Trans. Cooler Rear Axle Rating 21,000 lbs. Two Speed Rear Suspension Rating 23,000 lbs. Air Ride Front Axle Rating 12,000 lbs. Front Suspension Rating 10,000 lbs. Brakes Air Anti-Lock Steering Integral Power Steering Tires, Front 11R X 22.5 14 Ply Tires, Rear 11R X 22.5 14 Ply Are air conditioning/tinted windows included? (If no, list price)Standard Alternator (Amps)110 Amp Battery CCA (2) 1400 CCA 82 STATE OF MINNESOTA TYMCO 500X PRICING 4OF6 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT S-843(5)#153285 Vendor Name:Contact Person:Street Address:PO Box:City, State, ZipPhone #:Toll Free #:Fax #:Email Address:Website: Version of Excel used:Excel 2013 STREET SWEEPER : 4-WHEEL SWEEPER UNITS BASE UNIT REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATION NO. 3.1 EVENT NO. 8956 Environmental Equipment & Services, Inc. Alan Walford 27365 Zachary Avenue Elko, MN 55020 952-461-3650 877-461-3650 952-461-3689email@environmentalequipment.comwww.environmentalequipment.com Gauges Full Electric Electrical Protection Type Circuit Breakers Lights other then operating lights Cab Strobe/ 4 Rear Flasher Lights LH Side Window Type Electric RH Side Window Type Electric Side Broom, type and diameter Hydraulic Steel 43" Main Broom, type and diameter Optional Sweeper Path 12' Water Tank Type Poly Water Tank Size 240 Gallons Hopper Load Device Hopper Load Indicator Warranty TYMCO: 1 yr/1,000hrs. John Deere: 5 yrs/5,000hrs.(Months, Years, Hours, Etc.)Chassis: Standard Manufacturer's Warranty Base Chassis (If applicable) Price:$89,450.00Base Body (If applicable) Price:$186,200.00Total Base Unit Price:$275,650.00 83 STATE OF MINNESOTA TYMCO 500X PRICING 5OF6 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT S-843(5)#153285 VENDOR NAME: Environmental Equipment & Services, Inc. MAKE AND MODEL OFFERED: TYMCO 500X Qty Price Subtotal Unit Base Price:$275,650.00 -$ Spec No. Description Qty Price Subtotal 3.2.1 CAB ACCESSORIES/OPTIONS: Use this section to list operator station accessories/options. Air Horn $350.00 -$ Electric Heated West Coast Mirrors Standard12" Parabolic Mirrors Standard2 Cameras, Color Monitor $2,450.00 -$ Cloth High Back Air Ride Seats StandardAM/FM/Aux. Input Standard 3.2.2 SWEEPER OPTIONS: Use this section to list broom/sweeping options.Abrasion Protection Package StandardAir Purge $225.00 -$ Auto Sweep Interrupt $1,950.00 -$ Auxiliary Hand Hose $4,250.00 -$ Auxiliary Hand Hose Extension $595.00 -$ Auxiliary Hydraulic System $1,700.00 -$ Gutter Broom Tilt Adjuster $1,400.00 -$ Reverse Pickup Head System $650.00 -$ Hose Reel - 50' Hose $1,300.00 -$ Gutter Broom Override $1,400.00 -$ Hydraulic Curtain Lifter System $1,400.00 -$ Sweeper Paint - Any color other than manufacturer's standard white $4,500.00 -$ Hopper Vibrator - Electric StandardCompressed Natural Gas Conversion (CNG)$119,500.00 -$ 3.2.3 ENGINE/TRANSMISSION OPTIONS: Offer engine and powertrain options. Any engines that are Tier 4 compliant must be identified as a Tier 4 engine. Air Dryer Brakes Standard 3.2.4 TIRE/RIM OPTIONS: Use this section to list offered tire/rim options.Spare Tire and Rim, 11R X 22.5 14 Ply $750.00 -$ 3.2.5 LIGHTS/CAB EXTERIOR OPTIONS. Use this section to list offered lights and cab exterior options.LED Light Bar $1,450.00 -$ Amber Strobe Light LED $450.00 -$ Arrow Board LED $1,450.00 -$ 3.2.6 HOPPER ACCESSORY OPTIONS: Use this section to offer hopper accessory options. Hopper Deluge Sytem $1,450.00 -$ 3.2.7 WATER SYSTEM OPTIONS: Use this section to offer water system options. High Output Water System $865.00 -$ 3.2.8 OTHER OPTIONS: Use this section to offer other options, if applicable. Base Price Includes Factory Training for Four People at TYMCO in Waco, TX StandardBroom Assist Pickup Head $4,500.00 -$ Truck Paint other than standard manufacturer's white $4,500.00 -$ Magnet Assembly $16,500.00 -$ Peterbilt 220 Cabover Right Side Steering $18.500.00 Dual Steering Add:$17,000.00 -$ Price: Note: Responder must provide a response to the lines highlighted in yellow below. If needed, upload catelogs on a separate attachment and submit with the response. STREET SWEEPER : 4-WHEEL SWEEPER OPTIONS SPECIFICATION NO. 3.2 EVENT NO. 8956 84 STATE OF MINNESOTA TYMCO 500X PRICING 6OF6 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT S-843(5)#153285 VENDOR NAME: Environmental Equipment & Services, Inc. MAKE AND MODEL OFFERED: TYMCO 500X Qty Price Subtotal Unit Base Price:$275,650.00 -$ Spec No. Description Qty Price Subtotal Note: Responder must provide a response to the lines highlighted in yellow below. If needed, upload catelogs on a separate attachment and submit with the response. STREET SWEEPER : 4-WHEEL SWEEPER OPTIONS SPECIFICATION NO. 3.2 EVENT NO. 8956 3.2.9 DELIVERY CHARGES - SEE SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS NO FLAT RATE ALLOWED DELIVERY STARTING POINT - City, State, Zip PRICE PER LOADED MILE:-$ MINIMUM DELIVERY CHARGE (if applicable)$ 3.2.10 NEW EQUIPMENT RENTAL PROGRAMIf rental programs are available on the new equipment offered, with the option to purchase, list the hourly/weekly/monthly rental rate. Indicate the percent of rental fee paid by the purchaser that will be applied to the purchase price. Hourly Rental Rate:35.00$ Weekly Rental Rate:$Monthly Rental Rate:$13,500.00Percent (%) of Rental Fee applied to purchase price:100.0% If the new rental equipment is purchased and finance charges are applicable for the actual rental term only, state the actual interest rate here: ________________ 3.2.11 VENDOR OWNED RENTAL RETURN OR DEMO EQUIPMENT PROGRAM DEDUCT cost per Used Hour from the original Contract Price $35.00/hour 3.2.12 DISCOUNT OFF LIST PRICE FOR RELATED PARTS AND ACCESSORIES % Discount *Note: The "Discount to be Applied to Price List" must be a numeric percentage, which may include 0%. Not listing a numeric percentage may result in your bid being rejected. Price List Date and Number: 85 86 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-070 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A NEW TYMCO 500X STREET SWEEPER WHEREAS, the 2020-2029 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Water Resources budget includes the purchase of one new street sweeper; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth may make purchases off the State of Minnesota contracts; and WHEREAS, Environmental Equipment and Services, Inc. has a contract with the State of Minnesota for a sweeper that meets the City’s specifications, contract #153285. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that: 1. The purchase of a new Tymco 500X Street Sweeper for $296,665.00 from Environmental Equipment and Services, Inc. is approved. 2. Funding from the sweeper shall come from the Water Resources Fund. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 87 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.6 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Steve Juetten, Community Development Director Item:Approve Variance for impervious surface coverage for property located at 10314 South Shore Drive (Mark Hillstrom -- 2019105 - Res2020-071) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving a variance to increase impervious surface coverage from 26.3 percent to 27.7 percent, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Approval requires a 4/7 vote of the City Council. 2. Background: The proposed variance would allow the applicant to remove an existing two-car detached garage and replace it with a new three-car attached garage in roughly the same location on the lot. On February 5, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and subsequently voted unanimously to recommend approval on their consent agenda. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes and report is attached. Notice of the Planning Commission's public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Planning Review Deadline: * May 5, 2020 5. Attachments: Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Aerial Photo Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 88 Variance Standards Applicant's Narrative Site Graphics Resolution 2020-071 89 Agenda Number File 2019105 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO:Plymouth Planning Commission FROM:Shawn Drill, Sr. Planner (509-5456) through Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager MEETING DATE:February 5, 2020 APPLICANT:Mark Hillstrom PROPOSAL:Variance for impervious surface coverage LOCATION:10314 South Shore Drive GUIDING:LA-1 (living area 1) ZONING:RSF-2 (single-family 2) REVIEW DEADLINE:May 5, 2020 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to increase impervious surface coverage from 26.3 percent to 27.7 percent for the property located at 10314 South Shore Drive. The current impervious surface coverage on the lot (26.3 percent) is lawfully non-conforming to the regulation that specifies a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent for properties located within a shoreland overlay district. The variance would allow the applicant to remove an existing two-car detached garage and replace it with a new three-car attached garage in roughly the same location. The reconstructed garage would comply with the regulations that dictate reconstruction of lawfully non-conforming structures, as it would not encroach further upon any required setbacks than the existing garage. Notice of the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site and to the Department of Natural Resources. A copy of the notification area map is attached. 5.02 90 2019105 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North Medicine Lake ---- West & East Single-family homes LA-1 RSF-2 South Woodland and wetland owned by the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad LA-1 RSF-1 Natural Characteristics of Site The site abuts the south shore of Medicine Lake, and is located within the shoreland overlay district for Medicine Lake. No floodplain or wetlands affect the site. Previous Actions Affecting Site The site is located in the “Medicine Lake Park First Division,” which was platted circa 1887 for summer cabin lots. Many of the properties in this area do not conform to current zoning regulations. The home was constructed circa 1925. The applicant purchased the home in 2016. South Shore Drive runs through the south portion of the lot under a prescriptive easement, meaning it has been there for a long period of time and its use has the right to continue. Under the plan, the applicant would provide a permanent roadway easement for South Shore Drive to officially memorialize its use in that location. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards for a variance. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an impervious surface coverage variance in order to allow construction of a new three-car attached garage that would replace an existing two-car detached garage. Under the plan, impervious surface coverage on the lot would increase by 1.4 percent, or 160 square feet. The proposal includes removing some impervious surface coverage elsewhere on the lot in order to keep the coverage as low as practicable.91 2019105 Page 3 To offset the increase in impervious surface coverage, the proposal includes a BMP (Best Management Practice to reduce impact on water quality) to collect runoff and allow it to infiltrate. The attached resolution specifies that the proposed BMP not be located within the roadway easement to be provided for South Shore Drive. Staff would work with the applicant regarding the location of the BMP, as well as the type of BMP (e.g. rain garden, soil amendment, or other approved BMP). The proposed garage reconstruction is part of a larger home improvement project that includes adding a second floor to the home, which currently has one-story above grade and a basement. There would also be a partial third floor (sun room to access an outdoor roof deck), and new siding and windows. The proposed house expansion complies with the non-conforming regulations and can be approved separately by administrative permit. FINDINGS: In review of the request, staff finds that all applicable variance standards would be met, as follows: 1) The requested variance and resulting construction would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: a. the request is reasonable and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; b. the request is due to circumstances (platting) not created by the landowner; and c. the variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. 3) The requested variance is not based solely upon economic considerations, but rather, is based upon a desire to improve the livability and appearance of the home. 4) The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed garage would not be closer to the street than the existing garage, and a BMP to offset the increase in impervious surface coverage would be provided on the lot. 5) The requested variance and resulting construction would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The proposed home improvement project would increase the property value of this lot. 92 2019105 Page 4 6) The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties. The proposal complies with the non-conforming regulations and would meet or exceed all other zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested variance at 10314 South Shore Drive, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving Variance 2. Location Map 3.Aerial Photo 4. Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 5. Variance Standards 6. Applicant’s Narrative 7. Site Graphics 93 Proposed Minutes 1 of 1 Meeting of February 5, 2020 Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2020 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on February 5, 2020. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Bryan Oakley, Julie Witt, David Witte, and Michael Boo COMMISSIONERSABSENT: Commissioners Donovan Saba and Justin Markell STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, and Senior Planner Lori Sommers OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll Consent Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to adopt the Consent Agenda, that included the following items: (5.02) Mark Hillstrom. Variance for impervious surface coverage for a new attached garage at 10314 South Shore Drive. (2019105) With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. 94 SITE S o u th S h o r e D r . (R o a d E a s e m e n t) Medicine Lake 2019 105 Mark Hillstrom 10314 South Shore Drive Variance K 100 0 100 20050 Feet City of Plymouth, Minnesota 95 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 10314 South Shore Drive 0 100 20050 Feet Date: 1/22/2020 Buffer Size:200Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of anykind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveyingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryor loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 97 98 1 Impervious Surface Coverage Variance Application 6 January 2020 Memo to the City of Plymouth Variance narrative for 10314 S Shore Dr. Requested variance: Maximum structural coverage. Allowed 25%. Current 26.3%. Proposed 27.7% Description of Request: Requesting approval of the following variance to allow for the construction of an addition to the home: • Requesting an impervious surface coverage increase from 26.3 percent to 27.7 percent, where 25 percent is the maximum allowed. Natural Characteristics of Site: The site is located within the Medicine Lake shoreland overlay district. There is no floodplain or wetland on the site. Impervious Surface Coverage Variance: The property is non-conforming for impervious surface coverage and currently contains 26.3 percent where up to 25 percent is specified in the zoning ordinance. The proposed plan shows impervious surface would increase to 27.7 percent with the construction of the attached garage. To help offset the additional 1.4 percent in ground coverage, prior to submission of the variance request a 123 Square foot shed was removed. Existing concrete surfaces and pavers on the east side of the existing detached garage that total 201 Square feet will be removed and replaced by 7 feet of concrete floor as part of the garage attachment. In addition, the home will have a complete gutter system and we are proposing to add rain barrels on the east and west side of the home and an appropriately sized rain garden on the southwest corner of the lot by thy driveway. No vegetation or trees will be removed to accommodate any part of the project. 99 2 Variance Standards: 1. The requested variances for the addition to the home are in harmony with residential use and consistent with the plan. 2. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: a. An attached garage is a reasonable manner use consistent with modern homes. b. The request is due to circumstances unique to the property in that the existing structures already exceed the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage. 3. There are no economic considerations for this variance other than the increase in property value provided by a three-car garage, which is typical of modern construction. 4. The requested variances and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would they be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed garage would have similar ground coverages as the neighboring properties with attached garages. 5. The variances would have no effect on adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and would not increase traffic congestion or create any other dangerous conditions. 6. The requested variance is the minimum action required. Requested administrative approval: We purchased this home for our residence in 2016. It currently has approximately 1100 square feet of living space on one level, with a small detached garage. We propose to attach the garage and add a second floor to the home over the current first floor, without making any modification of the existing foundation. The height of the proposed home meets the standards and will not require a variance. Hardcover will necessarily increase with the addition of an attached garage. Some hardcover will be abated by removal of an existing shed, by building a smaller fully permeable deck, and the replacement of approximately 200 Square feet of existing concrete surfaces and pavers that will be replaced by the garage addition. We have designed this project to keep the scale of the resulting structure in line with other homes in the neighborhood, all of which appear to exceed the maximum allowable ground coverage as well. This lot is small, as are others on the street, and we believe the variance we are seeking is reasonable. This garage attachment meets or exceeds the requirement of the zoning standards and will not adversely impact our neighbors. 100 3 Images: Proposed attached garage highlighted in relationship to existing home and detached garage: Proposed attached garage highlighted in relationship to street. Paver walk and existing concrete to be covered: 101 4 Approximately 200 sq. ft. of gravel between existing house and detached garage to be covered by attaching new garage: Thank you for your consideration. Mark and Patti Hillstrom Mark – 952-240-6664 Patti – 952-240-6709 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-071 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR MARK HILLSTROM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10314 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE (2019105) WHEREAS, Mark Hillstrom has requested approval of a variance to increase the impervious surface coverage from 26.3 percent to 27.7 percent, where a maximum of 25 percent is specified; and WHEREAS, the variance would allow construction of a new attached garage onto the south side of the existing home; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Medicine Lake Park First Division, including adjacent one-half of vacated road, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and does approve the request by Mark Hillstrom for an impervious surface coverage variance for 10314 South Shore Drive, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The requested variance is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the city on December 5, 2019 and narrative and survey received by the city on January 6, 2020, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variance is approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards have been met. Specifically, a. The requested variance and resulting construction would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. b. The applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: 1. the request is reasonable and the property would be used in a reasonable manner; 2. the request is due to circumstances not created by the landowner; and 3. the variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. c. The requested variance is not based upon economic considerations, but rather, is based upon a desire to improve the livability and appearance of the home. d. The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed garage would not be closer to the street than the existing garage, and a BMP to offset the increase in impervious surface coverage would be provided on the lot. 109 Resolution 2020-071 (2019105) Page 2 e. The requested variance and resulting construction would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The proposed home improvement project would increase the property value of this lot. f. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties. The proposal complies with the non-conforming regulations and would meet or exceed all other zoning regulations. 3. A building permit is required prior to commencement of the project. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall: a. provide a roadway easement for South Shore Drive; b. revise the plan to relocate the BMP out of the roadway easement for South Shore Drive; and c. obtain staff approval of an administrative permit for the project. 5. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the property owner, has received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 21030.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on February 18, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this _________day of _____________________, _____. ____________________________________ City Clerk 110 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.7 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Lisa Stromberg, Office Support Representative Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Approve application of Walters Recycling and Refuse for Refuse Hauler License (Res2020-072) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving refuse hauler license for Walters Recycling and Refuse. 2. Background: Walters Recycling and Refuse has submitted an application for a refuse hauler license. Staff recommends approval of license for a term to expire December 31. 3. Budget Impact: Required license fee has been received. 4. Attachments: Resolution 2020-072 111 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-072 RESOLUTION APPROVING 2020 REFUSE HAULER LICENSE WHEREAS, the City has received application and payment from Walters Recycling and Refuse, 2830 101st Avenue Northeast, Blaine, Minnesota, for a Refuse Hauler License; and WHEREAS, required license fee has been paid. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that a Refuse Hauler License is approved for the period February 19 through December 31, 2020 for Walters Recycling and Refuse. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 112 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.8 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Michael Payne, Assistant City Engineer Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Amend resolutions 2019-342 and 2019-346 concerning the Vicksburg Lane and Ferndale Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (ST199005 - Res2020-073, Res2020-074) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolutions amending resolutions 2019-342 and 2019-346 for the Vicksburg Lane and Ferndale Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (ST199005) 2. Background: On December 10, 2019 Council approved resolution 2019-342 that included receiving the preliminary engineering report, ordering preparation of plans and specifications, and calling for a public hearing, and also resolution 2019-346 that included calling for hearing on the proposed assessment for the Vicksburg Lane and Ferndale Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project. These resolutions set the date for the public and assessment hearing for February 25, 2020. Since the approval of the resolutions, the regular Council meeting for the fourth Tuesday of February (February 25) was rescheduled to February 18 due to the precinct caucuses, which were moved due to the Presidential Nomination Primary. This year is an exception to the norm as precinct caucuses are typically held on the first Tuesday in February. Resolutions 2019-342 and 2019-346 will be amended to change the date of the public and assessment hearing to March 10, 2020. Notice of the public and assessment hearing will be posted in the official City newspaper and mailed to property owners in accordance with state statute prior to the revised hearing date. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Attachments: Resolutions 2019-342 & 2019-346 Resolution 2020-073 Resolution 2020-074 113 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2019-342 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VICKSBURG LANE AND FERNDALE ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (ST199005) WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted December 10, 2019, a report has been prepared with reference to the recommended project area that includes Vicksburg Lane from State Highway 55 to County State Aid Highway 6, Ferndale Road from County State Aid Highway 6 to Wayzata Boulevard, 32nd Avenue from Vicksburg Lane to Ranchview Lane, Ranchview Lane from State Highway 55 to Medina Road, and 31st Avenue east of Ranchview Lane; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvement includes the mill and overlay of streets, reclamation of streets, reconstruction of streets, trail improvements, replacement of concrete curb and gutter, water repairs, sewer repairs, and all necessary appurtenances; and WHEREAS, said report is being received by the Council on December 10, 2019; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and adjacent property within the designated Vicksburg Lane and Ferndale Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (ST199005) for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.011 to 429.111 (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,135,794.07. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 25th day of February, 2020, in the Council Chambers of the Plymouth City Center at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard at 7:00 p.m., and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. 3. The Plymouth Engineering Department is designated as engineer for the improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. APPROVED by the City Council on this 10th day of December, 2019. 114 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2019-346 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE VICKSBURG LANE AND FERNDALE ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (ST199005) WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on December 10, 2019, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the improvement located on Vicksburg Lane from State Highway 55 to County State Aid Highway 6, Ferndale Road from County State Aid Highway 6 to Wayzata Boulevard, 32nd Avenue from Vicksburg Lane to Ranchview Lane, Ranchview Lane from State Highway 55 to Medina Road, and 31st Avenue east of Ranchview Lane, by mill and overlay of bituminous pavement, reclamation of pavement, reconstruction of pavement, trail improvement, replacement of concrete curb and gutter, water repair, sewer repair, and all necessary appurtenances; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 25th day of February, 2020, in the City Council Chambers of the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. APPROVED by the City Council on this 10th day of December, 2019. 115 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-073 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VICKSBURG LANE AND FERNDALE ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (ST199005) WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted December 10, 2019, a report has been prepared with reference to the recommended project area that includes Vicksburg Lane from State Highway 55 to County State Aid Highway 6, Ferndale Road from County State Aid Highway 6 to Wayzata Boulevard, 32nd Avenue from Vicksburg Lane to Ranchview Lane, Ranchview Lane from State Highway 55 to Medina Road, and 31st Avenue east of Ranchview Lane; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvement includes the mill and overlay of streets, reclamation of streets, reconstruction of streets, trail improvements, replacement of concrete curb and gutter, water repairs, sewer repairs, and all necessary appurtenances; and WHEREAS, said report is being received by the Council on December 10, 2019; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels; and WHEREAS, a public hearing that was originally scheduled for February 25, 2020 was rescheduled. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and adjacent property within the designated Vicksburg Lane and Ferndale Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (ST199005) for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.011 to 429.111 (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,135,794.07. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 10th day of March, 2020, in the Council Chambers of the Plymouth City Center at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard at 7:00 p.m., and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. 3. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is designated as engineer for the improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020.116 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-074 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE VICKSBURG LANE AND FERNDALE ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (ST199005) WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on December 10, 2019, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the improvement located on Vicksburg Lane from State Highway 55 to County State Aid Highway 6, Ferndale Road from County State Aid Highway 6 to Wayzata Boulevard, 32nd Avenue from Vicksburg Lane to Ranchview Lane, Ranchview Lane from State Highway 55 to Medina Road, and 31st Avenue east of Ranchview Lane, bymill and overlay of bituminous pavement, reclamation of pavement, reconstruction of pavement, trail improvement, replacement of concrete curb and gutter, water repair, sewer repair, and all necessary appurtenances; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection; and WHEREAS, a public hearing that was originally scheduled for February 25, 2020 was rescheduled. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of March, 2020, in the City Council Chambers of the Plymouth City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 117 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.9 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Kip Berglund, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Steve Juetten, Community Development Director Item:Approve Site Plan amendment and Conditional Use Permit amendment for additional exterior lighting at Parkers Lake Playfield for property located at the northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Niagara Lane (City of Plymouth - 2019111 - Res2020-075) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for additional outdoor athletic field lights at Parkers Lake Playfield as recommended by the Planning Commission. Approval requires a 4/7 vote of the City Council. 2. Background: On February 5, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter and subsequently voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request. The Planning Commission questioned the pole height and whether or not the lights would impact the adjacent residential properties or westbound traffic on County Road 6. Staff responded that: 1) four of the poles would be 60 feet in height and two would be 70 feet in height; and 2) the light fixtures would be fully cutoff and directed toward the interior of the field, and therefore, not impact the adjacent residential properties or traffic traveling along County Road 6. Other than the applicant, no one else requested to speak on this item. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes and report is attached. Notice of the public hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. Development signage remains on the site. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Planning Review Deadline: * 118 April 3, 2020 5. Attachments: PC Report Minutes CUP Standards Location Map Aerial Notification Area Map Narrative Existing and Proposed Light Poles Lighting Plans Resolution 2020-075 119 Agenda Number File 2019111 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO:Plymouth Planning Commission FROM:Kip Berglund, Senior Planner (509-5453) through Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager MEETING DATE:February 5, 2020 APPLICANT:City of Plymouth PROPOSAL: Site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for additional exterior lighting at Parkers Lake Playfield LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Niagara Lane (PID Number 28-118-22-31-0009) GUIDING:P-I (public/semi-public/institutional) ZONING:P-I (public/institutional) REVIEW DEADLINE:April 3, 2020 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment to add additional outdoor athletic field lights at Parkers Lake Playfield. Notice of the public hearing was published in the city’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. A copy of the notification area map is attached. Development signage is posted on the property. 120 2019111 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North (across 18th Ave.) Multi-family homes in Parkers Lake North 7th Addition and Mallard Pointe LA-4 PUD East Multi-family homes in Lakeview Commons, Parkers Lake Cemetery and office use LA-4 and P-I PUD South (across Co. Rd. 6)Parkers Lake Park P-I P-I West Single-family homes in Parkers Lake North 8th Addition LA-2 PUD Natural Characteristics of Site The site is located within the Bassett Creek watershed district. The majority of the site (southern portion) is located within the shoreland overlaydistrict for Parkers Lake. The site does not contain any wetlands or flood plain. Previous Actions Affecting Site In 2011, the Council approved a conditional use permit to allow additional playfield lighting around the softball field. The parking lot lights, soccer field, tennis courts and baseball field lighting were installed as part of the original Parkers Lake Playfield development in 1991. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a site plan amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the city must then approve the site plan amendment. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a conditional use permit is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards listed in the zoning ordinance. If it meets the specified standards, the city must approve the conditional use permit. However, the level of discretion is affected by the fact that some of the standards may be open to interpretation. 121 2019111 Page 3 ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: Site Plan Amendment The applicant is requesting a site plan amendment to add outdoor athletic lights on ballfield number seven at Parkers Lake Playfield. The proposed lighting of a second baseball field at Parkers Lake would fill the void left by the recent loss of a lighted field at Oakwood Playfield, which was due to a school expansion project at Oakwood Elementary School approved in 2019. The plan shows a total of six poles and fixtures, including four of which would be salvaged/relocated from the Oakwood Playfield and two new poles and fixtures. Four fixtures would be 60 feet in height and two would be 70 feet in height. The aerial photo below shows the existing light poles in yellow and orange dots and proposed light poles in red dots. The proposed lighting would be similar to the current fixture layout and fixture type on field six (see yellow dots below). Setbacks The setback requirement in the P-I zoning district for property abutting residential property is 75 feet. The proposed light poles in the outfield would be located roughly 75 feet and 120 feet, respectively, from the Parkers Lake Homeowners Association common space to the west. Consequently, the proposed light poles would meet the ordinance requirement for setbacks. 122 2019111 Page 4 Usage/Lighting Controls The proposed usage of the lighted field would be similar to the current usage of the existing lighted fields. The existing fields are currently used seven days per week from mid-May through July and three to four days per week from August through the beginning of October. If approved, the amount of days would not increase however, it could allow for one additional evening game. The zoning ordinance requires lighting systems for athletic fields to be extinguished by 11:00 pm, except to conclude a scheduled event that was in progress before 11:00 pm and circumstances prevented concluding before 11:00 pm. Lights at the playfield are extinguished by 10:30 pm and are controlled by the Musco Control Link system, which is programmed by park and recreation staff based on usage. Conditional Use Permit Amendment The zoning ordinance categorizes outdoor athletic field lighting as special purpose lighting. Special purpose lighting is permitted upon issuance of a conditional use permit and is not required to comply with the technical requirements of the exterior lighting regulations, but shall be consistent with its intent. To obtain a conditional use permit, applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting installation: 1) is within LZ2 light zone, as is the subject property; 2) utilizes fully shielded luminaires(a condition is included addressing this in the attached resolution); 3) has received every reasonable effort to mitigate light trespass and light pollution (a condition is included addressing this in the attached resolution); and 4) complies with all the technical requirements of the exterior lighting regulations after curfew as discussed above. The majority of the lighting (parking lot, soccer fields, tennis courts, baseball field) was approved in 1991 as part of the original site plan approval and prior to the conditional use permit requirement. However, the subject property received approval of a conditional use permit in 2011 for the softball field lighting. Section 21015.06 of the zoning ordinance states that no significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the permitted use shall be undertaken without approval of those changes by the city. Significant changes include expansion of structures and/or premises. Therefore, a conditional use permit amendment is required for the proposed additional field lighting. The proposed expansion would allow the City of Plymouth to fill the void left by the recent loss of a lighted field. The subject property is within LZ2 lighting zone and would comply with the curfew/extinguishing requirement. The Planning Commission must review the requested conditional use permit amendment for compliance with the standards listed in the zoning ordinance. A copy of the standards is attached. Staff used these standards to review the request and finds it would meet all of the applicable standards. Specifically, the proposed use: 1) would be consistent with the comprehensive plan as athletic field lighting may be allowed in P-I (public/institutional) zoned areas and LZ2 lighting 123 2019111 Page 5 zones; 2) would not endanger the public health or safety; 3) would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the city as a whole; and 4) would not impede the orderly development of surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for additional outdoor field lighting at the Parkers Lake Playfield, for property located at the northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Niagara Lane, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution Approving Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment Conditional Use Permit standards Location Map Aerial Photo Notification Area Map Applicant’s Narrative Site Graphics P:\Planning Applications\2019\2019111 Parkers Lake Playfield field lights SPA CUPA\Comm Dev\PC Report (2-5-20).docx 124 Proposed Minutes 1 of 2 Meeting of February 5, 2020 Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2020 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on February 5, 2020. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Bryan Oakley, Julie Witt, David Witte, and Michael Boo COMMISSIONERSABSENT: Commissioners Donovan Saba and Justin Markell STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, and Senior Planner Lori Sommers OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll Public Hearings (6.01) Public hearing on site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for the City of Plymouth for exterior lighting at Parkers Lake Playfield located in the northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Niagara Lane. (2019111) Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Witte asked and received confirmation of the location of the 60- and 70-foot poles. Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that those are standard heights for ballfield lighting and would match the existing lighted field. Commissioner Witte referenced the large berm between the park and existing residential development and asked if that was reviewed to determine if the berm would provide screening from the light. Commissioner Witte asked if the County Road 6 was considered as a factor, as to whether the light would impact westbound drivers. Senior Planner Berglund replied that there are shielding requirements and noted that the city has not received any complaints about the existing lighting on the softball field. Chair Anderson introduced Barb Northway, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director, who stated that the fixtures have shielding and therefore there is not much spillage off the field that is intended to be lit. She stated that the height of the poles is lower on the infield to provide 125 Proposed Minutes 2 of 2 Meeting of February 5, 2020 additional light on the field. She stated that the berm and established trees should provide some screening to the adjacent residential development. Planning Manger Thomson commented that the lighting requirements for the city are more stringent now, compared to when the existing park lights were installed. Commissioner Witte asked if there are plans to update the existing lights. Parks and Recreation Deputy Director Northway commented that those lights were replaced in 2011 and will be relamped next year, as lights are relamped every 10 years. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and closed the public hearing as there was no one present requesting to speak on this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to recommend approval of the site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment for the City of Plymouth for exterior lighting at Parkers Lake Playfield located in the northwest quadrant of County Road 6 and Niagara Lane. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. 126 (forms/cupsta) ZONING ORDINANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS 21015.02 PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, an application for a conditional use permit shall be approved or denied within sixty(60) days from the date of its official and complete submission unless extended pursuant to Statute or a time waiver is granted by the applicant. If applicable, processing of the application through required state or federal agencies shall extend the review and decision-making period an additional sixty (60) days unless this limitation is waived by the applicant. Subd.5. The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. 2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. 3. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 4. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 5. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the use which is proposed. 6. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 7. The conditional use complies with the general and specific performance standards as specified by this Section and this Chapter. Section 21015-Plymouth Zoning Ordinance 127 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ww w w www w w w www w w w w ww www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ww w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwwwwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w www w www w w w w w w w w w w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ShenandoahCt1 8 th A v e 1 6 th P l1 6 th A v e ShenandoaC o R d N o 6 18thAve Minnesota LnNiagara LnC o 1 5 t h P lTer r acevi ew Ln1 7 th P lTerracevie w L n 1 7 t h P l1 7 th A v e Terraceview LnVicksburg Ln21s SITE ^ P-I P-I LA-1 LA-2 LA-4 P-I P-I LA-2 LA-4 Parkers Lake 2019111 City of Plymouth Parkers Lake Playfields Request for a Site Plan Amendment & CUP Amendment K 375 0 375 750187.5 Feet Legend C, Comercial CC, City Center CO, Commercial Office IP, Planned Industrial w w LA-1, Living Area 1 w w w w w w LA-2, Living Area 2 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LA-3, Living Area 3 LA-4, Living Area 4 LA-R1 LA-R2 LA-R3 LA-RT P-I, Public/Semi-Public/Institutional Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 1/17/2020 Buffer Size:500Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of anykind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveyingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryor loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-075 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PARKERS LAKE PLAYFIELD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND NIAGARA LANE, PID NUMBER 28- 118-22-31-0009 (2019111) WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has requested approval of a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment to allow additional outdoor athletic field lights at Parkers Lake Playfield for the property presently legally described as follows: Outlot G, Subject to Highway, Parkers Lake North 2 nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and does approve the request by the City of Plymouth for a site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment to allow additional outdoor athletic field lights at Parkers Lake Playfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan amendment is approved to allow six outdoor athletic poles and fixtures around baseball field number seven, in accordance with the plans received by the city on December 5, 2019, except as amended by this resolution. 2. A conditional use permit amendment is approved to allow additional outdoor athletic field lights, pursuant to section 21105.06, subd. 7, of the zoning ordinance, in accordance with the plans received by the city on December 5, 2019, except as amended by this resolution. 3. A separate electricalpermit is required prior to the commencement of the project. 4. Prior to the issuance of an electrical permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide fixture details demonstrating fully shielded luminaires, and if required, side shielded and internally shielded luminaires that are installed in a fashion that maintains the shielding characteristics unless certified in writing by a registered engineer or by a certified lighting professional that such shielding is impractical. b. Confirm that the fixtures have received every reasonable effort to mitigate light trespass and light pollution, supported by a signed statement from a registered engineer or by a certified lighting professional describing the mitigation measures. 5. Any new proposed exterior lighting fixtures shall meet current zoning ordinance standards pursuant to section 21105.06 of the ordinance. 138 Resolution 2020-075 File 2019111 Page 2 6. Standard Conditions: a. Silt fence shall be installed prior to any construction on the site. b. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance provisions. c. The site plan amendment and conditional use permit amendment shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has started the project, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the property owner, has received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under sections 21045.09 and 21015.07, respectively, of the zoning ordinance. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on February 18, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ________day of ______________________, ______. __________________________________ City Clerk 139 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.10 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Sandy Engdahl, City Clerk Reviewed by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Item:Approve 3.2 percent malt liquor off sale liquor license for Hy-Vee, Inc. d/b/a Hy-Vee, 16705 County Road 24 (Res2020-076) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving 3.2 percent malt liquor off sale liquor license for Hy-Vee, Inc. d/b/a Hy-Vee, 16705 County Road 24 2. Background: Hy-Vee, Inc. has made application for a 3.2 percent malt liquor off sale liquor license for the grocery store itself. They currently have liquor licenses for their off-sale package store and the market grille. 3. Budget Impact: The required license fee has been received. 4. Attachments: Resolution 2020-076 140 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-076 RESOLUTION APPROVING 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR OFF SALE LICENSE FOR HY-VEE, INC.DBA HY-VEE, 16705 COUNTY ROAD 24 WHEREAS, Hy-Vee, Inc. d/b/a Hy-Vee, 16705 County Road 24, has submitted application for 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Off Sale License for their grocery store located at this site. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTAthat a 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Off Sale License for Hy-Vee, Inc. d/b/a Hy-Vee, 16705 County Road 24, is approved for license period that will expire January 31, 2021. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 141 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:6.11 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Sandy Engdahl, City Clerk Reviewed by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Item:Approve addition of Sunday Sales to On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Latuff's Inc. d/b/a Latuff's Pizzeria, 10820 State Highway 55 (Res2020-077) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution approving addition of Sunday Sales to On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Latuffs Inc. d/b/a Latuff's Pizzeria, 10820 Highway 55 2. Background: Latuff's Inc. has submitted application to add Sunday sales to their On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. This allows the establishment to sell and serve liquor on Sundays. 3. Budget Impact: The required license fee has been received. 4. Attachments: Resolution 2020-077 142 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-077 RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION FOR SUNDAY LIQUOR SALES OF LATUFF’S INC.D/B/A LATUFF’S PIZZERIA, 10820 STATE HIGHWAY 55 WHEREAS, Latuff’s Inc. d/b/a Latuff’sPizzeria, 10820 State Highway 55, currently has an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License with no Sunday sales; WHEREAS, the licensee has submitted application to add Sunday Liquor to their existing On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTAthat the addition of Sunday Liquor Sales to the existing On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License of Latuff’s Inc. d/b/a Latuff’s Pizzeria, 10820 State Highway 55, is approved. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 143 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:8.1 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Danette Parr, Economic Development Manager Reviewed by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Item:Consider Lodging Tax Ordinance (Ord2020-05, Res2020-078) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached ordinance adding Section 1185 of the City Code concerning a lodging tax in the City and a resolution approving a summary publication of said ordinance. Approval of the ordinance requires a 4/7 vote of the Council and approval of the resolution approving summary publication requires a 6/7 vote. 2. Background: Council has had a number of discussions over the years related to instituting a lodging tax and forming a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), including: • January 12, 2010 Council Special Session • January 3, 2017 Joint Council/EDA Meeting • February 14, 2017 Council Public Hearing • May 9, 2017 Council Special Session • July 25, 2017 Council Special Session • August 13, 2019 Council Special Session • September 10, 2019 Council Meeting As the Council is aware, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the City obtained special legislation granting authority to utilize a 3% lodging tax for 10 years that would enable two-thirds of the revenue to be used for capital improvements to public recreational facilities and the remaining one-third for a CVB. LODGING TAX COLLECTION According to the State Auditor’s office, in order for the CVB to have adequate financial resources, the City may have a dedicated account where initial lodging tax revenues can be collected in advance of forming a CVB. If the Council adopts Section 1185 of the City Code, staff will begin the process of working with the hoteliers to institute a lodging tax that would take effect on May 1, 2020, as detailed in the attached ordinance. PURPOSE AND FORMATION OF A CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (CVB) Per Statute, the CVB portion of the tax revenue cannot be used to purchase physical assets, but rather will be used to fund promotional activities related to our local hotels, restaurants, retail 144 venues, recreational tourism and City events to increase visibility and the number of potential visitors. As the Council has discussed in previous study sessions and detailed in an attachment, there are three types of CVB models that exist: 1) as a government agency, 2) as an independent agency or 3) within an outside agency. In any case, each would have a governing Board. Council would be responsible for approving the CVB Bylaws and appointing a CVB Board to manage the high level affairs of the CVB. The Board is typically made up of 5-16 members that commonly represent the following within Plymouth: - Individuals that represent one or two local hotels (can rotate between hotel reps) -Council representation -City Manager -City staff representation -Representation from a few local retail/restaurant establishments -CVB staff member Staff would recommend the Council schedule a future study session to consider CVB models, discuss CVB Board members and directives for the Board moving forward. 3. Budget Impact: The lodging tax revenue is dependent on the occupancy level of short term (30 days or less) lodging venues in the City. However, the City could anticipate receiving an estimated $600,000 to 700,000 annually over 10 years. Two-thirds of the lodging tax revenue will be used for the Plymouth Creek Center or other public recreational facilities as directed by the Council, which will allow for a funding source that offsets the need for this portion to come from the general property tax levy. 4. Attachments: CVB Models of Leadership Lodging Tax/CVB FAQ's Lodging Tax Benefits for Plymouth Local Lodging Tax Authorization State Statute 469.190 Ordinance 2020-05 Resolution 2020-078 145 CVB Models of Leadership According to the MN Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus (MACVB), there are three models for operating a CVB, and they include the following: 1)As a Government Agency: In this model, the CVB is a department within local (city or county) government. The agency reports directly to the political leadership (mayor, council, commission) or to a local government manager/administrator. They often work with an appointed oversight or advisory committee made up of government representatives and tourism stakeholders. Generally, the top administrative position serves in an appointed capacity and other staff members fall under whatever level of civil service protection the local government entity may practice. Advantages • Direct accountability to the funding source. • Direct line of administrative supervision (agency head reports to one person). • Utilizes administrative, personnel and accounting systems already in place in local government. • Interaction and coordination with other departments; tourism development is perceived as an “equal interest” among the local government programs of work. • Some cost savings (office space rental, equipment, administrative costs, etc.). • Overall long-term organizational stability. • Personnel benefits (insurance, retirement, time off, etc.) on par with local government employees. Disadvantages • Possibility of political influence on program of work and/or staffing decisions. • If not involved in an advisory/oversight capacity, stakeholders may feel excluded from decision-making process. 2) As an Independent Agency: In this model, the organization is free-standing, independent and most often not-for-profit 501(c)6 organizations with their own governing board of directors who hires the executive director, establishes and governs the policies and procedures of the organization and gives overall direction to the program of work. 146 Funding for these organizations and their programs of work come primarily from local governments who enter into a contracted arrangement with the CVB/DMO (Destination Marketing Organization) to provide tourism development activities for the community and pay for such services through local lodging tax collections. Independent CVB/DMOs also often have other revenue streams through special events, service fees, advertising sales in publications and on their website, package program sales, product/gift shop sales and, in some cases, membership fees. Another type of agency, the Destination Management Company (DMC) or other for-profit corporation has been introduced and adopted in some communities. The model is an outgrowth of the fact that the operation and marketing of many large convention centers, meeting facilities, sports venues and events had been successfully contracted out to private, for-profit companies. This has led to some governments contracting with those companies to also manage and operate (for a fee) the overall tourism development services for the community that are traditionally provided by a CVB/DMO. Advantages • Independent organizations tend to be less bureaucratic in structure and are free to operate more on a business model. • Independent Board of Directors tend to be individuals who have experience in the tourism industry and who have a direct, vested interest in seeing the work of the organization being successful. • CVB/DMO administrative and staff direct accountability to a board of directors and to the agenda and program of work established by the board. • Salary and benefit programs in independent organizations tend to be closer to market equivalency, making it easier to attract and retain experienced and qualified professionals. • Since they are not government agencies, independent organizations have the freedom to develop non-lodging tax revenue streams. Disadvantages • Local government may feel a sense of diminished control of a program of work. • If non-tax revenues become an overly important source of funding, a larger portion of management time and resources may have to be directed to that function rather than to the primary function of marketing the destination. • If a membership-based model is used, there can be a structural bias towards marketing and promoting members over non-members, often leading to dissatisfaction among non-members. • If a DMC model is used, some financial resources that would have been spent marketing the destination have to be reallocated to management fees. • In some cases, DMCs appear to be less responsive to the needs of smaller, less influential stakeholder in the community. 147 3)Within a Chamber of Commerce: The program of work of tourism development for a community often functions as a division of department of a chamber of commerce or other economic development agency. This is particularly true for start-up or small destinations, where the community has neither the resources nor staff to operate a separate tourism program. In some cases, larger and more well-established destinations continue to operate their tourism programming through a chamber. In these cases, the chamber usually acts on a contractual basis to perform the program of work of tourism development for the community, with funding for the program coming from lodging tax collections. In some cases, the chamber also makes a financial commitment to the program, most often through personnel and/ or physical office costs. Some chambers charge and receive a management fee for performing this function for a community. In most cases, the CVB/DMO is governed by a board of directors independent of the chamber’sboard. Advantages If the chamber has a good standing and reputation in the community, that lends credibility to the CVB/DMO and the program of work of tourism development. Chambers of commerce generally represent a very broad cross-section of a community’s business, government and civic leadership. Those resources, skills and influence in the community can be made available to assist and enhance the work of the CVB/DMO. There can be cost-savings for both the chamber and the CVB/DMO through the sharing of administrative, personnel and operating expenses. Disadvantages Chambers of commerce and CVBs can have somewhat different missions and objectives. Chamber boards of directors are not generally experienced in or focused on tourism development. If the chamber does not have a good standing in the community, that can be detrimental to the program of work of tourism development. In communities with multiple chambers of commerce, the placement of the CVB/DMO within any one chamber can lead to feelings of favoritism, exclusion or preferential treatment towards one community over another on the part of the CVB/DMO. If a chamber of commerce represents multiple communities, issues of favoritism, exclusion or preferential treatment towards one community over another may be problematic. 148 LODGING TAX/CVB FAQ’S (updated 2/20) Lodging Tax •Q: What lodging tax is the City of Plymouth allowed to institute as a result of the recently approved special legislation? A: The special lodging tax allows the City of Plymouth to impose a three percent local lodging tax for ten years, in addition to the three percent lodging tax allowed under general law. Two thirds of the revenues from this special tax must be used for capital improvements to public recreational facilities and the remaining one-third must be used as required under general law—to fund a local convention/tourism bureau. •Q: What would the impacts be if the Council wanted to only impose a one or two percent special lodging tax instead of the three percent special lodging tax? A: The MN House Research Division stated that if the City of Plymouth chooses to utilize the special three percent lodging tax over the next ten years, the legislative intent requires the City to impose the entire three percent. •Q: What is the projected lodging tax revenue for Plymouth? A: Through the implementation of the three percent special lodging tax, the City of Plymouth could anticipate receiving an estimated $400,000 annually for public recreational facilities and $200,000 annually for the establishment of a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) for the purpose of promotion. •Q: What other revenue sources are included in the lodging tax revenue? A: The lodging tax revenue can include other ancillary lodging amenities that also qualify as taxable sources when purchased in conjunction with short-term lodging, such as the following: food or liquor from mini-bars and refrigerators, in-room safes, laundry and dry cleaning services, pay-per-view movies and video games, in-room technology fees, room service delivery, telephone access and cots/cribs. •Q: What is the process to move forward with instituting the special lodging tax? A: If the Council wishes to institute the special lodging tax, the following steps must be taken: 1)The Plymouth City Council must adopt a resolution of approval for the special law. Completed September 10, 2019. 149 2)The City must file necessary resolution material, along with a Certificate of Approval to the Secretary of State. If the City of Plymouth fails to file a Certificate of Approval before the first day of the next regular session of the legislature, the law is deemed to be disapproved. Accepted by Minnesota Secretary of State on September 17, 2019. 3)The Plymouth City Council must adopt a Lodging Tax Ordinance (ordinance attached). •Q: Is the City allowed to collect lodging tax revenues prior to the formation of a CVB? A: Yes, according the State Auditor’s office, in order to have adequate financial resources to support the CVB, the City may have a dedicated account where initial lodging tax revenues are collected. •Q: What types of things can be funded with the one third portion of the lodging tax revenue for a CVB? A: The CVB portion of the funding will not be used to purchase physical assets, but rather will be used to fund resources and activities to support the promotion of the City of Plymouth, our local hotels, retail venues, recreational tourism and city events to increase our visibility and potential visitors. The options for this potential promotion are numerous. •Q: How are lodging tax revenues collected? A: There are a number of acceptable ways to collect the lodging tax revenue, but three of the most common include the following: 1) The city requires each short term lodging facility to file a monthly tax return with the city that reflects their gross monthly receipts, along with the appropriate lodging tax revenue. After the city removes the allowed five percent portion of the gross proceeds to cover administrative costs, the city distributes the remaining revenues to the CVB. In the case of the special lodging tax provision, the City of Plymouth would distribute a portion to be used for recreational facilities. 2) The MN Department of Revenue (MNDOR) could collect the monthly tax return and revenue from each short term lodging facility and redistribute the revenue funds on a monthly basis. MNDOR charges a fee that is typically 1.5 - 3% of the total revenue tax (likely around 2% or $14,000 annually for the City of Plymouth). In addition, MNDOR charges an initial one-time setup fee of $12-$13,000. 150 3) The city or CVB can hire an outside accounting firm to collect the monthly tax return and revenue for redistribution to the city and CVB. •Q: How are VRBO and Airbnb type rentals viewed from a lodging tax perspective? A: If the rental is considered short-term (30 days or less) and doesn’t have a long term rental agreement in place, the owner of the facility is required to submit a monthly tax return that is reflective of the revenues received and the necessary lodging tax portion. Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) •Q: Governing body of CVB? A: There are typically three types of CVB models: 1) as a government agency, 2) as an independent agency or 3) within an outside agency, such as a chamber of commerce. In any case, each would have a Board. The City Council would be responsible for approving the CVB bylaws and appointing a CVB Board to manage the high level affairs of the CVB. The Board is typically made up of 5-16 members that commonly represent the following areas: - Individuals that represent one or two of the local hotels (rotate between hotel reps) - Council representation (typically Mayor and an alternate) - City Manager - City staff representation - Representation from a few local retail/restaurant establishments - The Plymouth CVB staff member •Q: Number and type of staff positions at a typical CVB organization? A: The number of CVB staff is typically correlated to the size of the community and the number of hotels within the CVB market area. Anywhere from 2 to 69 staff members (Meet Minneapolis CVB) are utilized by existing CVB’s in the metro. Most typically, a small CVB would have 1-2 staff members. The larger the CVB organization, the more focused the staff tend to be in specific industry sectors, recreational themes or regions of the country. •Q: How are CVB/lodging facilities audited? A: There are a number of acceptable ways for short term lodging facilities and a CVB to be audited. Most commonly they are audited on an annual basis and through one of the following methods: 1) The CVB contracts with a third party firm to conduct a yearly compliance audit regarding the financial management of the CVB collection process and distribution of funds. All costs associated with the annual audit is covered by the CVB. 151 2) In a few limited cases where a large city may have its own auditing staff (City of Bloomington), they can conduct an audit of the CVB with specific separation of data requirements. 3) A city or CVB can contract the MN DOR to provide auditing services as well. •Q: Does the City Council have the ability to disband the CVB if they choose to in the future? A: Yes, the City Council has the ability to dissolve a CVB at any time, with the approval of a resolution stating the intent to do so. If the CVB is disbanded, the lodging tax will no longer be able to be utilized. •Q: If the City Council disbanded the CVB, how would the accumulated lodging tax revenues be distributed? A: According to the MN Department of Revenue, the City would be responsible for spending down the revenue funds for the intended purposes (promotion and recreational facilities) until the lodging tax revenues were fully utilized. It’s also noteworthy that if the Council disbands the CVB, the City will need to refrain from collecting lodging tax revenue further. •Q: Can the City contract with another CVB for services in lieu of creating its own CVB? A: Yes, the City Council has the ability to join and/or enter into a contract with a neighboring CVB for promotion services. Terms of such an agreement would be negotiated to ensure that the City has representation on the CVB Board and input over how a portion of the proceeds are used in the City, i.e. community celebrations, etc. 152 Lodging tax: Plymouth asks to join its peer cities While peer cities successfully capture tax revenue generated by tourism, Plymouth is left without options, forcing residents to foot the entire bill for the amenities most responsible for drawing tourists to the city. Current lodging tax regulation offers limited benefit to Plymouth, which does not have traditional tourism attractions such as regional shopping centers, historic locations, museums and the like. Instead, Plymouth attracts tourists through a vibrant mix of city-owned recreational amenities that generate hotel stays, restaurant visits and retail shopping. Tourism in Plymouth is mostly due to city-owned recreational facilities. The City of Plymouth asks state lawmakers for the authority to implement a lodging tax that allows the city to promote and directly invest in city-owned facilities. Currently, Plymouth taxpayers pay the entire cost for well-used regional amenities. As Minnesota’s seventh largest city, Plymouth seeks to join similar cities that have received special legislation for the authority to use a lodging tax to invest in its tourist-attracting facilities. Special legislation for authority to tailor Plymouth’s lodging tax Plymouth Creek Center Plymouth Ice CenterPlymouth Ice Center 153 Plymouth taxpayers currently shoulder the entire tax bill for amenities that benefit the region. Plymouth requests special legislation for the authority to implement a 3 percent lodging tax to mitigate local costs for regional assets. This revenue would allow the City of Plymouth to maintain, improve and expand recreational tourism opportunities. Currently, 110 cities collect varying lodging tax rates. Plymouth’s larger peer cities have all received special legislation for authority to implement what Plymouth requests, including: • Bloomington - 7% • Rochester - 7% • St. Paul - 6% • Minneapolis - 5.125% • Duluth - 5.5% • St. Cloud - 5% Plymouth’s recreational facilities are regional draws and have capital needs to keep them operating and regionally relevant. With revenue from a lodging tax, Plymouth will market, promote and reinvest in the city’s recreational facilities. Improving these amenities will have a direct impact on the number of out-of-town visitors staying in Plymouth’s eight hotels, dining in restaurants and shopping at retailers. If local property taxes remain the sole source of funding for these facilities, Plymouth residents will continue to disproportionately pay for amenities that attract outside visitors staying in hotels. Plymouth Ice Center • 445,000 visitors in 2018 • Hosted the 2018 USA Hockey National High School Tournament, which generated an estimated $1.2 million in spending within the local economy • Has welcomed teams from 50 of the 87 counties in Minnesota, from across the country, and from Canada Plymouth Creek Center • Averages 300,000+ visitors per year • Hosted 150+ regional events in 2018 • Used by 13 high schools, 18 athletic associations and 12 universities from across the region and out of state • The Creek Center Fieldhouse hosted 1,964 hours of activities in 2018 Hilde Performance Center • Music in Plymouth concert draws 15,000+ annually • Live at the Hilde concert series features national artists • 40,000-50,000 annual visitors at state-wide, regional and national 5Ks, fundraisers, corporate events and more Northwest Greenway • 350+ acres, 4+ miles of trail connecting to regional trails • More than 96,000 visits in 2018 • Poised to host regional running and walking events Outdoor Athletics • Nine athletic complexes totaling 48 fields that drew players from 68 cities and six states in 2018 Minnesota’s Fourth Largest Economy • Generating $6.4 billion in gross business sales annually Plymouth’s regional amenities Capital needs total $50 million Hilde Performance Center Plymouth’s recreational tourism benefi ts the city’s hotels, restaurants and retailers 154 155 469.190 LOCAL LODGING TAX. Subdivision 1. Authorization. Notwithstanding section 477A.016 or any other law, a statutory or home rule charter city may by ordinance, and a town may by the affirmative vote of the electors at the annual town meeting, or at a special town meeting, impose a tax of up to three percent on the gross receipts from the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court, or resort, other than the renting or leasing of it for a continuous period of 30 days or more. A statutory or home rule charter city may by ordinance impose the tax authorized under this subdivision on the camping site receipts of a municipal campground. Subd. 2. Existing taxes. No statutory or home rule charter city or town may impose a tax under this section upon transient lodging that, when combined with any tax authorized by special law or enacted prior to 1972, exceeds a rate of three percent. Subd. 3. Disposition of proceeds. Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed under subdivision 1 shall be used by the statutory or home rule charter city or town to fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city or town as a tourist or convention center. This subdivision shall not apply to any statutory or home rule charter city or town that has a lodging tax authorized by special law or enacted prior to 1972 at the time of enactment of this section. Subd. 4. Unorganized territories. A county board acting as a town board with respect to an unorganized territory may impose a lodging tax within the unorganized territory according to this section if it determines by resolution that imposition of the tax is in the public interest. Subd. 5. Reverse referendum. If the county board passes a resolution under subdivision 4 to impose the tax, the resolution must be published for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the unorganized territory, together with a notice fixing a date for a public hearing on the proposed tax. The hearing must be held not less thantwo weeks nor more than four weeks after the first publication of the notice. After the public hearing, the county board may determine to take no further action, or may adopt a resolution authorizing the tax as originally proposed or approving a lesser rate of tax. The resolution must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the unorganized territory. The voters of the unorganized territory may request a referendum on the proposed tax by filing a petition with the county auditor within 30 days after the resolution is published. The petition must be signed by voters who reside in the unorganized territory. The number of signatures must equal at least five percent of the number of persons voting in the unorganized territory in the last general election. If such a petition is timely filed, the resolution is not effective until it has been submitted to the voters residing in the unorganized territory at a general or special election and a majority of votes cast on the question of approving the resolution are in the affirmative. The commissioner of revenue shall prepare a suggested form of question to be presented at the referendum. Subd. 6. Joint powers agreements. Any statutory or home rule charter city, town, or county when the county board is acting as a town board with respect to an unorganized territory, may enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement pursuant to section 471.59 for the purpose of imposing the tax and disposing of its proceeds pursuant to this section. Subd. 7. Collection. The statutory or home rule charter city may agree with the commissioner of revenue 156 that a tax imposed pursuant to this section shall be collected by the commissioner together with the tax imposed by chapter 2 and other rules and that its proceeds, less the cost of collection, shall be remitted to the city. 157 CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. 2020-05 ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 1185 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING LODGING TAX THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment. The Plymouth City Code is hereby amended to add Section 1185 as follows: 1185.01. – Lodging Tax (a)Imposition of tax.There is hereby imposed a tax of three percent on the gross receipts from the furnishing for consideration of lodging. (b)Collection.Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this section at the time rent is paid. The tax collections shall be held in trust by the operator for the city. The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the rent charged for the lodging. (c)Payment and returns.The taxes imposed by this section shall be paid by the operator to the city not later than 25 calendar days after the end of the month in which the taxes were collected. At the time of payment the operator shall submit a return upon such forms and containing such information as the city may require. The return shall contain the following minimum information: (1) The total amount of rent collected for lodging during the period covered by the return. (2) The amount of tax required to be collected and due for the period. (3) The signature of the person filing the return or that of his agent duly authorized in writing. (4) The period covered by the return. (5) The amount of uncollectible rental charges subject to the lodging tax. The operator may take a credit against taxes payable the amount of taxes previously paid for rent that was not actually collected. (d)Examination of returns, adjustments, notices, demands and audit.After a return is filed, the city shall examine it and make any investigation or examination of the records and accounts of the person making the return deemed necessary for determining its correctness including a formal audit. The tax computed on the basis of such examination shall be the tax to be paid. If the tax due is found to be greater than that paid, such excess shall be paid to the city within ten calendar days after receipt of a notice thereof given either personally or sent by registered mail to the address shown on the return. If the tax paid is greater than the tax found to be due, the excess shall be refunded to the person who paid the tax to the city within ten calendar days after determination of such refund. (e)Refunds.Any person may apply to the city for a refund of taxes paid for a prescribed period in excess of the amount legally due for that period, provided that no application for refund shall 158 be considered unless filed within one year after such tax was paid, or within one year from the filing of the return, whichever period is the longer. The city shall examine the claim and make and file written findings thereon denying or allowing the claim in whole or in part and shall mail a notice thereof by registered mail to such person at the address stated upon the return. If such claim is allowed in whole or in part, the city shall credit the amount of the allowance against any taxes due under this section from the claimant and the balance of the allowance, if any, shall be paid by the city to the claimant. (f)Failure to file a return.If any operator required by this section to file a return shall fail to do so within the time prescribed, or shall make, willfully or otherwise, an incorrect, false, or fraudulent return, the operator shall, upon written notice and demand, file such return or corrected return within five calendar days of receipt of such written notice and shall at the same time pay any tax due on the basis thereof. If such person shall fail to file such return or corrected return, the city shall make a return or corrected return, for such person from such knowledge and information as the city can obtain, and assess a tax on the basis thereof, which tax (less any payments theretofore made on account of the tax for the taxable period covered by such return) shall be paid within five calendar days of the receipt of written notice and demand for such payment. Any such return or assessment made by the city shall be prima facie correct and valid, and such person shall have the burden of establishing its incorrectness or invalidity in any action or proceeding in respect thereto. If any portion of a tax imposed by this section is not paid within 30 calendar days after it is required to be paid, the city attorney may institute such legal action as may be necessary to recover the amount due plus interest, and costs and disbursements. Upon a showing of good cause, the city may grant an operator one 30-day extension of time within which to file a return and make payment of taxes as required by this section provided that interest during such period of extension shall be added to the taxes due at the rate of one and one-half percent per month. (g)Interest.The amount of tax not timely paid shall bear interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month from the time such tax should have been paid until paid. Any interest shall be added to the tax and be collected as part thereof. (h)Violations.Any person who shall willfully fail to make a return required by this section; or who shall fail to pay the tax after written demand for payment, or who shall fail to remit the taxes collected or any interest imposed by this section after written demand for such payment or who shall refuse to permit the city to examine the books, records and papers under his or her control, or who shall willfully make any incomplete, false or fraudulent return shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (i)Use of proceeds.Ninety-five percent of the proceeds obtained from the collection of taxes pursuant to this section shall be used in accordance with two-thirds of the revenues from this special tax will be used for capital improvements to public recreational facilities and the remaining one-third will be used to fund a local convention and tourism bureau . (j)Appeals.Any operator aggrieved by any notice, order or determination made by the city under this section may file a petition for review of such notice, order or determination detailing the operator's reasons for contesting the notice, order or determination. The petition shall contain the name of the petitioner, the petitioner's address and the location of the lodging subject to the order, notice or determination. The petition for review shall be filed with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the notice, order or determination for which review is sought has been mailed or served upon the person requesting review. Upon receipt of the petition the city manager, or the manager's designee, shall set a date for a hearing and give the petitioner at least five calendar days' prior written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing. At the hearing, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to show cause why the notice, order 159 or determination should be modified or withdrawn. The petitioner may be represented by counsel of petitioner's choosing at petitioner's own expense. The hearing shall be conducted by the city manager or the manager's designee, provided only that the person conducting the hearing shall not have participated in the drafting of the order, notice or determination for which review is sought. The person conducting the hearing shall make written findings of fact and conclusions based upon the applicable sections of this section and the evidence presented. The person conducting the hearing may affirm, reverse or modify the notice, order or determination made by the city. Any decision rendered by the city manager or the manager’s designee, pursuant to this subdivision may be appealed to the city council. A petitioner seeking to appeal a decision must file a written notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the decision has been mailed to the petitioner. The matter will thereupon be placed on the council agenda as soon as is practical. The council shall then review the findings of fact and conclusions to determine whether they were correct. Upon a determination by the council that the findings and conclusions were incorrect, the council may modify, reverse or affirm the decision of the city manager or his designee upon the same standards as set forth in this subdivision. SECTION 2. This amendment shall take effectMay 1, 2020. ADOPTED by the City Council this 18th day of February, 2020. Jeffry Wosje, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Sandra R. Engdahl, City Clerk 160 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-078 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2020-05 ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 1185 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING LODGING TAX Ordinance No. 2020-05 adds Section 1185 of the City Code concerning lodging tax. A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office during regular office hours. APPROVED for summary publication by the City Council this 18th day of February, 2020. 161 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:8.2 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Laurie Hokkanen, Administrative Services Director Reviewed by: Item:Present 2019 National Community Survey Results 1. Action Requested: Receive and discuss results from the 2019 Community Survey. 2. Background: The City engaged the National Research Center to conduct a Community Survey in 2019. City staff will present a summary of results at the Council meeting. Highlights include: -The quality of life in Plymouth remains extremely high, with 97% of residents rating excellent or good. -Nearly every survey respondent (99%) rated Plymouth as a place to live as excellent or good. -More respondents rated Plymouth rated in terms of overall image, as a place to raise children and overall appearance more favorable than in other communities across the country. -Safety ratings remained strong with almost all residents giving high marks to the overall feeling of safety (93%) and their feelings of safety in their neighborhoods (97%) and in Plymouth's commercial areas (98%). -About 9 in 10 survey respondents rated the overall quality of services provided by the City of Plymouth as excellent or good. -About three-quarters of survey respondents felt they received good value for the taxes they paid and felt confident in City government. -Top focus areas for Plymouth in the next two years includes Safety, Economy, and the Natural Environment. -The City exceeds the national benchmark of more than 500 communities across the country on half of the aspects measured. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Attachments: The NCS Community Livability Report Plymouth 2019 162 The NCS Dashboard -Plymouth 2019 The NCS Open-end Report-Plymouth 2019 The NCS Supplemental Online Results-Plymouth 2019 The NCS Technical Appendices-Plymouth 2019 The NCS Instrument Plymouth 2019 163 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Plymouth, MN Community Livability Report 2019 164 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About .............................................................................................. 1 Quality of Life in Plymouth ............................................................... 2 Community Characteristics ............................................................... 3 Governance ..................................................................................... 5 Participation .................................................................................... 7 Special Topics .................................................................................. 9 Conclusions ................................................................................... 11 165 1 About The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) report is about the “livability” of Plymouth. The phrase “livable community” is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 493 residents of the City of Plymouth. The margin of error around any reported percentage is ±4% for all respondents. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Communities are partnerships among... Residents Community- based organizations Government Private sector 166 2 Quality of Life in Plymouth Almost all residents rated the quality of life in Plymouth as excellent or good, which was higher than the national average (see Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover). Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety, Economy and Natural Environment as priorities for the Plymouth community in the coming two years. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Plymouth’s unique questions. Excellent 45% Good 52%Fair 3% Poor 0% Overall Quality of Life Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Mobility Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Built Environment Safety Economy Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important 167 3 Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Plymouth, almost all respondents rated the City as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents’ ratings of Plymouth as a place to live were higher than ratings in other communities across the nation. In addition to rating the City as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality including Plymouth as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image or reputation of Plymouth and its overall appearance. The overall image of Plymouth, its appearance, respondents’ neighborhoods and the city as a place to raise children received favorable ratings from at least 9 in 10 survey respondents; ratings for the city as a place to retire were slightly lower. Ratings for Plymouth’s overall image, overall appearance and as a place to raise children eclipsed national averages. Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 30 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. Broadly, almost all residents felt safe in the community, in general as well in specific areas of the community. A strong majority of survey respondents rated each aspect of Recreation and Wellness and Natural Environment favorably, resulting in higher-than-average scores. Generally, about three-quarters of respondents felt positive about aspects of Community Engagement, which was similar to the sentiment found in comparison communities. 93%95%94%92% 67% Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmarkPercent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 58% Good 41% Fair 2% Poor 0% Place to Live 168 The National Community Survey™ 4 Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics 91% 84% 76% 89% 85% 87% 92% 85% 73% 92% 70% 71% 82% 94% 90% 70% 81% 66% 85% 98% 93% 80% 75% 73% 76% 73% 86% 69% 68% 50% 80% 47% 79% 44% 30% 77% 85% 97% Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance Neighborliness Social events and activities COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT K-12 education Adult education Cultural/arts/music activities Religious or spiritual events and activities Education and enrichment opportunities EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Fitness opportunities Recreational opportunities Health and wellness RECREATION AND WELLNESS Place to work Place to visit Employment opportunities Shopping opportunities Cost of living Business and services Vibrant downtown/commercial area Overall economic health ECONOMY Public places Housing options Affordable quality housing New development in Plymouth Overall built environment BUILT ENVIRONMENT Cleanliness Overall natural environment NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Traffic flow Travel by car Travel by public transportation Travel by bicycle Ease of walking Paths and walking trails Overall ease of travel MOBILITY Safe downtown/commercial area Safe in neighborhood Overall feeling of safety SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Comparison to national benchmark 169 5 Governance How well does the government of Plymouth meet the needs and expectations of its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Plymouth as well as the manner in which these services are provided is a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. About 9 in 10 survey respondents rated the overall quality of services provided by the City of Plymouth as excellent or good, resulting in ratings higher than those found in national comparison communities. Similar to comparison communities, residents of Plymouth viewed services provided by the Federal Government less favorably than the services provided by the local government. Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Plymouth’s leadership and governance. About three-quarters of survey respondents felt they received good value for the taxes they paid and felt confident in City government. About four in five respondents felt leaders were honest and treated all residents fairly. Compared to other communities in the U.S., Plymouth’s ratings in these areas were higher than average. Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Plymouth. Services within Safety, Recreation and Wellness, Economy, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement received positive ratings from at least four in five survey respondents; in many instances individual services had ratings higher than the national benchmark. Services and amenities within Mobility and Built Environment received a mix of ratings, either similar to or higher than the benchmark while aspects of Natural Environment were similar. Overall, at least half of respondents rated each service or amenity of Plymouth favorably. 74%78%74%76%77%82%84%91% 42% Va lue of services for taxes paid Overall direction Welcoming resident involvement Confidence in City government Acting in the best interest of Plymouth Being honest Treating all residents fairly Customer service Services provided by the Federal Government Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmarkPercent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 35% Good 58% Fair 7% Poor 0% Overall Quality of City Services 170 The National Community Survey™ 6 Figure 2: Aspects of Governance 85% 85% 95% 88% 90% 94% 79% 67% 75% 67% 71% 78% 64% 81% 84% 81% 91% 93% 81% 88% 74% 74% 73% 69% 89% 52% 60% 71% 70% 93% 96% Public information COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Special events Public libraries EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Recreation centers Recreation programs City parks RECREATION AND WELLNESS Economic development ECONOMY Cable television Code enforcement Land use, planning and zoning Utility billing Sewer services Storm drainage BUILT ENVIRONMENT Open space Natural areas preservation Drinking water Recycling NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Bus or transit services Traffic signal timing Sidewalk maintenance Snow removal Street lighting Street cleaning Street repair Traffic enforcement MOBILITY Emergency preparedness Animal control Fire prevention Crime prevention Fire Police SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark 171 7 Participation Are the residents of Plymouth connected to the community and each other? An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. Similar to other communities in the U.S, about 7 in 10 residents viewed the sense of community in the city favorably. The survey included over 30 activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Overall, the extent to which Plymouth residents participated in various activities tended to be similar to that of other communities. However, survey respondents were less likely than their national peers to report a crime, use public transportation, observe a code violation, work in the city or campaign for an issue, cause or candidate. 97%91% 41% Recommend Plymouth Remain in Plymouth Contacted Plymouth employees Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., very/ somewhat likely, yes) Comparison to national benchmark Excellent 27% Good 42% Fair 28% Poor 3% Sense of Community 172 The National Community Survey™ 8 Figure 3: Aspects of Participation 80% 98% 90% 90% 81% 17% 17% 81% 92% 22% 30% 13% 48% 39% 69% 69% 90% 81% 91% 61% 31% 98% 72% 70% 78% 54% 45% 96% 13% 29% 13% Voted in local elections Read or watched local news Watched a local public meeting Attended a local public meeting Done a favor for a neighbor Talked to or visited with neighbors Participated in a club Volunteered Contacted Plymouth elected officials Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attended a City-sponsored event Participated in religious or spiritual activities Used Plymouth public libraries EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT In very good to excellent health Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Visited a City park Used Plymouth recreation centers RECREATION AND WELLNESS Work in Plymouth Economy will have positive impact on income Purchased goods or services in Plymouth ECONOMY NOT under housing cost stress Did NOT observe a code violation BUILT ENVIRONMENT Recycled at home Made home more energy efficient Conserved water NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Walked or biked instead of driving Carpooled instead of driving alone Used public transportation instead of driving MOBILITY Was NOT the victim of a crime Did NOT report a crime SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., yes, more than once a month, always/sometimes) Comparison to n ational benchmark 173 9 Special Topics The City of Plymouth included three questions of special interest on The NCS. Two questions explored information sources and communication with the city while a third asked respondents to identify in their own words the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth. Verbatim responses to this last question can be found in the Open End Report (provided under separate cover); a summary of the verbatim themes is included herein. Most residents relied on the City’s newsletter, the parks and recreation activities guide and City website for information on Plymouth. Calling or emailing the City were also common resources used by residents. Few respondents looked to CCX Media for information about Plymouth. Figure 4: Question 14 Information Sources Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: About 9 in 10 respondents said they would be likely to provide input to the City via surveys and about three- quarters would be likely to provide input via an app or texting. Respondents were not interested in neither participating in advisory committees, commissions or task forces nor attending or watching public meetings. Figure 5: Question 15 Providing Feedback to the City How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? 8% 21% 18% 22% 22% 39% 49% 60% 24% 33% 35% 41% 42% 42% 39% 32% 67% 47% 46% 37% 36% 19% 12% 8% CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) Emails from the City of Plymouth Calling the City of Plymouth City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) Parks and Recreation Activities Guide Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) Major source Minor source Not a source 4% 4% 12% 33% 55% 22% 28% 50% 42% 37% 26% 32% 62% 76% 92% Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces Attending or watching public meetings Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting Participating in surveys Very likely Somewhat likely 174 The National Community Survey™ 10 In the final special interest question, Plymouth residents were given the opportunity to write in responses in their own words regarding the biggest challenge facing Plymouth. About one-third of respondents mentioned concerns regarding the rate and type of growth in Plymouth and the environment. The next most commonly cited themes had to do with mobility and housing issues. About 1 in 10 respondents felt issues relating to the economy and taxes were most important. Fewer than 1 in 10 cited business diversity, safety and K-12 schools. Figure 6: Question 16 Challenges for Plymouth What do you think is the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth today? 3% 5% 6% 6% 6% 9% 15% 17% 34% Other Don't know K-12 schools Safety/crime Business diversity Economy/taxes Housing issues Mobility/traffic/infrastructure Growth/density/environment 175 11 Conclusions Quality of life shines in Plymouth. Almost all residents viewed the overall quality of life and the city as a place to live as excellent or good; almost all residents would recommend living in the city to someone who asked. Additionally, respondents appreciated the overall appearance of the city, its cleanliness and its safety. All of these aspects of the community received positive ratings from at least 9 in 10 respondents and were more favorable in Plymouth than in other communities in the U.S. Natural Environment is a priority to residents. In addition to Safety and Economy, residents identified Natural Environment as a top focus area for the Plymouth community in the coming two years. At least 9 in 10 survey respondents rated the overall natural environment and cleanliness of Plymouth as excellent or good. These aspects of the community were higher than the benchmark, while City services related to Natural Environment, including recycling, drinking water, open space and natural areas preservation were similar to benchmark. Additionally, when asked to identify the biggest challenge facing Plymouth today, one of the main themes to emerge from residents’ written comments involved protection of the environment, in general as well as balancing it with aspects of growth and development. Residents trust their local leaders. Residents gave above-average ratings to all aspects of government performance and public trust. Nine in ten respondents gave excellent or good ratings to the overall quality of City services and at least three-quarters felt favorably about the value of services for taxes paid, overall direction of the City, the job City government does at welcoming citizen involvement, overall confidence in City government, treating all residents fairly and the customer service provided by City employees. These ratings were all higher in Plymouth than those given in other communities in the U.S. 176 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Plymouth, MN Dashboard Summary of Findings 2019 177 1 Summary The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Plymouth’s performance in the eight facets of community livability with the “General” rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The “Overall” represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Plymouth’s community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention. Broadly, ratings for the community’s characteristics and governance across most of the facets were higher than ratings found in other communities in the U.S. while participation tended to be on par with the national average. Figure 1: Dashboard Summary Community Characteristics Governance Participation Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Overall 26 19 0 27 14 0 4 28 3 General 5 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 Safety 2 1 0 4 2 0 1 1 0 Mobility 4 3 0 4 4 0 0 2 1 Natural Environment 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 Built Environment 3 2 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 Economy 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 Recreation and Wellness 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 Education and Enrichment 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 Community Engagement 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 10 1 National Benchmark Higher Similar Lower 178 The National Community Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 2 Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard Community Characteristics Benchmark Percent positive Governance Benchmark Percent positive Participation Benchmark Percent positive General Overall appearance ↑ 94% Customer service ↑ 91% Recommend Plymouth ↑ 97% Overall quality of life ↑ 97% Services provided by Plymouth ↑ 93% Remain in Plymouth ↔ 91% Place to retire ↔ 67% Services provided by the Federal Government ↔ 42% Contacted Plymouth employees ↔ 41% Place to raise children ↑ 95% Place to live ↑ 98% Neighborhood ↔ 92% Overall image ↑ 93% Safety Overall feeling of safety ↑ 93% Police ↑ 93% Was NOT the victim of a crime ↔ 96% Safe in neighborhood ↔ 97% Crime prevention ↑ 91% Did NOT report a crime ↑ 90% Safe downtown/commercial area ↑ 98% Fire ↔ 96% Fire prevention ↔ 93% Emergency preparedness ↑ 84% Animal control ↑ 81% Mobility Traffic flow ↑ 70% Traffic enforcement ↑ 81% Carpooled instead of driving alone ↔ 45% Travel by car ↑ 81% Street repair ↑ 64% Walked or biked instead of driving ↔ 54% Travel by bicycle ↑ 66% Street cleaning ↑ 78% Used public transportation instead of driving ↓ 13% Ease of walking ↔ 77% Street lighting ↔ 70% Travel by public transportation ↔ 30% Snow removal ↔ 71% Overall ease of travel ↔ 85% Sidewalk maintenance ↑ 71% Paths and walking trails ↑ 85% Traffic signal timing ↔ 60% Bus or transit services ↔ 52% Natural Environment Overall natural environment ↑ 90% Recycling ↔ 89% Recycled at home ↑ 98% Cleanliness ↑ 94% Drinking water ↔ 69% Conserved water ↔ 78% Open space ↔ 74% Made home more energy efficient ↔ 70% Natural areas preservation ↔ 73% Built Environment New development in Plymouth ↑ 71% Sewer services ↔ 88% NOT experiencing housing cost stress ↔ 72% Affordable quality housing ↔ 44% Storm drainage ↔ 74% Did NOT observe a code violation ↑↑ 80% Housing options ↑ 70% Utility billing ↔ 81% Overall built environment ↑ 82% Land use, planning and zoning ↑ 67% Public places ↔ 79% Code enforcement ↑ 75% Cable television ↑ 67% 179 The National Community Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 3 Community Characteristics Benchmark Percent positive Governance Benchmark Percent positive Participation Benchmark Percent positive Economy Overall economic health ↑↑ 92% Economic development ↑ 79% Economy will have positive impact on income ↔ 31% Shopping opportunities ↔ 68% Purchased goods or services in Plymouth ↔ 98% Employment opportunities ↑↑ 73% Work in Plymouth ↓ 29% Place to visit ↔ 69% Cost of living ↔ 50% Vibrant downtown/commercial area ↔ 47% Place to work ↑ 85% Business and services ↔ 80% Recreation and Wellness Fitness opportunities ↑ 85% City parks ↑ 94% In very good to excellent health ↔ 69% Recreational opportunities ↑ 87% Recreation centers ↑ 88% Used Plymouth recreation centers ↔ 61% Health and wellness ↑ 92% Recreation programs ↑ 90% Visited a City park ↔ 91% Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables ↔ 81% Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity ↔ 90% Education and Enrichment K-12 education ↑ 91% Public libraries ↑ 95% Used Plymouth public libraries ↔ 69% Cultural/arts/music activities ↑ 76% Special events ↑ 85% Participated in religious or spiritual activities ↔ 39% Religious or spiritual events and activities ↔ 86% Attended a City-sponsored event ↔ 48% Adult education ↑ 84% Overall education and enrichment ↑ 89% Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in community matters ↔ 75% Public information ↑ 85% Sense of community ↔ 69% Opportunities to volunteer ↔ 80% Overall direction ↑ 78% Voted in local elections ↔ 90% Openness and acceptance ↔ 73% Value of services for taxes paid ↑ 74% Talked to or visited with neighbors ↔ 92% Social events and activities ↔ 73% Welcoming resident involvement ↑ 74% Attended a local public meeting ↔ 17% Neighborliness ↔ 76% Confidence in City government ↑ 76% Watched a local public meeting ↔ 17% Acting in the best interest of Plymouth ↑ 77% Volunteered ↔ 30% Being honest ↑ 82% Participated in a club ↔ 22% Treating all residents fairly ↑ 84% Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate ↓ 13% Contacted Plymouth elected officials ↔ 13% Read or watched local news ↔ 81% Done a favor for a neighbor ↔ 81% 180 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Plymouth, MN Open-ended Responses 2019 181 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Summary ........................................................................................ 1 Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Question ................................... 2 182 1 Summary The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. This report includes the verbatim responses to an open-ended question included on The NCS 2019 survey for Plymouth. Additional reports and the technical appendices are available under separate cover. Respondents were asked to record their opinions about Plymouth in the following question: • What do you think is the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth today? The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in the following chart with the percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a single topic, those verbatim responses are grouped by the first topic listed in each comment whenever a respondent mentioned more than a single topic. Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. A total of 491 surveys were completed by Plymouth residents; of these 348 respondents wrote in responses for the open-ended question. About one-third of respondents mentioned concerns regarding the rate and type of growth in Plymouth and the environment. The next most commonly cited themes had to do with mobility and housing issues. About 1 in 10 respondents felt issues relating to the economy and taxes were most important. Fewer than 1 in 10 cited business diversity, safety and K-12 schools. Figure 1: Open-ended Question Response Topics What do you think is the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth today? 3% 5% 6% 6% 6% 9% 15% 17% 34% Other Don't know K-12 schools Safety/crime Business diversity Economy/taxes Housing issues Mobility/traffic/infrastructure Growth/density/environment 183 2 Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Question The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as written on the survey or entered in the web survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded topic areas. What do you think is the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth today? Growth/density/environment • Affordability of housing and mix of housing • Affordability. Plymouth might be too "spendy" for the average pocketbook, i.e. (Edina) Don't lock out the middle class. I love it here!! • Balancing further build-out with maintaining some green space & the impact of further building on roads, schools, services etc. • Balancing growth of commercial & residential while maintaining our natural beauty and ease of navigation through city. • Becoming more populated- school populations increasing & roads becoming more crowded- especially Hwy. 55. • Being accepting of diversity in our communities. • Being more environmentally conscious community. From multimodal transportation to encouraging reduction in emissions to bee friendly planting to better stewards of water to encouraging more environmentally conscious development and planning. Climate change is real and we need to be part of the solution not the problem. • Better environmental policy, more transit service and more sidewalks • Building too many houses. Too many students. High school too big. Not enough commercial diversity - restaurants, etc. It's a bedroom community, and the bedroom is getting too big for one high school. • Clean lakes, over development. • Climate change-> moving forward to be prepared to deal with the environmental challenges. Being open to increasing diversity. • Continued population growth with associated increased traffic and loss of green space • Control growth. To fast gets expensive. Plymouth gets wealthy residents more than middle class. The middle looses. • Controlling growth in order to maintain quality of life. • Controlling growth while maintaining cost of services. • Controlling over-population and knowing when to stop expanding within the borders of the city. • Cost of living is too high- we want to stay here, buy a home here, but the high cost prompts us to look elsewhere & farther from work. • Cost of living, taxes. • Creating a feeling of inclusiveness for all in the community. • creating sense of community • Currently it is saving Hollydale green space. We do NOT need more housing, we need green space and less crowding. The schools and roads are very congested. • Developing a sense of community in a transitional urban environment • Developing to many homes. Preserve nature. • Drinking water. I spend average of $100 or more to be able to feel safe drinking water is used for myself & grand babies (too much chlorine taste/smell). People drive too fast on city streets. • Environment issue- such as water as quality in our lakes and making sure we have open spaces to visit nature. • Establishing/developing Plymouth as a premier suburb • Expanding the Plymouth Community Center. • Expansion of Plymouth Greek Center without significant voter input-process seemed like it was rail roaded!!! • Exploding population growth and housing expansion affecting the kids opportunities, traffic issues, poor educational qualities such as teacher: student ratio and poor infrastructure such as recreational facilities as 184 3 they don’t grow with the same ratio as the household approvals. Increasing tax payments are not substantiated with the amount or quality of service being received. • Growing population-some very dense. I've lived in Plymouth since 1952. • Growth- schools too crowded. • Growth, lack of Central Downtown, traffic, schools too big. • Growth. • Growth/I heard there is about one parcel left in the school dist. 284, not Plymouth itself. What happens after that? We grew extremely fast, what happens when there are no lots to build on? Can we support the infrastructure? • Growth-school sizes, infrastructure, roads potential crime/safety concerns that could escalate as a result. • Handling population growth in terms of infrastructure • Handling the fast growth of Plymouth as it relates to numerous areas like safety, traffic, education and housing. • Handling the rapid growth • How current citizens and the diverse community gets along. • How fast it's growing! How many new homes & residents have become Plymouth residents in the last couple of years? I think a lot of it has to do with excellence of our Wayzata High School & parents wanting their kids to get a good education, starting in elementary school too. • How to please such a diverse population, yet maintain a healthy economic environment. How to wisely develop (or not) some remaining open land. So continue providing the feeling of a safe environment. • How will the new "tract" housing stand the test of time? All the new neighborhoods look the same. • I believe the biggest challenge is balancing the preservation of existing green spaces against the push for more housing in the Northwest Quadrant. This challenge also includes managing water- run-off, drainage, etc. With increasingly high water tables and historic rainfall. I believe the City of Plymouth is running out of "sponges" with the decrease in green spaces including grass, wetlands and trees. • I feel it is crucial that our city not get swept up in the chaos of the current federal government administration and to remember to promote a sense of a welcoming community. In addition, this survey mentions 'downtown' yet there is no feeling of a city center or a town square with locally owned shops and services. Finally, my elderly mother moved in with me two years ago and misses the block nurse program for seniors that was offered at the library in her previous town that offered board game day, senior socialization and exercise (while seated). I have searched all of the churches, community ed and city offerings and have not found a program that she could do. • I feel that they should stop building any more homes in Plymouth. The schools are getting too overpopulated. The natural land areas, farms & open areas are getting less and less. The city of Plymouth is stuffing too many homes in every nook & cranny they can find! • I think that excessive construction is a very big problem. • Improve our community center size and activities • Increased housing density. • Increasing population. • It is very important that you make effort to retain Hollydale Golf course. We need more green space Hollydale draws people to our city and gives residents a place to golf and be amongst residents. Please abide by yours 2040 comprehensive plan of keeping Hollydale Green Space. • Keeping current. • Keeping housing development from gobbling up all open areas. • Keeping in touch with neighbors- sense of community. • Keeping Plymouth affordable while continuing to provide all the wonderful quality of life that we enjoy! • Keeping up with & ahead of growth- access etc. • Keeping up with the rapid growth in Plymouth. • Lack of Diversity • Lack of diversity. • Lack of parks and lack of overpass or underpass for walking or biking in the newly developed communities. The older communities have better access to public parks, and walking and biking paths. • Main socio-economic diversity. • Maintain wooded area while expanding. Try to keep Golf course. 185 4 • Maintaining a sense of community when we have 3 different school districts serving our city. We are in the Osseo school district and feel totally left out of city news and events (the Sun Sailor rarely/never covers ISD 279). • Maintaining its high quality of life. • Maintaining quality of life- health- safety. • Maintaining quality of life while allowing new developments. • Maintenance/re-development of the older residential neighborhoods. They are declining & there aren't building codes to keep these properties/ neighborhoods looking nice. Some homes look like slums and we're told there is nothing the city can do. • Making sure all residents feel included & listened to and safe. Safety- street lights, police. Re-looking at city plans & how they may need to be updated- drainage, reen off-street lights, visible community service. Officers, pond health, rental properties, yards kept up-parking of boats, RV's etc. • managing growth and aging infrastructure • Managing growth- specifically traffic and keeping housing prices reasonable. • Managing the high amount of growth. Need to enable/expand services to accommodate increased population while not losing the city's identity. • Nice parks • Not a lot of diverse people. Traffic lights timing are unreasonable. Not enough city lights in most areas in the city. • Not enough gas stations near me; no large indoor Shopping Centers. • Not sure if we need to spend tax money on the large Community center expansion. • Open space/development. Specifically, every open spot of land being developed by major home builders. Population at it's max and going over. • Over building housing developments- loss of green space, traffic issue overcrowded schools, etc. • Over development for residential (there are an incredible amount of homes being developed or sold but no desire to keep the green - with the pending sale of Hollydale, a hidden gem, I'm fearful for our schools and community) and lack of destination shopping (there are a few abandoned businesses around Vicksburg/55 area in the small strip mall and by Byerlys) • Over development- taking away the open space and natural habitats. • Over development. • Over development. • overcrowding • Overcrowding!! Do not want Hollydale to be developed. The traffic congestion will be untraceable I back up to Old Rockford- I can see this being made into 4 lanes with multiple stoplights. Overcrowding the High school. Stop with building permits! • Overgrowth and its contributing factors: too much traffic, over-crowded schools, crime, overtaking green spaces. • Park maintenance & safety. • Personally for me, I feel very unsafe due to racist assholes that feel the need to corner/ threaten me & my husband just because I am white & he is black/white/native. I am awake that Plymouth can't do much to prevent this, but maybe if Plymouth didn't focus on attracting upper middleclass white people, there would be more diversity/acceptance. • Plymouth has become overdeveloped. Very little open green space, fields & forest now. We have moved Plymouth and lived here for 38 years. But we will be moving to a less developed area. You have excellent trails. Preserve the little green space, natural places you have left. Do not turn Hollydale into housing. • Plymouth is expanding into green forest spaces, but we can't get those back. Stop expansion- find another way to raise taxes. • Plymouth is expanding rapidly, there are several hundreds/thousands of new homes. But Transportation facility needs to be expanded. We need another park and ride. • Plymouth is growing very fast. I worry about the decrease of city quality services and nature preservation. • Plymouth should stop trying to compete with other Suburbs to attract more residents. It seems Plymouth is overbuilt right now. Plymouth needs to make do with the taxes it collects from its current tax base instead of trying to find new ways to collect more revenues or to broaden the tax base. The Plymouth Creek Center expansion is an inappropriate commercial foray for a public entity. The private sector should be the source of 186 5 extended entertainment and recreational facilities, NOT a city government. Plymouth needs to control its desire to one-up neighboring suburbs. • Population expansion and impact on infrastructure, school size, traffic. • Preservation of environment. • Preserving Green Space. Preserve Hollydale. No More homes! Overcrowding issues. • PRESERVING THE HOLLYDALE GREEN SPACE. PLYMOUTH IS GROSSLY OVER BUILDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS- PEOPLE ARE DRIVING THROUGH STOP SIGNS CONSTANTLY. WE'VE ALMOST BEEN HIT SEVERAL TIMES ALONG N. VICKSBURG. INSANELY UNPATROLLED. LIGHTS ARE TIMELY POORLY WALKING PATHS ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE ROADS AND UNSAFE (VICKSBURG ESPECIALLY). • Proper Development and use of available land space • Providing adequate facilities/centers for recreation without forcing us to death to pay for it. • Rapid growth. • Residential development. School capacity. • Responsible growth. • Saving some green space- not developing everything. • Senses of community for all residents of all ages. To get rid of the senior's only parking I've got 3 kids to lug into the Dome in fridged temps. Boo otherwise all else great. • Sustain growth & environment. We are over-developed. It gave short term financial growth, but putting a toll on long term perspectives. • The ability to support the projected growth with all the new housing developments & more street congestion. • The balance between maintaining the integrity of Plymouth and being a part of the surrounding MN. Communities- including challenges of cultural diversity, technology, etc. I live and work in my community of Plymouth and am very thankful for that opportunity. I would like see more diverse/newer senior citizen housing. • The biggest challenge facing Plymouth today is managing and maintaining the quality and diversity of services and personnel and for a growing and evolving community. • The place you have for expression will be very expensive & how will it affect our economy & taxes just went up last few years up to this you lie doing great! • To understand other race or culture, cultural exhibition should be conducted annually, since we have a very beautiful amphitheater, outdoor stage. • Too many developments! Way too much being built. No beautiful land anymore. This is why we will be moving our kids are grown & we don't need to be packed into neighborhoods with children and too many houses. Nothing quaint and fun being put into open building. All Starbucks, cartons, CVS & Walgreens every corner. I work in the School District which is a great school district. • Too many young unfriendly people morning into the community. Now, more of unfriendly atmosphere. So not even see neighbors. • Too much development too quickly. Very little natural land is being left alone. "Cookie cutter" houses are popping up as far as the eye can see. Our family is looking at moving out of Plymouth for this very reason. • Too much residential development • Treating minorities well-they do not feel as welcome. Removing human rights committee was a step backwards. Plymouth is white-people friendly only. Minorities are more profiled by city officials and neighbors. • Uncontrolled housing growth putting extreme pressure on schools. Every proportion from the past 6-8 years has been wrong. With the city controlling building permits, how can you constantly be caught off guard by the student surge? • We have lived here for many many years. Maintaining the outstanding community built from years of efforts. When people learn what a great town this is others they arrive to take what citizens have worked so hard to build not contributing financially. I worry that our community will not stay safe; crime will increase. I am concerned about our outstanding police & fire department personal being put in jeopardy. I am concerned property values & taxes increase that retirement will be difficult to live here. I see homeless people loitering here on corners creating dangerous driving situations. Thank you for creating a place we are proud to call home. • With population growth the care of non-car travel such as biking, walking, or public transit. Also, the high school is large and when my child reaches that age my family may consider moving for a smaller size school. 187 6 • YOu have made this survey WAY TOO LONG. Must have had too large of a committee working on it... Overdevelopment is the biggest issue today. Mobility/traffic/infrastructure • 1. Narrow Roads like County Rd 47, old Rockford and 2. Long distance exit between Rockford and Basslake 3. another bus station perhaps needed to the communities live on West side of the city towards Maplegrove • 1. No public transportation on weekends. 2. No due date for this survey. 3. City of Plymouth should prioritize jobs for older adults, Plymouth residents as me. 4. All questions of this survey have #5. 5. Question and answer choices should be closed to each other. Lines are too close. • As a new resident, I'm not entirely sure. The only issue I have encountered were a few homeless people near the Plymouth Target and the construction on the major highway. Other than this, I don't think I've been here long enough to say. Coming from Maple Grove, I believe Plymouth is going great! • Better sidewalk maintenance including plowing in the winter. So that it's safe to walk. Also, enforcement of sidewalk clearings. • Can't think of one large, so here are some minor: snow removal road construction. • Finally, the Co Rd 9 Bridge will help traffic flow!!! We waited a long time. Thank you. We hope it is done by Dec 1st. Our neighborhood has had so much traffic during construction "our roads" will need new top coat. • Fostering walkability and public transit • Getting thru Vicksburg and Hwy. 55 is a challenge- lights are very long. • Hwy. 47 width, sidewalks & crosswalks by elementary mowing of side of road! • I'm not involved enough to know. But from where I sit, I would say the water systems and the local transit system - not easy to get to the 'downtown' area without a transfer. Faster on a bike if able. • increased traffic through Plymouth during rush hour and what to do about it • Infrastructure • Infrastructure keeping up with population growth. • Infrastructure, roads. I find things like entertainment, restaurants lacking in Plymouth • It is hard to choose one single challenge- generally. I feel Plymouth does better than most cities in all areas- increasing traffic?? • It's a place to reside but not a place to ''live''. Terrible streets (roads), terrible sidewalks, traffic lights are very ''off'' with fair timing of each direction of traffic. Poor spending decisions. Shopping is terrible. No restaurants, always have to leave Plymouth for both reasons. School district is over-crowded. (we open enroll to Orono). Any calls to emergency Plymouth (911) 2 in the last 18 years I've resided here, have gone un-noticed. One for a domestic next door & one for witnessing a gentleman get hit by a car. (Sad)... • Less traffic congestion; too many spotlights in areas; roundabouts may be more useful to help with traffic flow. • Maintaining our infrastructure so as to avoid costly replacement in the future. • Maintaining quality infrastructure services including water, sewer, roads. • Man hole covers ''1-2'' below street level. Quick fixes such as adding an asphalt topping over severely cracked roads is waste of money & charging residents a $1,000 is disappointing. • NO IDEA! BUT... SPEEDING ON 10th AV. 10 IS THE BIGGEST LOCAL CHALLENGE. • Over-salting by residents & business owners. • Poor planning in the past. • Public Transportation • Public transportation and ability to bike around the city without impedements • Public transportation for those who cannot or do not drive. • Road congestion and traffic light sequencing. Can feel miserable on Northwest and 47, also. Northwest and Boss Lake Rd. • Sidewalks and making sure we have high school large enough for the young kids • Snow removal: I have lived here for 20 years and I fail to see how placing a 1 to 2 foot pile of street snow at the end of my driveway counts as snow removal. I clear my drive. return to the house to get ready for work. Return to my car only to have to clear the pile that the city put at the end of my driveway. What would the city say if all the citizens pushed their driveway snow into the street? Why can't the city have small P/U trucks with plows follow the large trucks to clear the snow the city pushed into the drives? • Speeding Traffic. 188 7 • Street maintenance. • STREETS REPAIRS, REVIEW COST OF WATER- I USED LESS WATER & IT SEEMS MY BILL HAS INCREASED FROM L.Y. • The need for Light Rail to DownTown, and taxes that come with it. • The traffic on major roads, such as Highway 55, during rush hour. Also ensuring that Plymouth remains a safe, healthy, and friendly place to live for all residence. • Traffic and keeping up with infrastructure repairs. • Traffic congestion with increase population. • Traffic congestion! • traffic congestion, alternate transportation options • Traffic congestion. • Traffic control, safety for residential area and apartments, maintaining roads, preserving the little bit of natural nature that still exists!! • Traffic control. The number of drivers running red lights is out of control and presenting more dangers to other drivers and pedestrians. • Traffic design and control due to growth north and west. • Traffic management and acknowledging the fact that most residents have pets. We need more spaces/parks to recreate with them, as they are also part of the community. • Traffic on 55- Impossible to cross safely- wild ramps. Get more restaurants & shopping like Maple Grove. • Traffic on side streets, loss of natural environment growing too fast, sense of community. • Traffic thru Plymouth at rush hour or making sure we stay real- no P.C. meaningless virtue signaling or maintain Law & Order. • Traffic. • Traffic. • Traffic/ road construction. • traffic/train noise ( fix the lane merging on Schmitt Lake Road off of Northwest Boulevard... loud noise pollution for the residents there from cars accelerating to merge), road repair, and beautification ( specifically on Schmitt Lake Road approaching Northwestern Boulevard (... ugly, decaying , concrete barrier), Property value questionable due to Robbinsdale School district... improve the school district? • Traveling to work in Minneapolis (traffic). • What I would like to see upgraded is the retaining wall on 101 between 5th Ave & 3rd Ave at the entrance to Wayzata- it's an eyesore -weeds not looked after during the summer as promised either. • With the population growth in the western part of Plymouth keeping up with loads- traffic in that area. Also, find me, a good development for the 4 Seasons Mall property. • Would like to see more availability of busses getting to/from city. Housing issues • A growing city w/ a higher demand for quality housing that's also fordable- yet, also feels safe w/ a nice community sense. So, ultimately a growing population... (?) • affordable housing • Affordable housing • Affordable housing • Affordable housing for senior citizens as they sell their homes. Accountability for: "Rich kid" mentality, (me, me, me) self-centeredness "it's not job" mentality. Lack of morality, respect for rules, laws, and other people. Employment for those over 50. • Affordable housing- lower taxes- spend our money wisely! Very hard for someone on a fixed income to be able to continue to live Plymouth because of the increase in rates and special assessments. • Affordable housing!! • Affordable housing, cultural diversity. • Affordable housing. • Affordable housing. • Affordable housing. • Affordable housing. 189 8 • Affordable housing. Infrastructure too many houses- not enough room on road. • Affordable housing. Very expensive to own and live in Plymouth. • Affordable senior housing/ not luxury apts. Clean up or crack down on "Geho" landlords. • Aging housing stock that isn't being updated, but being allowed to languish and 'gracefully decay'. • First time home buying, prices are too high for the current wages • High cost of housing. • Higher costs of housing and utilities. • Housing- affordable for seniors. • Housing costs, traffic on major streets (vicksburg). • Housing costs. • Housing developments and schools becoming too big. There have been a lot of houses and townhouses put up. They are too close to each other and cost too much to buy. There should be more space between houses. The increase in people moving to the community is also affecting the school system. • Housing is very expensive for those in middle income levels, houses in this area are out of reach. I live in an apartment and it's outdated and still very expensive to live in. There are no laws to stop landlords from increasing rent to an enormous amount making it impossible to remain living in Plymouth. • Loss of older, less expensive, housing stock to tear-downs & building of massive overpriced homes that raise adjacent property taxes exorbitantly (i.e. our property taxes went up 25% in one year). • Not enough reasonably- priced homes for first-time home buyers. • Not getting overbuilt on the residential side - so much housing going up, will the bubble burst in 15 years when I want to sell my house??? The school district is what is driving people here which is great, but that will be a delicate balance with all the new elementary schools going up to meet demand. Hopefully it is sustainable. • Not putting low-income housing in good neighborhoods making them become unsafe & higher crime. • Plymouth must get rid of all low income housing. It does no good and is a waste of money. • Senior housing and making reasonable use of the old "Tour seasons" site. • Senior housing, Safety. • The growth of the housing and the business of roads. • The Housing growth and impact to schools and traffic. • The potential consequences of having too much low income housing. • The rental housing is becoming way too expensive. • There is a tremendous amount of housing redevelopment happening. This is putting traffic levels extremely high. I don't feel our roads are keeping up with the high amounts of traffic. Every major road is backed up for miles (Hwy 55 especially). • TO MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS SLOW DOWN THE GROWTH OF THEM. • Too many housing developments going up causing school overcrowding and taking up natural resources. • Too many housing! Would love to see more options for dining. A "city center" or main street that offers more! Economy/taxes • Balancing cost and service. • Balancing tax base with budget to maintain a level of living we've grown accustomed to. • Being honest and financially responsible. • better services for the lower income neighborhoods. They have been mostly forgotten. • Budget; keeping costs within inflation rate. • Connecting with youth, gaining their trust as they are the future of Plymouth- musically ensuring/ getting younger generations to love and respect the place they live Plymouth. • Continued to be frugal with tax payer. Do not over-build the community Ctr. Support private enterprises already existing in Plymouth!! • Controlling spending & keeping prop. taxes low. Regaining trust of residents after failing to seek a referendum on some of community center expansion. • economic development • Economic development as Plymouth area builds out. Thus accelerating increased taxes pushing many out or limiting those able to afford coming in. 190 9 • Economic opportunities w/ store & restaurant options -> not as appealing as neighboring cities. • Finances. • High taxes. • Holding tax increases to a minimum. • Improve the quality of the work performed by the city employees. Quit passing on fees to provides such as cable, electricity, etc. • Improved communication- when calling City Hall often no answer and VM- no callbacks?? Power outages 2B0 to overhead lines --> Xcel energy. • Increasing taxes and up keeping roads (especially 55 which is a disaster). • Increasing taxes, Spacious kids play areas and family activities zones are very less. • Keep taxes from growing too much to allow people stay in their houses. Thx. • Keeping property taxes reasonable, making sure Plymouth remains affordable to live in. • Keeping taxes in check. • Keeping taxes low and maintaining a good sense of community. • keeping taxes low while still offering quality services • Keeping taxes reasonable • Lower taxes. • Maintaining reasonable tax base. • PROPERTY TAX INCREASE? • Property tax increases! High school enrollment increases. Should of had two high schools. • Property taxes. • Property tax's- too high for seniors on fixed income. • Providing services for an ever increasing population including services for an increasing senior population. • Retaining a reasonable tax structure while maintaining the excellent services provided citizens which currently exists. • REVENUE SHARING. • Rise in homeowner taxes. • Services for older adults to age in place without moving to senior rental, affordable housing, ability to bike along Vicksburg s/of Co. 6- you took away the sholders and the sidewalk is not a place to bike. • TAX TO HIGH. • Taxes and keeping quality neighborhoods • taxes and where the money is being spent. • Taxes too high for seniors. • The elderly level in Plymouth for many years & have a nice home elderly they don't want to leave. Condos etc. are too expensive for a very small space. If we could figure a way to stay in our home as we age & need help, or live in to help them. • THE VERY HIGH MINNESOTA INCOME TAX RATE & THE LOST OF MOST OF MY TAX DEDUCTION AS ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS! • To keep doing a good job for all people. • Utility maintenance. • Wise budgeting. • With an aging population property taxes will bias many retirees to relocate out of the city. Business diversity • Attract gluten-free healthy restaurants- not chairs need more ethnic restaurants. • attracting quality restaurants and businesses and shopping • Creating a downtown/city center that is walkable where people can meet, shop, eat and walk. • Diversity of business. • Doing something about the mall at County Rd. 9 & Nathan Lane- we been residents for 12 yrs. and it is an eyesore to be empty. • Filling abandoned spaces & better living/entertainment options on the East side of Plymouth. • Four seasons- built up- eyesore now. Road construction i.e. Co Rd.-9-494. • Four seasons mall. 191 10 • It needs a Downtown center that is walkable every block needs a sidewalk- sidewalks encourage walking more. Few need a Wayzata S.T. sidewalk encourage community & make it safe for walking there's no sense of community because the government doesn't reach out in person to neighborhoods. Plymouth is too spread- out. • Lack of shopping & restaurants & fitness options (no weight watchers, no Jazzercise, no affordable fitness factory). • More affordable shopping. • Need more and better quality eating options (restaurants). • No downtown. • NOT HAPPY WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 4 SEASONS AREA. I THINK IT WILL LEAD TO TOO MUCH DENSITY. • Nowing where the downtown is. I have no idea been here 20 yrs. • Plymouth needs a cohesive downtown area with small-town ambiance- shops, restaurants, coffee shops, meeting places, parking areas, etc. It also needs working and timed traffic signals such as flashing yellow turning arrows. There are times when one waits through two light changes when nothing is coming- (such as turning west from 101 to Co. Rd. 6.) Overall, Plymouth is by far our best place to live in the Twin Cities and we are privileged to live here. (Speaking as the elder thee families living in Plymouth.) • Restaurant offerings/business skewed very commercial. Not enough options. • Retail, services, schools to accommodate huge influx of new developments. • The constant lack of restaurants and retail options in Plymouth (and I am not referring to more All You Can Eat Sushi restaurants). We built and moved here 7 years ago. We were well aware of the continued plan for housing developments, but we assumed there would also be new / additional restaurants / bars / retail options that expanded along side of the housing growth. When we go out to eat, we go any where but Plymouth (except for Rock Elm ocassionally). Once our kids are out of high school, I see absolutely no reason to stay in Plymouth. • The image of Plymouth as a place to live seems to be very high. It is not as high or as historically as high as Wayzata or Edina. This is something to try to accomplish for many reasons. That image brings a lot of good respect which in turn affects a community economics in a very positive way. I have traveled extensively in the world and the U.S. . When you meet and talk to strangers and they ask, 'Where is your home. ', they will often say is it by Edina or Wayzata? Our Wayzata Public Schools in Plymouth have that form of respect. So that could be one of the challenges for Plymouth. • The land on Co. Rd. 9 at 169 (Southside) has been vacant for Okun's: it is time to select companies to go in there". Plymouth is missing out on taxes & more shopping/ eating opportunities for community. In the last months have eaten lunches at "3 squares"/ Maple grove & Old Chicago/ Eden Prairie- both good restaurants Plymouth does not have! • There is no core 'downtown' area. Businesses and shopping are spread all around the city. • unique establishments (restaurants, stores, bars, children's play areas) • We need more businesses/ restaurants! Enough residential. • We need places to eat that are not crappy chains. We have to leave Plymouth to go out to eat. Safety/crime • (1) Opioid use among teens. (2) Snow Removal! (Needs to be done sooner and more frequently during big storms. More de-icer needs to be used.) • Crime coming in our neighborhood has been hit hard & a lot and for the fates we pay, I expect way more. Bussing kids from other cities for money is causing a decline in scores and my faith in our schools. Again, I pay a lot in property fates and want what is best for people zoned in our area. These items will cause us (and many others) to move out of Plymouth. • Crime seems to be going up. Pan handlers. • Crime seems to be on the rise, with break ins to homes and cars. Also, not enough community events compared to other places to live. • Keeping crime down!! Thank you to our policemen & fireman! • Keeping crime down. • Keeping crime OUT!! • Keeping crime under control. 192 11 • Keeping the city safe, the school performing at a high level and doing a much better Job of clearing snow, during storm, not just next day! • Opioid drugs hitting our younger population. • Public safety. • Safety issue: Care break ins • SAFETY- TRY NOT TO GROW JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SPACE- LIMIT THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT ARE BASED IN TO KEEP CLASS SIZES TO A MANAGEABLE SIZE- DON'T GET TOO POLITICAL. • Safety! There have been alot of burglaries and break-ins in our community. Further, dogs have been killed by a coyote and Animal Control / the city is doing nothing to fix this issue. • Safety. • Safety. • Safety; look at how unsafe downtown Mpls. how is. We need policemen. • Security of information on city computers. • The police department. Teach them manners and empathy. I do not trust them. When my vehicle was hit by a careless driver, they had the tow truck driver put all of the other vehicle' snow covered broken off pieces in my SUV. When I protested, the office got in my face, taunted me, and was aggressive -- literally was within 1 foot of me and I had to keep backing away. There was 6 inches of frozen water in the spare tire compartment when I went to get options for the repair. The interior was wrecked. If this officer was in the private sector, they likely would have been fired. • The safety and concerns of her people. • to feel safe • To keep us safe and lower our takes. K-12 schools • Decline of 281 school district, Armstrong H.S. safety, impacting east Plymouth home values/traffic/shopping. • Due to the quality of the Wayzata School Systems, I think there are still a lot of people trying to move here. That's causing over-expansion and continued new development into what used to be wildlife areas and farmland. The elementary schools are becoming overwhelmed, and eventually, the high school will need to either expand again or split. • I don't have any material complaints, but it seems like the growth of the school aged children and the needs for schools/etc must be difficult to manage. • I guess maybe schools and how to fund them and how to keep everyone in the schools safe. • Keeping our schools top notch. • Keeping the integrity of Wayzata School District with the endless new houses and people moving into the community. • Maintaining good schools, snow removal & street, up keep, community events, adult ed. • Maintaining great schools & educ. opportunities. Keeping takes low. Managing traffic. • Making sure education be top priority to appeal to young families. • Overcrowded schools • Plymouth education. • Plymouth is an excellent suburb; clean & safe. Maintaining high educational K-12 services. Balancing the budget and lowering taxes would be appreciated. I did attend the open house explaining the replacement of the 494- Rockford Rd Bridge. I am not aware of neighborhood meetings. I read the city newsletter. I use the library computers- I do not own one. I do not have cable. As a retired senior citizen I am hoping to move to a smaller city with less traffic. I did not vote for the mega Wayzata High School (1997). Students (my children attended) feel like numbers and fall thru the cracks. They did not enjoy the high school. • Poor K-12 education options, especially for a city as nice as Plymouth (with high taxes). The high school is especially concerning. If we were to ever leave Plymouth, the school system would be the main reason. Other than the schools, my family absolutely loves Plymouth. • Robbinsdale School District. Poor performance of School Board Superintendent. • School District. • Size of the school district of Wayzata and the dramatic difference in the quality of education between Wayzata and Robbinsdale districts. • The growth in the Wayzata School district and especially the high school. 193 12 • The influx of students in the high school. • The rapid expansion is putting a strain on the schools. • Wayzata School District Other • Any plans for the four season's shopping center? It's been sitting empty for years now. • I am 88 yrs. live in senior building. • I do not drive so use Plymouth Dial-a-Ride and I appreciate that its service "on-demand" thus not requiring making arrangements days ahead of time. • I won't challenge today. • Maintaining focus on the areas highlighted in # 13. • The tap water quality is the biggest issue for Plymouth. The water tastes bad and leaves film on dishes and tub/shower areas (even with a water softener). I once heard a plumber say that the Plymouth water is one of the worst tap water systems (if not the worst) in the twin cities. Please look at what can be done to improve the tap water quality. • The worst thing about Plymouth is the hard water- I really, really wish the city would begin treating the water before it feds to us. So many garden lose, sooner needs ruined and money spend on water softens leases and sold (and doesn't work 100%). • Too much government interference in the lives of citizens. • Trump • Water quality. • Zombie apocalypse. Don’t know • ? • ? • Don't know. • Don't really know. Have only lived here for two months • I am not sure • I don't I just moved here. • I don't know because we are new to the area. • I don't know- have only lived in Plymouth 3 months. • I have not lived in the city of Plymouth long enough to answer this question. • I really have no idea. • I'm not sure yet. • N/A. • N/A. • N/A. • NA. • New to the area so not sure. 194 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Plymouth, MN Supplemental Online Survey Results 2019 195 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About this Report ............................................................................. 1 Complete Survey Responses ............................................................. 2 Verbatim Responses to Open Ended Question ................................. 23 196 1 About this Report As part of its participation in The National Community Survey™, the City of Plymouth conducted a mailed survey of 1,700 residents. Surveys were mailed to randomly selected households in September 2019 and data were collected through November 8, 2019 (see the report, The National Community Survey: Community Livability Report, Plymouth, MN, 2019). The results from this main survey effort represent the most robust estimate of your residents’ opinions. After the above data collection period was underway, the City made available a web-based survey to its residents through a link on the City’s website. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey from October 25, 2019 to November 8, 2019 and 347 surveys were received. This report contains the results of this opt-in administration of the web-based survey. These data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the community was aware of link on the City’s website; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were weighted to match the demographic characteristics of the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Plymouth. The results of the weighting scheme for the opt-in survey are presented in the following table. Table 1: Plymouth, MN 2019 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 28% 4% 21% Own home 72% 96% 79% Detached unit* 56% 83% 62% Attached unit* 44% 17% 38% Race and Ethnicity White 87% 94% 92% Not white 13% 6% 8% Not Hispanic 98% 98% 98% Hispanic 2% 2% 2% Sex and Age Female 53% 68% 49% Male 47% 32% 51% 18-34 years of age 27% 9% 21% 35-54 years of age 40% 42% 43% 55+ years of age 33% 49% 36% Females 18-34 14% 6% 10% Females 35-54 21% 31% 25% Females 55+ 18% 32% 14% Males 18-34 13% 4% 11% Males 35-54 19% 11% 18% Males 55+ 15% 17% 22% * U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2017 5-year estimates 197 The National Community Survey™ 2 Complete Survey Responses The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Responses excluding “don’t know” Table 2: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Plymouth as a place to live 53% N=181 42% N=146 5% N=16 0% N=1 100% N=343 Your neighborhood as a place to live 55% N=188 40% N=136 5% N=16 1% N=2 100% N=343 Plymouth as a place to raise children 59% N=183 36% N=110 5% N=15 0% N=0 100% N=308 Plymouth as a place to work 39% N=75 44% N=84 14% N=27 2% N=5 100% N=190 Plymouth as a place to visit 18% N=58 44% N=140 30% N=96 9% N=28 100% N=322 Plymouth as a place to retire 19% N=48 44% N=108 28% N=68 9% N=23 100% N=247 The overall quality of life in Plymouth 42% N=144 52% N=180 5% N=18 0% N=2 100% N=343 Table 3: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 47% N=160 43% N=145 11% N=36 0% N=0 100% N=342 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 26% N=89 43% N=147 22% N=75 9% N=31 100% N=342 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 33% N=114 43% N=147 17% N=57 7% N=24 100% N=343 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 17% N=58 46% N=157 28% N=96 9% N=31 100% N=342 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 29% N=94 50% N=162 19% N=61 1% N=4 100% N=321 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 39% N=126 53% N=170 8% N=24 1% N=2 100% N=323 Overall economic health of Plymouth 34% N=106 56% N=173 9% N=29 0% N=0 100% N=308 Sense of community 16% N=53 46% N=152 30% N=100 8% N=25 100% N=330 Overall image or reputation of Plymouth 32% N=107 53% N=181 14% N=48 1% N=2 100% N=339 Table 4: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks 49% N=165 42% N=141 9% N=29 1% N=3 100% N=339 Remain in Plymouth for the next five years 54% N=175 34% N=109 11% N=35 2% N=6 100% N=325 198 The National Community Survey™ 3 Table 5: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 84% N=289 13% N=46 2% N=6 0% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=343 In Plymouth's downtown/commercial area during the day 85% N=276 13% N=42 2% N=7 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=325 Table 6: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=27 43% N=149 32% N=111 17% N=58 100% N=344 Ease of travel by car in Plymouth 20% N=70 45% N=155 25% N=86 10% N=34 100% N=345 Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth 7% N=10 20% N=32 26% N=41 47% N=74 100% N=157 Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth 16% N=40 32% N=81 33% N=82 19% N=47 100% N=250 Ease of walking in Plymouth 17% N=55 39% N=129 31% N=102 13% N=43 100% N=329 Availability of paths and walking trails 37% N=122 33% N=111 20% N=67 10% N=33 100% N=332 Cleanliness of Plymouth 43% N=147 50% N=173 7% N=23 0% N=2 100% N=345 Overall appearance of Plymouth 36% N=124 51% N=173 12% N=40 1% N=3 100% N=341 Public places where people want to spend time 18% N=63 50% N=170 24% N=81 8% N=27 100% N=342 Variety of housing options 18% N=58 40% N=125 33% N=105 8% N=26 100% N=315 Availability of affordable quality housing 13% N=33 28% N=75 27% N=70 32% N=84 100% N=262 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 31% N=101 50% N=164 15% N=50 4% N=13 100% N=328 Recreational opportunities 22% N=74 55% N=183 19% N=63 4% N=13 100% N=333 Table 7: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total K-12 education 60% N=146 36% N=87 4% N=9 1% N=2 100% N=244 Adult educational opportunities 28% N=64 49% N=113 22% N=51 0% N=1 100% N=230 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 15% N=47 55% N=171 23% N=72 6% N=19 100% N=309 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 35% N=84 50% N=120 14% N=34 1% N=3 100% N=241 Employment opportunities 26% N=49 52% N=98 19% N=35 3% N=5 100% N=188 Shopping opportunities 15% N=50 31% N=102 40% N=131 13% N=44 100% N=326 Cost of living in Plymouth 5% N=16 35% N=118 44% N=150 16% N=54 100% N=339 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth 16% N=55 58% N=194 21% N=71 5% N=18 100% N=337 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 5% N=16 25% N=81 37% N=120 33% N=105 100% N=323 Overall quality of new development in Plymouth 9% N=28 45% N=137 29% N=88 17% N=51 100% N=304 199 The National Community Survey™ 4 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 14% N=42 46% N=139 36% N=109 5% N=15 100% N=304 Opportunities to volunteer 24% N=63 57% N=148 17% N=43 2% N=4 100% N=258 Opportunities to participate in community matters 19% N=50 55% N=146 22% N=59 4% N=11 100% N=265 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 25% N=75 40% N=119 26% N=78 9% N=26 100% N=299 Neighborliness of residents in Plymouth 22% N=75 45% N=154 28% N=96 5% N=16 100% N=340 Table 8: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 14% N=48 86% N=294 100% N=342 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 24% N=83 76% N=259 100% N=342 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 71% N=243 29% N=99 100% N=342 Household member was a victim of a crime in Plymouth 95% N=327 5% N=16 100% N=342 Reported a crime to the police in Plymouth 88% N=301 12% N=40 100% N=341 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 63% N=217 37% N=126 100% N=343 Contacted the City of Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 43% N=148 57% N=194 100% N=341 Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 69% N=237 31% N=104 100% N=341 Table 9: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Plymouth? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services 15% N=50 13% N=44 41% N=139 31% N=107 100% N=340 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 29% N=98 42% N=144 24% N=81 5% N=18 100% N=341 Used Hennepin County public libraries or their services 8% N=28 28% N=97 37% N=124 27% N=91 100% N=340 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth 10% N=34 17% N=58 15% N=50 59% N=200 100% N=341 Attended a City-sponsored event 0% N=1 6% N=21 57% N=191 37% N=124 100% N=337 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 5% N=16 1% N=3 5% N=18 89% N=303 100% N=340 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 9% N=31 16% N=56 19% N=66 55% N=188 100% N=341 Walked or biked instead of driving 8% N=26 14% N=48 29% N=101 49% N=166 100% N=341 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth 7% N=24 14% N=48 23% N=78 56% N=191 100% N=341 Participated in a club 9% N=31 8% N=27 9% N=30 74% N=252 100% N=340 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 51% N=174 29% N=97 19% N=63 2% N=6 100% N=340 Done a favor for a neighbor 22% N=73 27% N=91 43% N=148 8% N=28 100% N=340 200 The National Community Survey™ 5 Table 10: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=0 9% N=31 23% N=80 68% N=232 100% N=343 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=2 8% N=28 27% N=92 65% N=222 100% N=344 Table 11: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 59% N=169 34% N=98 7% N=19 1% N=1 100% N=288 Fire services 63% N=157 31% N=76 3% N=8 4% N=9 100% N=250 Crime prevention 43% N=110 43% N=112 12% N=30 2% N=6 100% N=258 Fire prevention and education 48% N=108 44% N=99 4% N=9 4% N=10 100% N=226 Traffic enforcement 27% N=76 50% N=142 13% N=37 10% N=28 100% N=283 Street repair 12% N=41 43% N=145 36% N=120 9% N=30 100% N=336 Street cleaning 23% N=74 46% N=146 26% N=84 4% N=14 100% N=318 Street lighting 20% N=66 39% N=129 29% N=95 12% N=38 100% N=328 Snow removal 19% N=62 48% N=159 25% N=84 8% N=28 100% N=332 Sidewalk maintenance 22% N=64 46% N=136 25% N=73 7% N=21 100% N=293 Traffic signal timing 10% N=34 35% N=116 32% N=106 23% N=75 100% N=331 Bus or transit services 18% N=21 22% N=27 22% N=26 38% N=45 100% N=119 Recycling 35% N=114 46% N=150 14% N=44 5% N=16 100% N=324 Storm drainage 19% N=56 49% N=145 24% N=72 9% N=26 100% N=298 Drinking water 21% N=68 35% N=117 26% N=86 18% N=60 100% N=331 Sewer services 34% N=93 54% N=149 12% N=33 1% N=2 100% N=277 Utility billing 24% N=73 59% N=182 13% N=40 5% N=14 100% N=308 City parks 50% N=164 40% N=130 7% N=24 3% N=10 100% N=328 Recreation programs or classes 28% N=70 61% N=152 9% N=24 1% N=2 100% N=248 Recreation centers or facilities 26% N=70 53% N=139 16% N=43 5% N=13 100% N=264 Land use, planning and zoning 9% N=21 32% N=78 28% N=68 32% N=77 100% N=244 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 17% N=37 46% N=100 27% N=59 10% N=21 100% N=217 Animal control 25% N=51 50% N=102 20% N=41 6% N=12 100% N=206 Economic development 16% N=41 42% N=109 33% N=85 9% N=23 100% N=259 Public library services 53% N=151 45% N=129 2% N=5 1% N=2 100% N=286 Public information services 26% N=66 58% N=149 15% N=38 1% N=3 100% N=256 Cable television 18% N=38 38% N=82 22% N=48 23% N=49 100% N=217 201 The National Community Survey™ 6 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 26% N=46 57% N=100 15% N=26 2% N=3 100% N=175 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 16% N=50 28% N=85 23% N=70 33% N=100 100% N=305 Plymouth open space 14% N=44 36% N=108 23% N=70 26% N=79 100% N=300 City-sponsored special events 23% N=57 52% N=128 23% N=57 2% N=5 100% N=247 Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 34% N=96 48% N=136 15% N=43 3% N=9 100% N=283 Table 12: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Plymouth 30% N=102 47% N=160 20% N=68 2% N=8 100% N=338 The Federal Government 8% N=25 33% N=103 44% N=134 15% N=46 100% N=308 Table 13: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Plymouth government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth 15% N=49 44% N=141 35% N=113 5% N=16 100% N=319 The overall direction that Plymouth is taking 10% N=30 38% N=116 26% N=79 25% N=77 100% N=302 The job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement 15% N=40 35% N=92 38% N=100 12% N=33 100% N=266 Overall confidence in Plymouth government 15% N=49 38% N=118 28% N=89 19% N=59 100% N=314 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 16% N=47 39% N=118 26% N=78 19% N=58 100% N=302 Being honest 14% N=38 42% N=113 30% N=81 13% N=36 100% N=268 Treating all residents fairly 15% N=36 41% N=101 31% N=77 14% N=34 100% N=247 Table 14: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 58% N=197 29% N=96 12% N=39 2% N=5 100% N=337 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 36% N=121 44% N=147 20% N=68 0% N=1 100% N=337 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 51% N=171 35% N=117 14% N=47 1% N=3 100% N=338 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 37% N=125 34% N=116 27% N=92 1% N=4 100% N=337 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 17% N=59 40% N=136 37% N=125 5% N=19 100% N=338 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=107 39% N=129 26% N=88 3% N=12 100% N=336 Overall economic health of Plymouth 42% N=142 42% N=141 16% N=52 1% N=3 100% N=338 Sense of community 30% N=100 50% N=168 18% N=59 2% N=8 100% N=335 202 The National Community Survey™ 7 Table 15: Question 14 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) 53% N=181 28% N=97 10% N=34 8% N=28 100% N=340 Parks and Recreation Activities Guide 44% N=150 37% N=124 16% N=54 3% N=10 100% N=338 Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper 29% N=98 22% N=74 21% N=73 28% N=96 100% N=340 City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) 40% N=136 45% N=151 13% N=46 2% N=6 100% N=338 Emails from the City of Plymouth 35% N=118 39% N=130 19% N=63 7% N=25 100% N=336 City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) 36% N=123 31% N=104 18% N=63 15% N=49 100% N=339 CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) 16% N=53 22% N=74 21% N=72 41% N=140 100% N=340 Calling the City of Plymouth 14% N=48 27% N=92 32% N=107 27% N=92 100% N=339 Table 16: Question 15 How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Participating in surveys 76% N=255 20% N=67 4% N=12 0% N=2 100% N=335 Attending or watching public meetings 24% N=79 30% N=101 29% N=99 17% N=57 100% N=336 Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces 14% N=48 23% N=77 37% N=124 26% N=87 100% N=336 Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting 30% N=101 39% N=130 23% N=76 9% N=29 100% N=336 Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting 46% N=150 37% N=123 11% N=37 6% N=19 100% N=329 Table 17: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 2% N=5 2% N=5 4% N=14 18% N=58 75% N=250 100% N=334 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth 0% N=0 1% N=5 19% N=65 55% N=185 24% N=81 100% N=336 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 0% N=2 20% N=65 31% N=102 34% N=113 15% N=49 100% N=331 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=4 10% N=32 32% N=106 38% N=127 19% N=63 100% N=332 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 3% N=11 10% N=32 26% N=86 24% N=80 37% N=124 100% N=333 Vote in local elections 1% N=3 2% N=6 12% N=39 19% N=64 67% N=222 100% N=334 203 The National Community Survey™ 8 Table 18: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 25% N=86 Very good 52% N=176 Good 18% N=61 Fair 0% N=1 Poor 4% N=14 Total 100% N=338 Table 19: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 7% N=24 Somewhat positive 29% N=97 Neutral 50% N=169 Somewhat negative 13% N=44 Very negative 2% N=7 Total 100% N=340 Table 20: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 67% N=227 Working part time for pay 12% N=42 Unemployed, looking for paid work 0% N=0 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 6% N=19 Fully retired 15% N=52 Total 100% N=340 Table 21: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Plymouth? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 22% N=72 Yes, from home 14% N=47 No 64% N=215 Total 100% N=335 204 The National Community Survey™ 9 Table 22: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Plymouth? Percent Number Less than 2 years 18% N=61 2 to 5 years 24% N=82 6 to 10 years 11% N=39 11 to 20 years 19% N=64 More than 20 years 28% N=97 Total 100% N=343 Table 23: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 62% N=213 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 38% N=129 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 0% N=0 Total 100% N=342 Table 24: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 21% N=72 Owned 79% N=270 Total 100% N=342 Table 25: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 1% N=2 $300 to $599 per month 5% N=16 $600 to $999 per month 8% N=27 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 20% N=64 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 36% N=119 $2,500 or more per month 31% N=100 Total 100% N=328 205 The National Community Survey™ 10 Table 26: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 57% N=191 Yes 43% N=147 Total 100% N=338 Table 27: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 75% N=252 Yes 25% N=85 Total 100% N=337 Table 28: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 2% N=6 $25,000 to $49,999 11% N=34 $50,000 to $99,999 19% N=60 $100,000 to $149,999 27% N=84 $150,000 or more 42% N=132 Total 100% N=316 Table 29: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 98% N=319 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 2% N=8 Total 100% N=327 Table 30: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 4% N=13 Black or African American 0% N=1 White 93% N=303 Other 3% N=11 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. 206 The National Community Survey™ 11 Table 31: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=7 25 to 34 years 19% N=63 35 to 44 years 20% N=67 45 to 54 years 22% N=73 55 to 64 years 18% N=61 65 to 74 years 15% N=49 75 years or older 3% N=9 Total 100% N=329 Table 32: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 49% N=160 Male 51% N=168 Total 100% N=328 Table 33: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 87% N=295 Land line 5% N=16 Both 8% N=27 Total 100% N=337 207 The National Community Survey™ 12 Responses including “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=“). Table 34: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Plymouth as a place to live 53% N=181 42% N=146 5% N=16 0% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=343 Your neighborhood as a place to live 55% N=188 40% N=136 5% N=16 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=343 Plymouth as a place to raise children 53% N=183 32% N=110 4% N=15 0% N=0 10% N=35 100% N=343 Plymouth as a place to work 22% N=75 24% N=84 8% N=27 1% N=5 45% N=153 100% N=343 Plymouth as a place to visit 17% N=58 41% N=140 28% N=96 8% N=28 6% N=20 100% N=342 Plymouth as a place to retire 14% N=48 31% N=108 20% N=68 7% N=23 28% N=97 100% N=343 The overall quality of life in Plymouth 42% N=144 52% N=180 5% N=18 0% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=343 Table 35: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 47% N=160 43% N=145 11% N=36 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=342 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 26% N=89 43% N=147 22% N=75 9% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=342 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 33% N=114 43% N=147 17% N=57 7% N=24 0% N=1 100% N=343 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 17% N=58 46% N=157 28% N=96 9% N=31 0% N=1 100% N=343 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 28% N=94 47% N=162 18% N=61 1% N=4 6% N=22 100% N=343 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 37% N=126 50% N=170 7% N=24 1% N=2 6% N=20 100% N=343 Overall economic health of Plymouth 31% N=106 51% N=173 8% N=29 0% N=0 10% N=35 100% N=343 Sense of community 16% N=53 46% N=152 30% N=100 8% N=25 1% N=2 100% N=332 Overall image or reputation of Plymouth 31% N=107 53% N=181 14% N=48 1% N=2 1% N=3 100% N=342 Table 36: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks 48% N=165 41% N=141 9% N=29 1% N=3 1% N=2 100% N=341 Remain in Plymouth for the next five years 52% N=175 32% N=109 10% N=35 2% N=6 4% N=15 100% N=340 208 The National Community Survey™ 13 Table 37: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 84% N=289 13% N=46 2% N=6 0% N=1 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=343 In Plymouth's downtown/commercial area during the day 81% N=276 12% N=42 2% N=7 0% N=0 0% N=0 5% N=17 100% N=342 Table 38: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=27 43% N=149 32% N=111 17% N=58 0% N=1 100% N=345 Ease of travel by car in Plymouth 20% N=70 45% N=155 25% N=86 10% N=34 0% N=0 100% N=345 Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth 3% N=10 9% N=32 12% N=41 22% N=74 54% N=185 100% N=342 Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth 12% N=40 24% N=81 24% N=82 14% N=47 27% N=93 100% N=343 Ease of walking in Plymouth 16% N=55 38% N=129 30% N=102 12% N=43 4% N=13 100% N=342 Availability of paths and walking trails 36% N=122 32% N=111 20% N=67 10% N=33 3% N=10 100% N=342 Cleanliness of Plymouth 43% N=147 50% N=173 7% N=23 0% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=345 Overall appearance of Plymouth 36% N=124 51% N=173 12% N=40 1% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=341 Public places where people want to spend time 18% N=63 50% N=170 24% N=81 8% N=27 0% N=1 100% N=343 Variety of housing options 17% N=58 37% N=125 31% N=105 8% N=26 8% N=26 100% N=341 Availability of affordable quality housing 10% N=33 22% N=75 21% N=70 25% N=84 23% N=78 100% N=340 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 30% N=101 48% N=164 15% N=50 4% N=13 4% N=14 100% N=343 Recreational opportunities 22% N=74 54% N=183 18% N=63 4% N=13 3% N=9 100% N=342 Table 39: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total K-12 education 43% N=146 26% N=87 3% N=9 0% N=2 28% N=96 100% N=339 Adult educational opportunities 19% N=64 33% N=113 15% N=51 0% N=1 32% N=110 100% N=339 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 14% N=47 51% N=171 21% N=72 6% N=19 9% N=29 100% N=339 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 25% N=84 35% N=120 10% N=34 1% N=3 29% N=97 100% N=339 Employment opportunities 14% N=49 29% N=98 10% N=35 2% N=5 45% N=151 100% N=339 Shopping opportunities 15% N=50 31% N=102 40% N=131 13% N=44 1% N=3 100% N=330 Cost of living in Plymouth 5% N=16 35% N=118 44% N=150 16% N=54 0% N=1 100% N=340 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth 16% N=55 57% N=194 21% N=71 5% N=18 0% N=1 100% N=338 209 The National Community Survey™ 14 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Vibrant downtown/commercial area 5% N=16 24% N=81 35% N=120 31% N=105 5% N=16 100% N=339 Overall quality of new development in Plymouth 8% N=28 40% N=137 26% N=88 15% N=51 11% N=37 100% N=341 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 12% N=42 41% N=139 32% N=109 4% N=15 11% N=36 100% N=340 Opportunities to volunteer 18% N=63 43% N=148 13% N=43 1% N=4 24% N=82 100% N=340 Opportunities to participate in community matters 15% N=50 43% N=146 17% N=59 3% N=11 21% N=72 100% N=338 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 22% N=75 35% N=119 23% N=78 8% N=26 12% N=41 100% N=340 Neighborliness of residents in Plymouth 22% N=75 45% N=154 28% N=96 5% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=340 Table 40: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 14% N=48 86% N=294 100% N=342 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 24% N=83 76% N=259 100% N=342 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 71% N=243 29% N=99 100% N=342 Household member was a victim of a crime in Plymouth 95% N=327 5% N=16 100% N=342 Reported a crime to the police in Plymouth 88% N=301 12% N=40 100% N=341 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 63% N=217 37% N=126 100% N=343 Contacted the City of Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 43% N=148 57% N=194 100% N=341 Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 69% N=237 31% N=104 100% N=341 Table 41: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Plymouth? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services 15% N=50 13% N=44 41% N=139 31% N=107 100% N=340 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 29% N=98 42% N=144 24% N=81 5% N=18 100% N=341 Used Hennepin County public libraries or their services 8% N=28 28% N=97 37% N=124 27% N=91 100% N=340 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth 10% N=34 17% N=58 15% N=50 59% N=200 100% N=341 Attended a City-sponsored event 0% N=1 6% N=21 57% N=191 37% N=124 100% N=337 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 5% N=16 1% N=3 5% N=18 89% N=303 100% N=340 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 9% N=31 16% N=56 19% N=66 55% N=188 100% N=341 Walked or biked instead of driving 8% N=26 14% N=48 29% N=101 49% N=166 100% N=341 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth 7% N=24 14% N=48 23% N=78 56% N=191 100% N=341 Participated in a club 9% N=31 8% N=27 9% N=30 74% N=252 100% N=340 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 51% N=174 29% N=97 19% N=63 2% N=6 100% N=340 Done a favor for a neighbor 22% N=73 27% N=91 43% N=148 8% N=28 100% N=340 210 The National Community Survey™ 15 Table 42: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=0 9% N=31 23% N=80 68% N=232 100% N=343 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 1% N=2 8% N=28 27% N=92 65% N=222 100% N=344 Table 43: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 50% N=169 29% N=98 6% N=19 0% N=1 15% N=51 100% N=339 Fire services 47% N=157 23% N=76 2% N=8 3% N=9 25% N=85 100% N=335 Crime prevention 32% N=110 33% N=112 9% N=30 2% N=6 24% N=82 100% N=340 Fire prevention and education 32% N=108 29% N=99 3% N=9 3% N=10 34% N=114 100% N=340 Traffic enforcement 22% N=76 42% N=142 11% N=37 8% N=28 17% N=57 100% N=340 Street repair 12% N=41 43% N=145 35% N=120 9% N=30 1% N=4 100% N=339 Street cleaning 22% N=74 43% N=146 25% N=84 4% N=14 6% N=22 100% N=340 Street lighting 20% N=66 38% N=129 28% N=95 11% N=38 3% N=10 100% N=337 Snow removal 18% N=62 47% N=159 25% N=84 8% N=28 2% N=8 100% N=340 Sidewalk maintenance 19% N=64 40% N=136 21% N=73 6% N=21 14% N=47 100% N=339 Traffic signal timing 10% N=34 34% N=116 31% N=106 22% N=75 2% N=8 100% N=339 Bus or transit services 6% N=21 8% N=27 8% N=26 13% N=45 64% N=215 100% N=334 Recycling 34% N=114 44% N=150 13% N=44 5% N=16 4% N=15 100% N=339 Storm drainage 17% N=56 43% N=145 21% N=72 8% N=26 12% N=40 100% N=338 Drinking water 20% N=68 34% N=117 25% N=86 18% N=60 2% N=8 100% N=339 Sewer services 27% N=93 44% N=149 10% N=33 1% N=2 18% N=62 100% N=339 Utility billing 22% N=73 54% N=182 12% N=40 4% N=14 8% N=28 100% N=337 City parks 49% N=164 39% N=130 7% N=24 3% N=10 1% N=5 100% N=332 Recreation programs or classes 21% N=70 45% N=152 7% N=24 1% N=2 26% N=88 100% N=337 Recreation centers or facilities 21% N=70 41% N=139 13% N=43 4% N=13 21% N=72 100% N=336 Land use, planning and zoning 6% N=21 23% N=78 20% N=68 23% N=77 28% N=93 100% N=336 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 11% N=37 30% N=100 18% N=59 6% N=21 35% N=119 100% N=336 Animal control 15% N=51 30% N=102 12% N=41 4% N=12 39% N=131 100% N=337 Economic development 12% N=41 32% N=109 25% N=85 7% N=23 23% N=78 100% N=336 Public library services 45% N=151 38% N=129 1% N=5 0% N=2 15% N=49 100% N=336 211 The National Community Survey™ 16 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Public information services 20% N=66 44% N=149 11% N=38 1% N=3 24% N=81 100% N=337 Cable television 11% N=38 24% N=82 14% N=48 15% N=49 36% N=121 100% N=338 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 14% N=46 30% N=100 8% N=26 1% N=3 48% N=159 100% N=333 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 15% N=50 25% N=85 21% N=70 30% N=100 9% N=32 100% N=337 Plymouth open space 13% N=44 32% N=108 21% N=70 23% N=79 11% N=37 100% N=337 City-sponsored special events 18% N=57 39% N=128 17% N=57 2% N=5 24% N=77 100% N=324 Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 28% N=96 40% N=136 13% N=43 3% N=9 16% N=52 100% N=336 Table 44: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Plymouth 30% N=102 47% N=160 20% N=68 2% N=8 1% N=4 100% N=343 The Federal Government 7% N=25 30% N=103 39% N=134 13% N=46 10% N=35 100% N=343 Table 45: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Plymouth government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth 14% N=49 42% N=141 33% N=113 5% N=16 6% N=19 100% N=338 The overall direction that Plymouth is taking 9% N=30 35% N=116 24% N=79 23% N=77 8% N=28 100% N=330 The job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement 12% N=40 27% N=92 30% N=100 10% N=33 21% N=71 100% N=336 Overall confidence in Plymouth government 14% N=49 35% N=118 26% N=89 17% N=59 7% N=25 100% N=339 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 14% N=47 35% N=118 23% N=78 17% N=58 10% N=33 100% N=335 Being honest 11% N=38 33% N=113 24% N=81 11% N=36 21% N=70 100% N=338 Treating all residents fairly 11% N=36 30% N=101 23% N=77 10% N=34 26% N=88 100% N=335 Table 46: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 58% N=197 29% N=96 12% N=39 2% N=5 100% N=337 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 36% N=121 44% N=147 20% N=68 0% N=1 100% N=337 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 51% N=171 35% N=117 14% N=47 1% N=3 100% N=338 212 The National Community Survey™ 17 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 37% N=125 34% N=116 27% N=92 1% N=4 100% N=337 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 17% N=59 40% N=136 37% N=125 5% N=19 100% N=338 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=107 39% N=129 26% N=88 3% N=12 100% N=336 Overall economic health of Plymouth 42% N=142 42% N=141 16% N=52 1% N=3 100% N=338 Sense of community 30% N=100 50% N=168 18% N=59 2% N=8 100% N=335 Table 47: Question 14 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) 53% N=181 28% N=97 10% N=34 8% N=28 100% N=340 Parks and Recreation Activities Guide 44% N=150 37% N=124 16% N=54 3% N=10 100% N=338 Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper 29% N=98 22% N=74 21% N=73 28% N=96 100% N=340 City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) 40% N=136 45% N=151 13% N=46 2% N=6 100% N=338 Emails from the City of Plymouth 35% N=118 39% N=130 19% N=63 7% N=25 100% N=336 City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) 36% N=123 31% N=104 18% N=63 15% N=49 100% N=339 CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) 16% N=53 22% N=74 21% N=72 41% N=140 100% N=340 Calling the City of Plymouth 14% N=48 27% N=92 32% N=107 27% N=92 100% N=339 Table 48: Question 15 How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Participating in surveys 76% N=255 20% N=67 4% N=12 0% N=2 100% N=335 Attending or watching public meetings 24% N=79 30% N=101 29% N=99 17% N=57 100% N=336 Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces 14% N=48 23% N=77 37% N=124 26% N=87 100% N=336 Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting 30% N=101 39% N=130 23% N=76 9% N=29 100% N=336 Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting 46% N=150 37% N=123 11% N=37 6% N=19 100% N=329 Table 49: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 2% N=5 2% N=5 4% N=14 18% N=58 75% N=250 100% N=334 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth 0% N=0 1% N=5 19% N=65 55% N=185 24% N=81 100% N=336 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 0% N=2 20% N=65 31% N=102 34% N=113 15% N=49 100% N=331 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=4 10% N=32 32% N=106 38% N=127 19% N=63 100% N=332 213 The National Community Survey™ 18 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 3% N=11 10% N=32 26% N=86 24% N=80 37% N=124 100% N=333 Vote in local elections 1% N=3 2% N=6 12% N=39 19% N=64 67% N=222 100% N=334 Table 50: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 25% N=86 Very good 52% N=176 Good 18% N=61 Fair 0% N=1 Poor 4% N=14 Total 100% N=338 Table 51: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 7% N=24 Somewhat positive 29% N=97 Neutral 50% N=169 Somewhat negative 13% N=44 Very negative 2% N=7 Total 100% N=340 Table 52: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 67% N=227 Working part time for pay 12% N=42 Unemployed, looking for paid work 0% N=0 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 6% N=19 Fully retired 15% N=52 Total 100% N=340 214 The National Community Survey™ 19 Table 53: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Plymouth? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 22% N=72 Yes, from home 14% N=47 No 64% N=215 Total 100% N=335 Table 54: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Plymouth? Percent Number Less than 2 years 18% N=61 2 to 5 years 24% N=82 6 to 10 years 11% N=39 11 to 20 years 19% N=64 More than 20 years 28% N=97 Total 100% N=343 Table 55: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 62% N=213 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 38% N=129 Mobile home 0% N=0 Other 0% N=0 Total 100% N=342 Table 56: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 21% N=72 Owned 79% N=270 Total 100% N=342 215 The National Community Survey™ 20 Table 57: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 1% N=2 $300 to $599 per month 5% N=16 $600 to $999 per month 8% N=27 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 20% N=64 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 36% N=119 $2,500 or more per month 31% N=100 Total 100% N=328 Table 58: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 57% N=191 Yes 43% N=147 Total 100% N=338 Table 59: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 75% N=252 Yes 25% N=85 Total 100% N=337 Table 60: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 2% N=6 $25,000 to $49,999 11% N=34 $50,000 to $99,999 19% N=60 $100,000 to $149,999 27% N=84 $150,000 or more 42% N=132 Total 100% N=316 216 The National Community Survey™ 21 Table 61: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 98% N=319 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 2% N=8 Total 100% N=327 Table 62: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 4% N=13 Black or African American 0% N=1 White 93% N=303 Other 3% N=11 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Table 63: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=7 25 to 34 years 19% N=63 35 to 44 years 20% N=67 45 to 54 years 22% N=73 55 to 64 years 18% N=61 65 to 74 years 15% N=49 75 years or older 3% N=9 Total 100% N=329 Table 64: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 49% N=160 Male 51% N=168 Total 100% N=328 217 The National Community Survey™ 22 Table 65: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 87% N=295 Land line 5% N=16 Both 8% N=27 Total 100% N=337 218 The National Community Survey™ 23 Verbatim Responses to Open Ended Question The following pages contain the respondents’ verbatim responses as entered in the web survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded alphabetical order. What do you think is the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth today? • #1 How to retain good businesses. #2 Improve the feeling of safety, both animal and crime are on the rise. • A lack of community. Where is our downtown??? We are a city without a city. • a suburb, not a high density urban area, with real open spaces and areas left untouched; with a City Council that didn't feel they needed to keep up with the Jones or spend our money because they could. • Accommodating the size of the city. • Affordability • Affordable housing • Affordable housing and public services. • Affordable housing for one income families; reducing the number of homeless people with signs at intersections by giving them direction to services elsewhere • Affordable housing options and housing costs. • affordable housing!!!! Young/ single people can't afford to move into Plymouth (especially the Wayzata schools side) and there is very little affordable housing for seniors unless they want a tiny apartment (which I don't) • Affordable. Attractive. Housing. Alternatives. I live on a street that has 8 households of single people living alone in their home. We all like the neighborhood and our homes but worry our only other options in Plymouth are large complexes of apts/condos/townhouses. What are other forward looking cities considering? I'm writing this as a single person but would welcome a housing plan to include families and couples. • Agressive growth, including pressure to build new homes, while struggling to keep up with infrastructure. • and other bikers don't even know that law exists -- needs to be communicated. But more importantly, roads need to be modified. Bike-ability (and walk-ability) is key to live-ability. And health. And community. And resale value / appeal. Also: water quality in our lakes. And, drinking water quality. • As a Senior Citizen, taxes will most likely drive us out of Plymouth in the next two years. Building the very large @ expensive recreational center was over the top without much input. • Assuring that I494 is simply a freeway and NOT an economic division marker for the residents of Plymouth. Especially the schools! East Plymouth is the 'older' part of the city. Parity for all residents is that challenge. More pedestrian friendly, safe 'avenues' at large intersections is another huge challenge. • Attracting businesses to serve the new areas of development in the city. • Attracting local businesses/restaurants that are not chains or big box stores. LIVING in Plymouth is fine, but I LEAVE Plymouth to spend money. • Attracting nice restaurants and breweries where people like to hang out at. • Balancing quality of community to not have it reduced by too much affordable housing • Balancing the needs of all. • Being careful not to over tax an area that is already highly taxed to accomplish these goals. • Building an economic base to generate more revenue for the city. • Building homes (issuing permits) before figuring out school impact. The schools are constantly playing catch up to the building rate. This shouldn't be rocket science. The builders can and will wait to build. We don' t need to build houses on all the open land at once. • Changing Armstrong's image so people want to move into our community because of the high school. • Changing growth and population patterns • Climate change • climate change • Climate Change and its impact on infrastructure and the natural environment (open space/parks/lakes). Implementing meaningful water conservation measure and non-fossil fuel power options. The City is doing little or nothing to address these issues. 219 The National Community Survey™ 24 • Climate change is a public health emergency and we need to be investing like we would our other life-saving services, police and fire. We need to preserve green space that's essential for human health. Stop building homes that are putting pressure on our water sources and treatment processes. Instead, fine green space alternatives or executive style lots (at least 1 acre per home). • Climate change is the major issue of our time. The city of Plymouth is far behind what needs to be done to mitigate impacts that are sure to happen. Many on the city council deny that it is a problem. Plymouth needs to get its act together and develop a plan to be carbon free. This should include converting all electricity to renewable sources, developing incentives to convert cars to electric and replacing natural gs systems with electric systems (ie. heat pumps) • Continued over-development of Green Space...it is disgusting! The City of Plymouth does not say no to anything that creates tax dollars...shameful! • Continuing to keep it engaged as a Community while growing. • Continuing to provide services while keeping our taxes reasonable. • Controlling and maintaining existing green and open space in Plymouth. • Controlling growth and development. Keeping green spaces like Hollydale • Cost of living • Creating a community that welcomes people of varying income levels, cultural backgrounds, ages, and abilities to create a vibrant and dynamic city. • Creating s sense of community. The east side feels left out. There re no city events on the east side ever! • Crime • Crime prevention • Crime and home break-ins. • Crime control making sure we allow our police and first responders to do their job • crime • Crime!! Home invasions, kids roaming the streets aqt midnight and beyond, traffic mistakes... • crossing the 55 bridge get so congested- BUT I believe the rockford road bridge will be a great improvement and hope 55 is next?!?! 3) are the roads getting narrowed? • Curbing rampant development. The city's build out in the NW quadrant has decreased the quality of life in Plymouth. And the proposed development of the Hollydale Golf Course will negatively impact Plymouth if the property islost to rezoning. We need more, not less green space. We need less traffic, not more cars. And the city needs to look at the negative impact to the schools that development has had. More homes means more students, redrawing school boundaries, moving students to different elementary and middle schools, and crowding our schools. And burdening our taxes when new schools need to be built. Think whether these developments SHOULD be done, not CAN they be done. • Dangerous crosswalks. (Vicksburg) • Dealing with population growth and making sure we support the extra school buildings and services needed. • "Definitely over-development and failure to preserve green spaces. Way too many new housing developments and other construction that is destroying every patch of woods or square of natural land. My family has always enjoyed these green spaces and feeling like we have nature and wildlife around us even though we live in a suburb. That is currently being destroyed. Once that land is lost, there's no getting it back. The city is doing an absolutely horrible job of preserving areas of natural habitat between all the housing developments. If Plymouth can afford $50 million for a Plymouth Creek Center, it can afford to preserve a lot more green space. I think the Plymouth Creek Center plans are over the top. My family rarely uses Plymouth Creek Center as it is and I very much resent the tax increase I will be paying, while at the same time being told there's no money for preserving green space. I am fine with some upgrades to Plymouth Creek Center as it is a good community resource for many even if my family rarely uses it, but way too much is being added at the expense of Plymouth's natural areas and green space. Cut back on the Plymouth Creek Center plans and invest the money in preserving green space/natural areas ' I would gladly pay more taxes for that! In addition, there is no excuse for Plymouth not participating in Green Steps for cities ' let's get on that! " • Destruction of farmland and no city parks with nice trails or swings. • Developing Four Season Mall property into a safe and desirable activity destination to draw people into Plymouth and generate income for the city. • Development-driven school grwoth • Diversity and equity among a growing population • Don't know 220 The National Community Survey™ 25 • Embracing residents of diverse backgrounds. • Empty buildings and businesses. • Environmental conservation • especially in the impact to schools • especially with different school districts. Also would like to see some public safety issues like a pedestrian/bike bridge over Hwy 55 at Vicksburg and Peony/101. Kids ride bikes back and forth and not enough people pay attention driving. • Expenses • Fast pace of growth causing a reduction in green space and an increase in congestion and access to resources. • Figuring out how to maintain a good quality of life for all it's current residents. With all the new housing developments comes much less green space , huge increases in traffic density, over crowding in our wonderful schools. If this keeps up I won't be a citizen of Plymouth much longer. • Getting Plymouth to get serious about supporting and using SOLAR! • Growing way too much. Rezoning and tearing down trees to build hundreds of more homes is now the norm. Please look at the aesthetics of Arbor Lakes and Wayzata for our commercial areas. We have a sea of little brown box stores and restaurants. • Growth and rate of building single family homes • Handling the large number of homes being developed in regard to safety, schools, utilities, roads, snow plowing... • Having a City Council that isn't just looking out for themselves or their business buddies. Not doing a real survey of the residents regarding the Plymouth Center expansion is an example of an insular, disingenuous City Council. They took the results of a little more than 1,000 survey responses and said it was enough, when in fact they were just proceeding because that's what they wanted. That one or more Councilmembers deny climate change indicates the level of intelligence on the Council and the lack of vision as to what's happening to the world in general and Minnesota in particular. And the fact that the Four Seasons Mall as lain fallow and ugly for so many years and is now subjected to a housing development that the City is trying to shove down the community's throat indicates a City Council that cares only about the City that lies west of 494. The City Council is a disaster. • Having more restaurants and clothes shopping opportunities especially along 55. • High paying jobs or lower and affordable homes • High price of adding schools! • Higher Taxes for building more schools to accommodate all the new housing developments. • Hollydale: Water damage to homes. Increased traffic will be a hazard. Making Comstock a thoroughfare will lead to traffic accidents and injuries. • Horrible development across the city. The city seems only concerned with cramming as many houses as possible into the city. We have HORRIBLE use of space. Very little parks, sports fields, recreation areas... we also have nothing for residents to do, restaurants, etc. residents go to surrounding communities for parks (Hamel), splash pads (Maple Grove), Restaurants (Wayzata, Minnetonka, Maple Grove). Residents are increasingly upset that the city wants to attract residents but could care less about controlling expansion and retaining residents!!! We are becoming the Comcast of Cities and that is atrocious!!! DO NOT TURN HOLLYDALE and other green spaces into more housing. Put in parks or recreation areas or commercial space. Other than Schools Plymouth is failing. Residents are fleeing because we are becoming too overpopulated!! Pull your head from the proverbial space and knock it off! • Housing costs • "Housing growth And affect on schools Lack of restaurants and Plymouth downtown Area " • Housing Growth leads to additional traffic which means increased risk of vehicle accidents during peak traffic times. • How can we reduce our carbon footprint and keep from resting on our 'business as usual' laurels, assuming that we are a great city because we keep taxes low and plow the streets. Will we build up electric vehicle charging infrastructure, require new building to use the most modern energy systems, require existing buildingds to use energy benchmarking, increase residential density with access to public transportation, provide food waste prevention assistance to restaurants and food stores, adopt a sustainable purchasing policy, certify as a solar-ready community and put solar on public buildings. • How hard the water is! 221 The National Community Survey™ 26 • I believe Plymouth is being OVERBUILT. Too much housing. Housing isn't even nice when they put up hundreds of houses that all look the same.Very concerned about Hollydale-do not want to lose this beautiful golf course. Please do not rezone! Let's keep Hollydale! • I can't think of anything. It's not all sunshine and roses, but I can't think of a big problem that we're facing. • I have been stunned by the lack of concern for environmental focus in Plymouth. We should have solar panels on public building at the very least! Why are we not actively looking for ways to make a positive impact on the most important issue of the age, especially since it can be done in ways that actually save Plymouth residents money? Our city council has a head in the sand attitude about this and some are refusing to consider solar panels even when it can be proven to save Plymouth residents money. `They claim to be leaders in environmental responsibility when Plymouth is anything but this. We aren't even participating in Green Step Cities, which is a free resource available to Minnesota cities. This is shameful. My biggest concern and actual embarrassment about Plymouth is that we are so backwards in our willingness to grapple with the climate issue. This is the biggest moral and ethical issue of our time and there are ways we can move forward that will not only improve quality of life for our residents but that will also have financial benefits. Shame on us. • I personally feel as though the city of Plymouth does a terrible job enforcing noise ordinances. The amount of incredibly loud cars, trucks, etc. that I hear driving on the streets near my home is huge. It is diminishing the quality of life in this city and it seems that nothing is being done to control this problem. • I would like to see better shopping and restaurant options beyond the typical chain restaurants/stores. If I am going to shop/eat in the Western suburbs, I go to Minnetonka or Maple Grove. It would be nice to have sit- down restaurant options beyond Applebee's and Chili's and the like. Since I live in NE Plymouth, I'm concerned about the proposed development of the Four Seasons Mall location. It seems like that will only bring more people to that area, making nearby stores more crowded. While I think it's important to have affordable housing options in every community, I'm concerned that a development of low-income housing will negatively alter the demographic and safety of NE Plymouth. The fact that the Four Seasons Mall has sat vacant for so many years, leaves me with the impression that Plymouth is more concerned for it's wealthy Wayzata district side than it's Robbinsdale district side. My children are open enrolled in the Minnetonka district because the quality of the Robbinsdale district is poor at best. I would just like to see the same development and resources put into my side of Plymouth as the Western side. It seems like Plymouth is two different cities. • I'd like there to be a better focus on environmental concerns like quality if drinking water. I'd be impressed if Plymouth matched neighboring cities and provided organics recycling. • Identify a solution for the 4 seasons mall. • I'm new to the city in the past year and a half. Elected officials listening to all residents, young and old. You can's cater to one age over the older, ie will around longer(but maybe move) and you think the older will be gone sooner. Each group has different ideas on how to live, have to give and take, compromise. • Improving public safety. Especially improving traffic safety at intersections, pedestrian and cyclist safety at crosswalks and near parks and schools, and crime prevention, (especially theft from motor vehicles or attempted home invasions), in particular at night. Social media (Nextdoor, Facebook) is a fast-growing platform to communicate and amplify residents' experiences with crime or safety incidents. These reports also tend to get much more attention than positive discussions. Examples from the past year that come to mind are reports of injured pedestrians and cyclists, multiple-unit police responses, major accidents at intersections, and reports of neighborhood crime. Preventing these public safety incidents is the only sure way to preserve the perceptions of residents tuned in to social media. Beyond the intrinsic importance of keeping people safe, if we fail to do so, the community at large will know about it. • In north Plymouth, it's CR47 traffic. • Increased traffic and population • It can 20 minutes to go from Target at Rockford Road to Lowes on Vicksburg at 5:00 p.m. Lights on Rockford Road are not timed. You have to stop at each one. Lights crossing 55 are extremely long (which I get since Hwy 55 is a busy, but they are long so people run stale yellow and even red to avoid sitting through again because often the line of cars can not get through the intersection on a green • It grew too rapidly in last few years. Demands are great to keep up roads, schools. City seems to spread out services too far compared to 20 years ago. I'm very worried about crime. Seems to be a slow influx of crimes we never or rarely had 20-30 years ago. • It is disappointing to see the difference in attention given to the east side of Plymouth As compared to the west side of Plymouth. For example, big money is being spent to update & enhance the Plymouth Creek 222 The National Community Survey™ 27 Center. At the same time 4Seasons Mall sits as a vacant eyesore. The talks about adding affordable housing with landlords with a history of questionable management. I can imagine this would not even be considered an option on the west side of Plymouth. The residents on the East side deserve nice Facilities too!! • It is growing rapidly, so it poses new problems for crime to rise. • Keeping all residents save and keeping gangs and thefts very low. • Keeping costs down • Keeping Hollydale a green space. • Keeping hollydale zoned for greenspace. Dont cram more housing in and continue to overcrowd our city. It will turn into a second coon rapids really quick. • "Keeping low income housing at a minimum. The tenets don't care about keeping the property looking nice. " • Keeping partisan politics from interfering with effective government. • Keeping Plymouth a great place with city services, planning, parks, economic development, and vibrancy. • keeping plymouth Plymouth without outside interference. Plymouth is a great City ! • Keeping Plymouth safe • Keeping property taxes down. NOT allowing the Met Council to dictate to the City. • Keeping taxes lower and affordable housing. More sit-down restaurants. • Keeping the growth under control and in line with services. • Lack of affordable housing • Lack of affordable housing. We have become unaffordable for the working class . We need a diverse social economic community. • Lack of affordable townhomes • Lack of charm due to enormous amount of development that has wiped out farms, winding roads, animals, and trees. Traffic due to thousands of new homes and many new schools. Taxes going up despite many many new residents and several new companies built. Builders should be held accountable for neighborhood paths instead of tax payers in new neighborhoods. • Lack of downtown and availability of restaurants • lack of walking trails/sidewalks in older areas of the city. multiple garbage trucks coming down the streets. • leading to overpopulation, traffic, strain on schools, and local businesses/services are not growing at the same rate. Opp for new non-chain locally owned restaurants & stores. Opp for better traffic flow (lanes) by wayzata high school & hwy 55 corridor to support the influx • Letting construction take place before infrastructure is created to adequately support it. Plymouth needs to be proactive with things like roads, schools, & water pressure. Why not prepare for the growth and then issue building permits instead of always scrambling after the fact? • Long traffic lights along Hwy 55. • Loss of Hollydale golf course. • Maintaining a balance while the city population grows quickly. Keeping in mind that at some point the housing boom will end and if the city isn't thoughtful today about integrating green space (parks, paths, outdoor activities) it will struggle in the future. In the 5 years that we've lived here, traffic has gotten unmanageable, schools are overcrowded/redistricting every other year, water issues are increasing (homes flooding, ponds growing in size), there is more crime (break ins/theft) and very little development seems to be occurring outside of housing (recreational activities, shopping, restaurants). The things that drew us to Plymouth are quickly disappearing and we are not sure that we want to stay here long-term if things don't change. • Maintaining a healthy balance between economic growth and a sense of community. • Maintaining current quality of living standard • Maintaining great service as costs increase • Maintaining green (open) space • Maintaining green space and not being overbuilt. We risk being neighborhood after neighborhood of houses with little shopping and few restaurants. • Maintaining small classroom sizes so schools remain excellent. All the new housing brings in more families with no new schools. Excellent education is the #1 reason people live in Plymouth. • maintaining the good things we have 223 The National Community Survey™ 28 • Maintaining the high quality of life in Plymouth while keeping the city's tax burden low. Also, do we really need a $50 million expansion of the Plymouth Creek Center? It seems incredibly expensive for a space that is used by a minority of the population. • Maintaining the property values with adequate recreational activities especially during the winter And secondly. Public Safety service • Maintaining the public sense of community • Making Plymouth feel like one City as opposed to West Plymouth (Wayzata District) and East Plymouth (Robbinsdale District). • Making sure Plymouth does its part to battle climate change. Reducing the carbon footprint, adding solar capability to Plymouth public buildings, promoting biking/walking options, being forward thinking regarding caring for our environment • Managing growth • Managing growth and development. We don't need to develop every single inch of open space and fill it with new housing developments that negatively impact traffic (Highway 55 in particular), schools bursting at the seams (middle schools) and loss of green space, like the farms in the NW quadrant and the pending rezoning of the Hollydale golf course. We are losing the natural beauty of our community. • Managing growth to include affordable housing without sacrificing the quality of life and amenities that Paying residents have. Not catering too far to this demographic that it alters some of the things Plymouth is known for. • Managing tax money in a responsible manner. • Meeting the needs of kids in school system. Making sure kids don't get looked over in the huge overall class levels. • Misuse or removal of greenspace; housing developments have been going up like crazy, removing a lot of essential greenspace in the city. This will lead to traffic issues and congestion coupled with a substantial increase in traffic incidents and pose a threat to safety. Not to mention the removal of greenspace is taking a step backwards in the smalls steps communities should be taking to do their part to help with climate change. • N/A • No more new neighborhood construction.. preserve green space please. We are very far away from the city I wish for my kids , too crowded schools, education is getting very poor in Wayzata. • Not becoming over populated so the resources become scarce or too expensive to maintain • Not enough recreation facilitites for the winter. need new rec center with gyms • Not having green space left with trees and open spaces • not the fragmented environment we have now. There's definitely a lack of retail shops. We spend a lot of time in Maple Grove due to the excellent shopping and restaurant scene they have. • Obtaining or maintaining a balance between green or natural outdoor space to housing or business development. Every parcel of land doesn't need to be made into homes or businesses. In the 20 or so years we have lived here, we have seen many green spaces developed. And whatever development is done must fit the space (it shouldn't be too large for the space). • Ongoing safety especially regarding home break ins is always a concern. A concern of ours is the lack of maintenance of city property that used to be mowed and well-kept that is now left unmowed and looks bad. This is the area between French Park and West Medicine Lake Road. Not sure why it changed but it does not enhance our city or our neighborhoods. • Open space converted to houses that are too close together and look the same. Too much traffic. Comcast monopoly for Internet service. • Over building of remaining open land and the pressure it puts on the environment, schools, roads and people. • Over development and inability to preserve natural spaces. • Over development is causing Plymouth to lose to lose what remaining charm and identity it has had. Hollydale cannot turn into 300+ homes! It would be devastating overdevelopment for the entire NW portion of the city and our valued school district. • Over development that impacts schools, traffic, and quality of life. • Over development. The city has proven to be greedy in wanting more tax revenue from new homes. The residents bear the brunt of over crowded schools and having to build more schools. You also have done not one thing for the Plymouth residents impacted by the County 101 bridge repair and road closure. Our neighborhood has been over run by thousands of cut through cars and the city has done not one thing to help us. Shameful. Just shameful. This city is greedy and just wants tax revenue. Spending $50M on the Creek 224 The National Community Survey™ 29 Center is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that isn't a done deal and that we can vote because there are a lot better uses for $50M. It is just play money to the city council. But it is our tax money and we should decide where to spend it. Not $50M on one project. That is ridiculous. Plymouth has gone way downhill with over development in the 16 years we have lived here. • Over expansion of new housing developments resulting in excess traffic and loss of natural spaces. • Over housing developments. • Over population • Over population and power issue in my area (power outage once a year in the past 4 years) • Overbuilding green and natural areas with little foresight of quality of life and infrastructure to support it. I moved to Plymouth for the farms and natural areas. Stop caving to developers, especially when you don't improve the roads, sidewalks and safety to support their development! The developer should pay for these improvements, not the taxpayers. Every day a natural area and old trees are being taken down and it's sickening. And please don't rezone Hollydale for yet more development. Our schools and streets can't take more people. Safety of driving is therefore getting worse and worse. Vicksburg is nuts thanks to all the overbuilding. And crossing 55 is a major issue with the extensive time spent at stoplights waiting and waiting and waiting. • Overbuilding single-family homes. • "OVERBUILDING without preservation of green space for future generations. • Once the trees are bulldozed and more homes/streets constructed the green space and all its benefits for us and future generations is gone!" • Overcrowding. We don't need 390 new homes instead of Hollydale golf course! I believe the property is currently zoned for Greenspace and it should remain that way. • Overdevelopment and loss of green space (playground structures do not qualify as green space) • Overdevelopment both residential and commercial • Overdevelopment in housing with lack of affordable housing • Overdevelopment of current green spaces like Hollydale Golf Course. Too much development too quickly. • Overdevelopment of farm lands and green space, which leads to excess traffic and overcrowding. Many of us moved here from overcrowded places because of the beautiful parks and trails around Plymouth and the preservation of farmland/green space. Plymouth is quickly turning 'every other city' and it's unfortunate. We pay high taxes to live somewhere that isn't as built up and generic and has a great school system. We don't want to see the city turn into something else. • over-development of new housing. needs to be more regulated and some sort of cap per year as it is causing major traffic issues and strains on the educational infrastructure (rezoning, new schools). plus, it is removing the natural environment causing environmental concerns (water run-off, wildlife concerns, etc.). I am in a new housing development but wasn't expecting to immediately be surrounded by massive housing farm ... takes twice as long to get down 55 during rush hour as 4 years ago when we moved in. Really concerned that the city is even considering allowing 300+ homes on the Hollydale golf course. Kimberly Lane just got back to a resonable capacity for an elementary and now it is going to be bloated again in a few years as most new homes have young families entering the school system. • Overdevelopment of residential housing. Why do we need to put a house or townhome or apartment building on every square foot of land in Plymouth. Stop the building and say NO to the Met Council. • Over-development. Traffic management and utilities aren't keeping up. Schools aren't keeping up. It feels like this is happening at the expense of the quality of life of the current residents. • Parity between East and west side of town. • Planning for growth • Please stop building houses. The size of the school district is ridiculous!!!! And the constant re-zoning of schools very sad. If I hadn't invested so much in our home I would move immediately. • Plymouth is falling behind neighboring communities in offering a sense of community. The lack of a downtown is incredibly hurtful when compared to Edina, Hopkins or Maple Grove, even Robbinsdale. 494 cuts through the city so it hurts walkability. The city sorely lacks unique, healthy restaurants to gather people into what could be a downtown. Put that together with the kids going to 3 different school districts it's tough to make Plymouth feel like home. Glad to see Plymouth Creek will be expanding but it's too little too late for our family in many ways. • Plymouth is too large- new home development needs to stop. Wayzata School district is too large. At some point our property values are going to fall. People are not going to want to be in the district. Worst mistake we 225 The National Community Survey™ 30 ever made was staying in Plymouth because of the new home development. Plymouth has been a great place to live, but I wish we had moved to Orono or Minnetonka for the schools. The fact you keep approving new home development is ridiculous. Building new elementary schools at the cost of long time residents is unfair. The home builders should be footing the bills and our kids should not get re-districted every couple of years. New development is causing more traffic issues. • Plymouth needs some better places to eat and Retail stores to shop at. • Police, Fire, Water/Sewer and Streets. These are essential services that ALL residents need the city to provide. The City needs to do a better job of allocating resources to these services and less resources to the 'extras' which are nice but not required. • Poor bus line or rapid transit service • "Poor city management and leadership. The City Mgr and his appointments/team are arrogant, dismissive and raising the cost of services (taxes) by millions for poor strategic choices. City staff has no customer service whatsoever, or even who the customer is. " • Poor leadership of city manager and his department hires. Horrible customer service and excess spending of questionable strategies, e.g., full time fire department. • Preservation of green space, and building of homes in the NW region • Preservation of Hollydale Golf Course for golf or as preserved green space as in the 2040 Planning Document! • Preservation of open space, specifically the preservation of the Hollydale Golf Course as open space as zoned. Green space. A better environment for residents. Less new housing. Less traffic on streets. Less overcrowding of schools. • Preserving green space so Plymouth is not over-built • Preserving green space. We are overdeveloped in Plymouth. • Preserving open/green spaces and recreation areas the Town should buy the golf course add expand the property to include other activities instead of remodeling a perfectly beautiful Plymouth Creek Center, this is a waist of valuable funds and now a loss a recreation source. ( golf course) NO new development. Plymouth has limited offerings and no 'down town' thing like the golf course are essential. • Pressures put on by increasing population • Proceeding ahead of expanding public facilities without a voter referendum; passing cost to taxpayers who do not use those facilities. Changing prior zoning regulations to rid open green space. • Property taxes are too high • Property taxes are too high. Time to cut mailers, magazines etc & consider going completely paperless. It's better for the environment. • Public safety. Criminal activity roaming neighborhoods at night. • Quality restaurants are lacking. Massive single family home expansion is huge school size growth problem the city seems to have no clue how one affects the other. • Re zoning of Hollydale • Recycling and Environment protection. Need to raise more awareness. • Reducing the city's Carbon footprint as a response to the existential threat of global warming. The city should electrify everything, be more efficient, help residents to do the same. • Resisting the temptation to overdevelop. We need the greenspace. We do not need more people. Highway 55 is already a nightmare. • Restoring the staffing necessary to address environmental issues that are being ignored, causing Plymouth to fall behind what neighboring cities are doing. • Rezoning of Hollydale GC and allowing to become home development. Very shortsighted planning and opposite of the community best interest. Aging population needs this kind of recreation option. B • road quality is poor. Not much commercial shops/restaurants. Parks are missing! • Safety (both criminal and road safety) • Safety And Crime. There has been many more break ins and robberies the last couple of years. My neighbor had their car stolen. It's scary. • Safety on the roads. My neighborhood for example has a left-turn out of it onto a busy road, with no stop light control to make the turn across 2-3 lanes. Also, accidents around WHS busy intersection. We need to do all we can to keep bikers, pedestrians, and drivers safe. • SAVE HOLLYDALE WE NEED MORE GREEN SOAVE AND LESS HOUSING!!! Follow your 2040 comprehensive plan 226 The National Community Survey™ 31 • School construction to meet the needs of the kids whose homes are in Medina and Corcoran. • Selfishly, I am dogged by highway noise and wish we had sound barriers to help between Rockford and Bass Lake Road on 494. More globally, Hope we can find ways to increase diversity of city while still maintaining sense of community • Slowing growth so roads and schools can manage the numbers. TRAFFIC is TERRIBLE!!! • "Slowing the build up of homes; this then can reduce traffic, lack of green space, school space constraints and traffic control. I feel unsafe using many of streets near me due to high speed and complete lack of enforcement of cross walk violations of enforcement traffic and cross walk violations (hwy 101 from Medina road to hwy12). We won't let our kids even bike. Cars often going 55+ in 101, running lights, texting etc. and I never see the roads patrolled. " • Smaller, high quality, single level townhomes with basements for seniors will be important for us. We don't want a big place, but do want quality. • Smart growth. • so many developments and smaller lots make it less appealing and congested. • "So much of Plymouth's focus seems to be on roads and expansion of business. It's absolutely vital that we take immediate steps to reduce our carbon footprint. Steps to incorporate solar energy and geothermal heating/cooling in our city and business projects need to be taken. Our neighborhoods can only be desirable into the future with preservation of mature trees and native planting seeds for cooling, sequestering carbon and to enhance a place we'd like to call 'home.' It is disheartening to see many neighboring suburbs commit themselves to environmental progress through Green Step Cities program while we let ourselves be fooled into thinking we are doing 'just fine, thank you!' " • Stop the bleeding/over developing. Leave Hollydale alone. Jusyt whayt we need- 310 more homes (600+ more cars). Can't wait. Traffic is so much worse than 5-10 years ago. Good luck! • Street maintenance snow removal • Subpar retail, businesses, private school options, and restaurants. I drive out of Plymouth every day to frequent Whole Foods, Costco, Ridgedale library, Montessori or gifted schooling options, good restaurants, and Williston Rec center. We have considered moving to Minnetonka since we spend most of our days either there or Maple Grove for the amenities listed above. What we love about Plymouth is our church (Plymouth Covenant Church), low density housing, and the open, less wooded, feel. If these changed, we would likely move. • supporting families who want to live and attend schools in a quality district like Wayzata Schools. • Supporting Plymouth citizens of various economic, ethnic and ages to keep our community feeling safe from crime, discrimination, neighborhood blights, getting rid of icy and snow rutted and removal neighborhood streets quickly in the winter and enforcing laws regarding traffic violations....including running of red lights. This all should be done in a positive manner. • Surviving the school levies! • Sustainability • Taxes and Over building of multiple family dwellings and reduction of green spaces. • Taxes are too much • terrible news for Plymouth residents! • That many areas of Plymouth are spread out and naturally cut-off by things like freeways and distance. Trying to involve all of the Plymouth community and not just areas where a lot of residential housing is. • The amount of growth and development seems to be out of control. The housing developments are all very similar (not a lot of diversity), the schools are being adversely effected and there isn't enough infrastructure with diverse restaurants (most are low quality) and stores. Also, the all these new housing developments feel like they are 'squished' in and not planned out well with roads and green space. • "The biggest issue felt in my neighborhood: Lack of safe places to cross County Road 101(south of county road 6) when walking. Perhaps a light that is red only when a button is pressed for walkers to safely cross the street would work. The lack of being able to cross, inhibits our ability to feel we have a neighborhood and feel safe having our kids visit neighbors across the street. The road itself feels unsafe when merging from side streets or driveways (many accidents due to this). The speed is too fast, traffic too heavy, and a lack of stoplights all contribute to this issue. The spacing of stoplights is too few and too far apart leading to speeders. " • The City Council needs to stop placating City Staff (i.e., City Manager et al) and do a more thorough job of vetting their proposed strategies and recommendations, especially those having long-term ramifications. • the city should pay 227 The National Community Survey™ 32 • The continuous building of new homes. The schools, roads and childcare services can't keep up with the number of families moving here. The green space is disappearing and the wildlife is struggling to find safe places to live. When we moved here almost 6 years ago we loved how much natural space there was and now our entire 'green space' that surrounded us are new homes. We are seriously considering a move. Between the continuous building and the sheer number of students in the schools we are becoming increasingly unhappy here. • The cost of housing. • The council needs to focus on basics--public safety, safe roads, quality water/sewer systems, and planning for the future. • The divisions between East and West sides of Plymouth. • The expansion of residential neighborhoods in the Northwest corner of Plymouth has proceeded too quickly. The traffic burden, especially along Vicksburg Lane and Schmidt Lake Road, has become frustrating. The increased population has also placed a burden on the schools. The green space in this part of the city has vanished and is likely to get worse as a proposal to consider rezoning Hollydale golf course for residential development proceeds. The city needs to slow down the development and consider more creative ways to protect some of the only remaining large green spaces in the city. • The fire dept is corrupt, should be investigated. • "The Four Season's Mall has been vacant for a while now. The land could be a great asset to the City of Plymouth if used properly for multi-use purposes. The Zachary Ballfield paths are dangerous at night. I'd like to see the pathways lit up in the fall, winter and spring...this would create more usage and keep people from walking on the streets. " • "The high pace of housing development is adding more people, while the streets to highways remain same and no change in Wayzata district funding or facilities. This population increase will add to traffic jams and impact school quality." • "The high school is too big al kids get lost (emotionally, not figuratively)" • The horrific use of land that is being gobbled up by developers and over population of Plymouth. Seems like Plymouth is only in it for the money. They do not care about the environment and the impact all this housing has on the land! • The impact of continuing growth on city resources. • The lights at hwy 55 take forever to change. Affordable rentals and housing for single professionals . • The need to preserve open space. Plymouth is overbuilding. • The over development of homes. Commercial buildings that sit empty as new are being built unnecessarily on open space. The loss of open/green space. Excessive traffic . Over crowding of schools. The excessive speeds on Vicksburg with lack of traffic enforcement on the more populated portions of Vicksburg (Between Hwy 55 and Rockford Rd). Good non-chain restaurant options and shopping. Can someone figure out How to get a True Food Kitchen in the space that used to be Ruby Tuesday's? :) • The police force. They don't use blinkers, run red lights when not on a call. They are generally rude and disrespectful. They are extremely slow to respond. I have nothing good to say about our police force. • The poorly planned intersections along 55, especially at 55/494 • The rapid rate of population growth as it pertains to public services, especially when it comes to quality education, class sizes, and accurate, long-term economic forecasting. • The rezoning of Hollydale golf course would be a disaster for that side of Plymouth. There is no need for additional homes, additional traffic and additional water problems in that area. • The safety and inclusion of ALL of our residents so that they may thrive and contribute to the mutual success of our city. • The same as anywhere: close minded and intolerant people. And secondarily, conservation of natural resource. • The same as in our country, bringing people together. Watching/attending council meetings you can witness such decisiveness and the unwillingness to see another's point of view. The anger and entitlement of some Plymouth residents is going to be a problem if we can't find common ground. An example is the discussion of the new Plymouth center and the people that have money and can afford current options vs some of us that want a safe place that we can actually afford be built. It was quite disgusting. Living in Plymouth, and living paycheck to paycheck, shouldn't disqualify me from getting affordable services. Not all of us live on the west side. 228 The National Community Survey™ 33 • The single most pressing issue Plymouth is facing today is the sale and possible rezoning of Hollydale Golf Course and the over development of land for residential use and the failure to preserve and PROTECT beautiful green space!! There are way too many new housing developments destroying every corner of green space left in Plymouth!! My family moved here 18 years ago and have loved living in Plymouth but you can feel a change and with the proposed development of 350 new homes on Hollydale Golf Course that project will destroy Plymouth!! Old Rockford Road is already a death trap and to add the burden of more traffic on that road is a big mistake. Another issue facing many homes currently in Plymouth is water issues. Our basement has flooded twice in 10 years. We currently have 3 sum pumps, 2 battery back up systems and a $500 generator. The city of Plymouth needs to rethink the 51 million they just approved for the upgrades to the Plymouth Creek Center (which FYI, in 18 years I have never used) and use some of the money to preserve Hollydale. There has got to be a better use of that beautiful land. This is on the shoulders of our City Counsel to do the right thing before it's too late!! I had hoped to stay in Plymouth for many more years but will not stay if the Hollydale Golf Course is destroyed!! • The size of schools and increasing number of schools in wayzata school district. • The too rapid growth of the housing and denseness of houses. The developers are making a ton of money at the residents expense. The city is doing absolutely nothing to control it but instead allowing the developers to make so much money. How are our property taxes going up?! The schools can't keep up and are suffering. The city appears to be mismanaged or the issues are just over their heads. • The unlawful rezoning and development of the Hollydale Golf Course. It will have devastating effects on the quality of life in Plymouth, as well as rezoning green space as residential was not a part of the 2040 plan. It will completely destroy the ecosystem, and the the new development will lead to heavy traffic, flooding, lower property values, overcrowded schools, and so on. Plymouth is a beautiful, wonderful place to grow up (I have lived here since I was 4). By developing that green space, you'll overpopulate the area and it will lead to increased crime. The city will be less safe for kids, and that's a shame since one of my favorite memories growing up was biking with friends to Hollydale Golf Course or playing in the woods across the street where the other development is in place. It would be devastating to Plymouth, and is unfair to residents as well, since it wasn't in the plan and the owners of Hollydale didn't have to pay premium taxes but could sell the property as residential? This will completely change the quality of life for the worst. Please do not let them put 300+ homes on Hollydale Golf Course. • There are a few. Quality of water is a big one.... • There is no true downtown location. No central location with shopping, dining, etc. • "There seems to be a significant number of people in Plymouth who feel as though they live in a rural community and can therefore do whatever they want on their property. They seem to think that it is OK to run commercial businesses out of their homes. In my neighborhood alone, there are several large scale lawn services, landscapers, snow removal services, various contractors, and a full blown construction company complete with dump trucks, front end loaders, backhoes, large trailers, etc. coming and going all day long. I do not believe that any of these operations are permitted businesses, but the city hasn't done anything about it, even after complaints have been registered. These types of commercial operations are very noisy, unsightly, and do not belong in residential areas. I think this kind of activity is probably more prominent in the older, more established areas of Plymouth, there is a lot of it going on in my neighborhood in particular. I like the freedom to live my life as I choose and do what I want on my property without too much government intervention but zoning laws and statutes exist for a reason and should be enforced. FYI, I live in/near the Circle Park Neighborhood if anyone cares. It is a mix of small older homes that are not particularly nice and multi-million dollar new construction. My home is older but well maintained I am at the lower end of property values in my neighborhood. Unfortunately I am constantly surrounded by construction work from all the houses that are being torn down and rebuilt along with all of the noisy, illegal?, businesses that are operating out of some homes." • To keep property taxes low, and to keep Plymouth a safe environment to live in. • To much housing being built! It needs to stop. We need green space and parks!!! • TOO MAN NEW HOMES BEING BUILT ON THE WEST SIDE ADDING TO THE ALREADY OVERCROWDED ROADWAYS. HWY 55 IS A DISASTER AT RUSH HOUR. • Too many houses buying built, not enough schools and teachers per class classes are becoming bigger. It used to be 18 kids in class and now close to 30 • Too many new high density (single family and multi) housing developments are being approved. The roads are not set up to handle the number of new homes being built. I'd rather pay a little higher taxes than continue the overcrowding. 229 The National Community Survey™ 34 • Too many new homes & not nearly enough gas stations/convenience stores for the growth. Loss of natural land for these subdivisions • Too many new homes being built. The schools cannot handle the numbers. And, please no more affordable housing. The Plymouth City Center is a joke. Too many dentists and businesses! How about some retail where people can stroll, visit the park at Hilde, spend the afternoon during the holiday season! STOP with the business environment and make it a have a hometown feeling. And, please use Christmas colors in your holiday lighting. Christmas is IN. You want the public to shop and spend their money in Plymouth? Act like it's Christmas. I could go on and on. Plymouth residents are not nice. They stay in their homes, and if by chance you speak to your neighbor, they look at you like you are an alien. We've lived here for over 20 years and watched Plymouth decline more and more each year. I've asked for a sidewalk on Old Rockford Road between Rockford and Vicksburg so many times. Not even a call back or response. I'm not impressed. At all. Best place to live? You have to make 6 digits to be able to afford Lifetime Fitness. Really? The others mini- gyms do not offer a wide range of classes. • Too many new houses. Causing overcrowding at schools and too big of a high school. Also causing a major downturn in the amount of open space in Plymouth. • Too many people/too much residential growth! School are already full and we keep taking more green space for more houses. Turn the golf course into an awesome city space like golden valleys brook view. Maybe get some better restaurants or a brewery. • Too much development, not enough green space. There are Multiple new home developments popping up in tiny little lot areas, it makes me wonder what special interests are at hand for accommodating developers to make more money and taxpayers left to pay the bills resulting from more residents in tiny spaces. It's very sad there are no plans to preserve, protect or expand green space. Seems like the city has goals to have Plymouth look and feel like downtown Minneapolis. • Too much development, which is leading to decreased natural spaces and overcrowded schools. • Too much green lighting of development without consideration to the overall well-being of current residents. No development is ever denied. Very worried they will rezone Hollydale and unnecessarily add hundreds of homes in an already developed space. Hi • Too much growth and too many new houses and developments. All the things I loved about Plymouth when I moved here are being plowed over to cram in as many people as possible. It's sad and disheartening. We need to stop for awhile and let the city adjust to the many new residents we already have. • "Too much growth too fast. Too many new housing developments. Wayzata schools can not accommodate the growth and now the schools are overpopulated and suck. I plan to move and I tell everyone I meet to never move to Plymouth and to stay away from Wayzata schools because of how grotesque in size it is. Now the city is adding more houses. More traffic. More power outages. More overcrowding in schools. And you aren't doing anything to help the district. You need to build a new high school, new middle school, and two more elementary schools now and stop making the school district and residents have to pay for your idiotic housing plans. This is insane. Slow the growth. Whatever. Either way this 'city' (with no downtown) sucks and me and my family and our 250k a year salaries are out of here. " • Too much housing development & resulting loss of green space, plus an infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) that can't keep up • Too much housing development is causing traffic, too high school enrollment and loss of valuable and needed green space. If smart (not only based on tax revenue without factoring expenses and costs) are not made by city officials, Plymouth will lose all reasons for a great community. Not sure I would live here again, if I could do it over again. • Too much new housing expansion taking Very Limited green space and associated new traffic safety and environmental challenges. • Too much new housing which is causing school issues, traffic, issues, recreational issues, and quality of life issues • Too much over building on green space like Hollydke • Too much residential building and overcrowding of schools/roadways. • Traffic and congestion • Traffic and continued building of new developments on small lots! Hwy55 now is almost always congested! • Traffic flow • Traffic flow (safety) & overdevelopment which inevitably lead to an overcrowded school infrastructure! 230 The National Community Survey™ 35 • Traffic. People running red lights, passing on the shoulder, not stopping for buses or pulling over for police vehicles, excessive speeding, tailgating, aggressive driving, intentionally going the wrong way on a one-way street... • Treating all residents equally, e.g. easing the problem of 'driving while Black' which does occur. • Truly affordable housing • Unique places to shop/dine. • very poor water quality/hard water • Way too much new development. The city is allowing every parcel of land to be developed with huge homes on smaller and smaller lots. The city has lost its charm. There is very little retail to keep up with demand and schools are getting way too stressed. The city overall look of the northwest quadrant is poor, house on top of house. • We are building and developing too much, too fast. Schools are over capacity. Water issues. Increasing traffic. Impacted home values. Reduction in natural beauty. None of this positively impacts Plymouth tax paying citizens. It does positively impact developers finances. I struggle to see how the latter is the cities priority at the expense of the former. • We are growing so rapidly and are primarily a bedroom community. I would highly appreciate developing affordable (not fast food) restaurants in the area. Currently, we need to drive to another city for dining and shopping. • We have little to no public transportation. • We have only lived here about a year. People on NextDoor are very concerned about car break-ins and coyotes. I am very disappointed with the water quality for both drinking and cleaning/showering. Otherwise, we love it here! • We moved here less than a year ago, so I am not all that familiar with everything Plymouth needs. • we need better water !!!!!!! • We need truly affordable housing, and especially for seniors. • what are you doing for redevelopment??? It's depressing & not a good representation. • with the city? Or w IOCP? The survey seems much larger than what the city should be concerning itself with. Additionally this survey is way too long to keep most peoples attention. • Would like to see more sidewalks especially in South East Plymouth. House values in robbinsdale school district.Diversity. • You're horrible at plowing trails. It is embarrassing. Visit maple grove. Visit Minneapolis. Trail plowing is awful. 231 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Plymouth, MN Technical Appendices 2019 232 The National Community Survey™ The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses .......................................... 1 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons ............................................. 19 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................. 27 Appendix D: Survey Materials ......................................................... 32 233 The National Community Survey™ 1 Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses Responses excluding “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 1: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Plymouth as a place to live 58% N=282 41% N=199 2% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=490 Your neighborhood as a place to live 53% N=258 39% N=193 6% N=30 2% N=9 100% N=490 Plymouth as a place to raise children 59% N=250 35% N=149 5% N=23 0% N=0 100% N=422 Plymouth as a place to work 43% N=135 42% N=131 14% N=45 0% N=2 100% N=312 Plymouth as a place to visit 26% N=116 43% N=189 26% N=117 5% N=23 100% N=445 Plymouth as a place to retire 30% N=108 37% N=134 24% N=87 8% N=30 100% N=359 The overall quality of life in Plymouth 45% N=218 52% N=255 3% N=14 0% N=0 100% N=488 Table 2: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 50% N=247 42% N=207 7% N=32 1% N=4 100% N=489 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 33% N=160 52% N=254 14% N=68 1% N=6 100% N=488 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 48% N=232 42% N=204 9% N=45 0% N=2 100% N=483 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 30% N=143 52% N=248 17% N=80 1% N=6 100% N=477 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 40% N=181 51% N=232 8% N=37 0% N=2 100% N=451 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 43% N=185 46% N=194 11% N=46 0% N=1 100% N=427 Overall economic health of Plymouth 43% N=189 48% N=213 8% N=37 0% N=0 100% N=438 Sense of community 27% N=127 42% N=197 28% N=134 3% N=12 100% N=470 Overall image or reputation of Plymouth 42% N=200 51% N=246 7% N=32 0% N=1 100% N=479 Table 3: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks 69% N=334 29% N=140 2% N=11 0% N=1 100% N=487 Remain in Plymouth for the next five years 63% N=294 29% N=135 7% N=31 2% N=9 100% N=470 Table 4: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 83% N=404 14% N=70 2% N=11 1% N=3 0% N=0 100% N=489 In Plymouth's downtown/commercial area during the day 81% N=365 17% N=77 2% N=8 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=450 234 The National Community Survey™ 2 Table 5: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 14% N=69 56% N=276 26% N=128 4% N=19 100% N=492 Ease of travel by car in Plymouth 24% N=115 58% N=284 18% N=88 1% N=4 100% N=491 Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth 9% N=18 21% N=43 37% N=75 34% N=70 100% N=206 Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth 20% N=65 46% N=154 28% N=91 6% N=21 100% N=331 Ease of walking in Plymouth 30% N=138 47% N=220 19% N=87 4% N=19 100% N=464 Availability of paths and walking trails 43% N=205 42% N=203 12% N=56 3% N=15 100% N=479 Cleanliness of Plymouth 46% N=226 48% N=235 5% N=23 1% N=6 100% N=490 Overall appearance of Plymouth 44% N=216 49% N=242 6% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=489 Public places where people want to spend time 29% N=136 50% N=237 17% N=81 4% N=16 100% N=470 Variety of housing options 22% N=94 48% N=206 23% N=98 6% N=28 100% N=427 Availability of affordable quality housing 12% N=43 32% N=113 38% N=134 18% N=62 100% N=352 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 37% N=177 48% N=225 13% N=61 2% N=9 100% N=472 Recreational opportunities 36% N=161 52% N=235 12% N=53 1% N=6 100% N=454 Table 6: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total K-12 education 61% N=204 30% N=100 7% N=25 2% N=6 100% N=335 Adult educational opportunities 28% N=92 56% N=185 14% N=47 2% N=7 100% N=330 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 25% N=101 51% N=202 21% N=85 3% N=11 100% N=399 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 36% N=124 50% N=174 14% N=48 1% N=2 100% N=347 Employment opportunities 24% N=73 49% N=150 26% N=79 1% N=4 100% N=307 Shopping opportunities 20% N=97 47% N=226 26% N=123 6% N=30 100% N=476 Cost of living in Plymouth 8% N=38 42% N=201 41% N=196 10% N=47 100% N=482 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth 21% N=98 59% N=279 18% N=87 2% N=10 100% N=474 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 12% N=51 35% N=157 40% N=177 13% N=58 100% N=443 Overall quality of new development in Plymouth 21% N=84 50% N=200 24% N=96 4% N=18 100% N=398 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 23% N=95 51% N=212 23% N=98 3% N=14 100% N=419 Opportunities to volunteer 30% N=102 50% N=169 19% N=65 1% N=2 100% N=338 Opportunities to participate in community matters 23% N=87 52% N=193 23% N=84 2% N=9 100% N=372 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 22% N=94 51% N=213 23% N=97 4% N=15 100% N=419 Neighborliness of residents in Plymouth 22% N=103 54% N=253 20% N=96 4% N=18 100% N=470 235 The National Community Survey™ 3 Table 7: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 22% N=107 78% N=383 100% N=489 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 30% N=145 70% N=342 100% N=487 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 80% N=389 20% N=99 100% N=487 Household member was a victim of a crime in Plymouth 96% N=468 4% N=21 100% N=490 Reported a crime to the police in Plymouth 90% N=440 10% N=50 100% N=490 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 87% N=427 13% N=61 100% N=488 Contacted the City of Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 59% N=289 41% N=200 100% N=488 Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 87% N=423 13% N=65 100% N=488 Table 8: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Plymouth? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services 9% N=43 18% N=89 34% N=165 39% N=189 100% N=487 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 25% N=119 34% N=161 33% N=156 9% N=41 100% N=477 Used Hennepin County public libraries or their services 9% N=43 26% N=125 35% N=170 31% N=149 100% N=487 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth 6% N=30 19% N=93 13% N=65 61% N=296 100% N=484 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=3 3% N=16 44% N=215 52% N=250 100% N=485 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 4% N=22 1% N=5 8% N=38 87% N=423 100% N=487 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 14% N=70 12% N=57 19% N=90 55% N=269 100% N=486 Walked or biked instead of driving 9% N=42 19% N=90 27% N=131 46% N=223 100% N=487 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth 4% N=20 8% N=39 18% N=86 70% N=341 100% N=486 Participated in a club 3% N=15 7% N=33 12% N=59 78% N=378 100% N=484 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 44% N=215 30% N=148 17% N=84 8% N=41 100% N=488 Done a favor for a neighbor 17% N=82 26% N=129 38% N=183 19% N=94 100% N=489 Table 9: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=1 1% N=3 16% N=79 83% N=403 100% N=486 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=1 2% N=10 15% N=71 83% N=405 100% N=487 Table 10: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 52% N=206 41% N=164 7% N=26 1% N=3 100% N=399 Fire services 55% N=187 41% N=141 4% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=341 Crime prevention 35% N=122 55% N=191 7% N=25 2% N=7 100% N=345 Fire prevention and education 37% N=113 56% N=171 7% N=22 0% N=1 100% N=307 Traffic enforcement 24% N=101 57% N=237 15% N=63 3% N=14 100% N=415 Street repair 16% N=76 48% N=225 29% N=137 6% N=30 100% N=467 Street cleaning 26% N=119 51% N=233 19% N=87 3% N=14 100% N=454 236 The National Community Survey™ 4 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Street lighting 20% N=95 50% N=232 21% N=98 9% N=40 100% N=465 Snow removal 22% N=99 49% N=225 23% N=107 6% N=26 100% N=457 Sidewalk maintenance 20% N=79 51% N=205 23% N=93 6% N=24 100% N=401 Traffic signal timing 15% N=71 45% N=212 31% N=146 9% N=40 100% N=469 Bus or transit services 17% N=28 35% N=59 31% N=52 17% N=28 100% N=166 Recycling 37% N=169 52% N=238 9% N=43 2% N=9 100% N=459 Storm drainage 25% N=104 49% N=209 22% N=94 4% N=16 100% N=423 Drinking water 28% N=126 41% N=189 22% N=99 10% N=45 100% N=459 Sewer services 35% N=142 53% N=217 11% N=46 0% N=2 100% N=407 Utility billing 27% N=120 54% N=243 17% N=75 2% N=9 100% N=448 City parks 56% N=258 38% N=177 6% N=27 0% N=1 100% N=463 Recreation programs or classes 39% N=128 51% N=169 9% N=30 1% N=4 100% N=330 Recreation centers or facilities 36% N=130 52% N=188 10% N=36 2% N=7 100% N=361 Land use, planning and zoning 21% N=64 46% N=142 23% N=69 10% N=31 100% N=306 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 21% N=61 54% N=153 18% N=52 7% N=19 100% N=284 Animal control 26% N=69 55% N=147 17% N=44 3% N=7 100% N=268 Economic development 23% N=74 56% N=177 19% N=60 2% N=7 100% N=319 Public library services 56% N=223 40% N=160 5% N=18 0% N=0 100% N=401 Public information services 29% N=94 56% N=180 14% N=45 1% N=4 100% N=323 Cable television 22% N=64 45% N=130 23% N=66 10% N=29 100% N=289 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 28% N=78 56% N=158 14% N=38 3% N=7 100% N=281 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 28% N=109 45% N=179 18% N=70 9% N=36 100% N=393 Plymouth open space 31% N=127 42% N=171 18% N=74 8% N=32 100% N=404 City-sponsored special events 30% N=102 55% N=188 13% N=44 2% N=7 100% N=340 Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 36% N=136 55% N=205 7% N=28 1% N=5 100% N=373 Table 11: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Plymouth 35% N=153 58% N=255 7% N=30 0% N=2 100% N=441 The Federal Government 8% N=31 34% N=132 44% N=171 14% N=53 100% N=387 Table 12: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Plymouth government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth 15% N=65 58% N=246 22% N=91 5% N=21 100% N=423 The overall direction that Plymouth is taking 17% N=72 60% N=247 17% N=70 5% N=22 100% N=410 The job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement 18% N=57 57% N=181 20% N=64 5% N=17 100% N=319 Overall confidence in Plymouth government 18% N=71 58% N=232 21% N=85 3% N=12 100% N=401 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 21% N=85 56% N=223 20% N=78 3% N=12 100% N=397 Being honest 23% N=82 59% N=211 16% N=57 2% N=8 100% N=357 Treating all residents fairly 25% N=86 59% N=208 14% N=49 2% N=6 100% N=349 237 The National Community Survey™ 5 Table 13: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 64% N=309 30% N=143 5% N=24 2% N=8 100% N=483 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 30% N=146 52% N=252 16% N=79 1% N=3 100% N=480 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 38% N=183 49% N=233 12% N=55 1% N=5 100% N=477 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 27% N=129 49% N=234 23% N=109 2% N=8 100% N=481 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 24% N=117 47% N=226 27% N=128 2% N=9 100% N=481 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=154 47% N=226 17% N=82 4% N=20 100% N=481 Overall economic health of Plymouth 40% N=192 51% N=244 8% N=37 2% N=7 100% N=480 Sense of community 27% N=130 50% N=241 22% N=105 1% N=6 100% N=482 Table 14: Question 14 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: Major source Minor source Not a source Total Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) 60% N=282 32% N=149 8% N=40 100% N=471 Parks and Recreation Activities Guide 49% N=233 39% N=183 12% N=57 100% N=472 Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper 21% N=97 33% N=155 47% N=220 100% N=472 City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) 39% N=180 42% N=197 19% N=88 100% N=464 Emails from the City of Plymouth 22% N=104 41% N=191 37% N=170 100% N=466 City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) 18% N=85 35% N=166 46% N=218 100% N=469 CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) 8% N=39 24% N=115 67% N=315 100% N=468 Calling the City of Plymouth 22% N=104 42% N=196 36% N=166 100% N=466 Table 15: Question 15 How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Participating in surveys 55% N=265 37% N=177 5% N=24 3% N=13 100% N=479 Attending or watching public meetings 4% N=19 28% N=134 34% N=164 34% N=162 100% N=479 Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces 4% N=18 22% N=106 35% N=168 39% N=186 100% N=478 Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting 12% N=59 50% N=236 22% N=103 16% N=78 100% N=476 Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting 33% N=159 42% N=201 14% N=65 11% N=50 100% N=475 Table 16: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 1% N=4 2% N=7 3% N=15 11% N=51 84% N=392 100% N=469 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth 0% N=1 1% N=7 18% N=86 54% N=253 26% N=122 100% N=468 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 2% N=11 16% N=74 28% N=129 36% N=165 18% N=82 100% N=461 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=6 9% N=42 33% N=152 32% N=147 25% N=116 100% N=462 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=18 15% N=68 20% N=91 36% N=165 26% N=121 100% N=463 Vote in local elections 7% N=30 4% N=17 14% N=66 23% N=105 53% N=248 100% N=466 238 The National Community Survey™ 6 Table 17: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 27% N=127 Very good 41% N=191 Good 25% N=118 Fair 6% N=27 Poor 0% N=1 Total 100% N=465 Table 18: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 6% N=27 Somewhat positive 25% N=116 Neutral 53% N=242 Somewhat negative 15% N=70 Very negative 1% N=6 Total 100% N=461 Table 19: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 66% N=305 Working part time for pay 9% N=43 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=12 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 4% N=17 Fully retired 18% N=84 Total 100% N=462 Table 20: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Plymouth? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 17% N=76 Yes, from home 12% N=53 No 71% N=316 Total 100% N=445 Table 21: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Plymouth? Percent Number Less than 2 years 19% N=88 2 to 5 years 23% N=109 6 to 10 years 16% N=76 11 to 20 years 16% N=73 More than 20 years 26% N=121 Total 100% N=467 239 The National Community Survey™ 7 Table 22: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 56% N=267 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 43% N=205 Mobile home 0% N=1 Other 0% N=1 Total 100% N=474 Table 23: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 28% N=130 Owned 72% N=340 Total 100% N=470 Table 24: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 2% N=10 $300 to $599 per month 7% N=31 $600 to $999 per month 9% N=40 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 21% N=95 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 40% N=181 $2,500 or more per month 20% N=91 Total 100% N=448 Table 25: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 62% N=284 Yes 38% N=176 Total 100% N=460 Table 26: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 77% N=356 Yes 23% N=108 Total 100% N=465 240 The National Community Survey™ 8 Table 27: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 6% N=24 $25,000 to $49,999 9% N=39 $50,000 to $99,999 29% N=130 $100,000 to $149,999 23% N=101 $150,000 or more 33% N=146 Total 100% N=440 Table 28: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=440 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=22 Total 100% N=462 Table 29: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 8% N=37 Black or African American 4% N=17 White 88% N=408 Other 4% N=18 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 30: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=10 25 to 34 years 25% N=116 35 to 44 years 19% N=88 45 to 54 years 21% N=101 55 to 64 years 13% N=62 65 to 74 years 12% N=56 75 years or older 8% N=40 Total 100% N=474 241 The National Community Survey™ 9 Table 31: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 53% N=249 Male 47% N=217 Total 100% N=466 Table 32: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 79% N=366 Land line 9% N=40 Both 12% N=57 Total 100% N=463 242 The National Community Survey™ 10 Responses including “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 33: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Plymouth as a place to live 58% N=282 41% N=199 2% N=9 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=490 Your neighborhood as a place to live 53% N=258 39% N=193 6% N=30 2% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=490 Plymouth as a place to raise children 51% N=250 30% N=149 5% N=23 0% N=0 14% N=68 100% N=489 Plymouth as a place to work 28% N=135 27% N=131 9% N=45 0% N=2 35% N=171 100% N=483 Plymouth as a place to visit 24% N=116 39% N=189 24% N=117 5% N=23 8% N=40 100% N=484 Plymouth as a place to retire 22% N=108 28% N=134 18% N=87 6% N=30 26% N=126 100% N=484 The overall quality of life in Plymouth 45% N=218 52% N=255 3% N=14 0% N=0 0% N=1 100% N=489 Table 34: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 50% N=247 42% N=207 7% N=32 1% N=4 0% N=1 100% N=490 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 33% N=160 52% N=254 14% N=68 1% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=488 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 48% N=232 42% N=204 9% N=45 0% N=2 1% N=3 100% N=486 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 29% N=143 51% N=248 16% N=80 1% N=6 2% N=9 100% N=486 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 37% N=181 47% N=232 8% N=37 0% N=2 8% N=37 100% N=488 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 38% N=185 40% N=194 9% N=46 0% N=1 13% N=61 100% N=488 Overall economic health of Plymouth 39% N=189 44% N=213 8% N=37 0% N=0 10% N=49 100% N=487 Sense of community 26% N=127 40% N=197 27% N=134 2% N=12 4% N=17 100% N=487 Overall image or reputation of Plymouth 41% N=200 50% N=246 6% N=32 0% N=1 2% N=10 100% N=488 Table 35: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks 68% N=334 28% N=140 2% N=11 0% N=1 1% N=6 100% N=493 Remain in Plymouth for the next five years 60% N=294 28% N=135 6% N=31 2% N=9 4% N=17 100% N=487 Table 36: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 83% N=404 14% N=70 2% N=11 1% N=3 0% N=0 0% N=1 100% N=490 In Plymouth's downtown/commercial area during the day 75% N=365 16% N=77 2% N=8 0% N=0 0% N=0 7% N=36 100% N=486 243 The National Community Survey™ 11 Table 37: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 14% N=69 56% N=276 26% N=128 4% N=19 0% N=0 100% N=492 Ease of travel by car in Plymouth 24% N=115 58% N=284 18% N=88 1% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=491 Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth 4% N=18 9% N=43 16% N=75 14% N=70 58% N=279 100% N=484 Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth 14% N=65 32% N=154 19% N=91 4% N=21 31% N=150 100% N=481 Ease of walking in Plymouth 28% N=138 45% N=220 18% N=87 4% N=19 6% N=27 100% N=491 Availability of paths and walking trails 42% N=205 41% N=203 11% N=56 3% N=15 2% N=11 100% N=490 Cleanliness of Plymouth 46% N=226 48% N=235 5% N=23 1% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=490 Overall appearance of Plymouth 44% N=216 49% N=242 6% N=31 0% N=0 0% N=2 100% N=491 Public places where people want to spend time 28% N=136 49% N=237 17% N=81 3% N=16 4% N=18 100% N=488 Variety of housing options 19% N=94 42% N=206 20% N=98 6% N=28 13% N=63 100% N=490 Availability of affordable quality housing 9% N=43 23% N=113 27% N=134 13% N=62 28% N=135 100% N=486 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 36% N=177 46% N=225 12% N=61 2% N=9 4% N=18 100% N=491 Recreational opportunities 33% N=161 48% N=235 11% N=53 1% N=6 6% N=31 100% N=485 Table 38: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total K-12 education 42% N=204 21% N=100 5% N=25 1% N=6 31% N=153 100% N=488 Adult educational opportunities 19% N=92 38% N=185 10% N=47 1% N=7 32% N=157 100% N=488 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 21% N=101 41% N=202 17% N=85 2% N=11 18% N=89 100% N=488 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 26% N=124 36% N=174 10% N=48 0% N=2 29% N=139 100% N=486 Employment opportunities 15% N=73 31% N=150 16% N=79 1% N=4 37% N=178 100% N=485 Shopping opportunities 20% N=97 46% N=226 25% N=123 6% N=30 2% N=12 100% N=488 Cost of living in Plymouth 8% N=38 41% N=201 40% N=196 10% N=47 1% N=5 100% N=487 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth 20% N=98 57% N=279 18% N=87 2% N=10 3% N=14 100% N=487 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 11% N=51 32% N=157 36% N=177 12% N=58 9% N=43 100% N=485 Overall quality of new development in Plymouth 17% N=84 41% N=200 20% N=96 4% N=18 18% N=86 100% N=484 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 19% N=95 44% N=212 20% N=98 3% N=14 14% N=68 100% N=487 Opportunities to volunteer 21% N=102 35% N=169 13% N=65 0% N=2 30% N=147 100% N=485 Opportunities to participate in community matters 18% N=87 40% N=193 17% N=84 2% N=9 23% N=112 100% N=484 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 19% N=94 44% N=213 20% N=97 3% N=15 13% N=65 100% N=484 Neighborliness of residents in Plymouth 21% N=103 52% N=253 20% N=96 4% N=18 3% N=14 100% N=484 244 The National Community Survey™ 12 Table 39: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 22% N=107 78% N=383 100% N=489 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 30% N=145 70% N=342 100% N=487 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 80% N=389 20% N=99 100% N=487 Household member was a victim of a crime in Plymouth 96% N=468 4% N=21 100% N=490 Reported a crime to the police in Plymouth 90% N=440 10% N=50 100% N=490 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 87% N=427 13% N=61 100% N=488 Contacted the City of Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 59% N=289 41% N=200 100% N=488 Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 87% N=423 13% N=65 100% N=488 Table 40: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Plymouth? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services 9% N=43 18% N=89 34% N=165 39% N=189 100% N=487 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 25% N=119 34% N=161 33% N=156 9% N=41 100% N=477 Used Hennepin County public libraries or their services 9% N=43 26% N=125 35% N=170 31% N=149 100% N=487 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth 6% N=30 19% N=93 13% N=65 61% N=296 100% N=484 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=3 3% N=16 44% N=215 52% N=250 100% N=485 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 4% N=22 1% N=5 8% N=38 87% N=423 100% N=487 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 14% N=70 12% N=57 19% N=90 55% N=269 100% N=486 Walked or biked instead of driving 9% N=42 19% N=90 27% N=131 46% N=223 100% N=487 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth 4% N=20 8% N=39 18% N=86 70% N=341 100% N=486 Participated in a club 3% N=15 7% N=33 12% N=59 78% N=378 100% N=484 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 44% N=215 30% N=148 17% N=84 8% N=41 100% N=488 Done a favor for a neighbor 17% N=82 26% N=129 38% N=183 19% N=94 100% N=489 Table 41: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=1 1% N=3 16% N=79 83% N=403 100% N=486 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=1 2% N=10 15% N=71 83% N=405 100% N=487 245 The National Community Survey™ 13 Table 42: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 42% N=206 34% N=164 5% N=26 1% N=3 18% N=87 100% N=487 Fire services 39% N=187 29% N=141 3% N=13 0% N=0 29% N=142 100% N=484 Crime prevention 25% N=122 40% N=191 5% N=25 1% N=7 28% N=137 100% N=482 Fire prevention and education 23% N=113 35% N=171 4% N=22 0% N=1 36% N=176 100% N=483 Traffic enforcement 21% N=101 49% N=237 13% N=63 3% N=14 14% N=69 100% N=484 Street repair 16% N=76 46% N=225 28% N=137 6% N=30 4% N=18 100% N=486 Street cleaning 25% N=119 48% N=233 18% N=87 3% N=14 6% N=31 100% N=485 Street lighting 20% N=95 48% N=232 20% N=98 8% N=40 4% N=20 100% N=484 Snow removal 20% N=99 46% N=225 22% N=107 5% N=26 6% N=31 100% N=487 Sidewalk maintenance 17% N=79 43% N=205 19% N=93 5% N=24 17% N=80 100% N=481 Traffic signal timing 15% N=71 44% N=212 30% N=146 8% N=40 3% N=14 100% N=483 Bus or transit services 6% N=28 12% N=59 11% N=52 6% N=28 65% N=312 100% N=478 Recycling 35% N=169 49% N=238 9% N=43 2% N=9 5% N=26 100% N=485 Storm drainage 22% N=104 43% N=209 19% N=94 3% N=16 12% N=59 100% N=483 Drinking water 26% N=126 39% N=189 21% N=99 9% N=45 4% N=21 100% N=480 Sewer services 30% N=142 45% N=217 10% N=46 0% N=2 15% N=70 100% N=477 Utility billing 25% N=120 51% N=243 16% N=75 2% N=9 7% N=33 100% N=481 City parks 53% N=258 37% N=177 6% N=27 0% N=1 4% N=20 100% N=482 Recreation programs or classes 26% N=128 35% N=169 6% N=30 1% N=4 32% N=153 100% N=483 Recreation centers or facilities 27% N=130 39% N=188 8% N=36 1% N=7 25% N=118 100% N=480 Land use, planning and zoning 13% N=64 30% N=142 14% N=69 6% N=31 36% N=174 100% N=480 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 13% N=61 32% N=153 11% N=52 4% N=19 41% N=197 100% N=481 Animal control 14% N=69 31% N=147 9% N=44 2% N=7 44% N=214 100% N=482 Economic development 15% N=74 37% N=177 12% N=60 2% N=7 34% N=164 100% N=482 Public library services 46% N=223 33% N=160 4% N=18 0% N=0 17% N=82 100% N=483 Public information services 20% N=94 37% N=180 9% N=45 1% N=4 33% N=160 100% N=483 Cable television 13% N=64 27% N=130 14% N=66 6% N=29 40% N=190 100% N=479 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 16% N=78 33% N=158 8% N=38 1% N=7 41% N=198 100% N=480 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 23% N=109 37% N=179 15% N=70 7% N=36 18% N=86 100% N=479 Plymouth open space 27% N=127 36% N=171 16% N=74 7% N=32 15% N=73 100% N=477 City-sponsored special events 21% N=102 39% N=188 9% N=44 1% N=7 29% N=141 100% N=481 Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 28% N=136 43% N=205 6% N=28 1% N=5 23% N=109 100% N=482 Table 43: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Plymouth 32% N=153 53% N=255 6% N=30 0% N=2 8% N=38 100% N=479 The Federal Government 7% N=31 28% N=132 36% N=171 11% N=53 19% N=88 100% N=475 246 The National Community Survey™ 14 Table 44: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Plymouth government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth 14% N=65 51% N=246 19% N=91 4% N=21 12% N=56 100% N=479 The overall direction that Plymouth is taking 15% N=72 52% N=247 15% N=70 5% N=22 14% N=68 100% N=478 The job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement 12% N=57 38% N=181 14% N=64 4% N=17 33% N=158 100% N=476 Overall confidence in Plymouth government 15% N=71 49% N=232 18% N=85 3% N=12 16% N=76 100% N=476 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 18% N=85 47% N=223 16% N=78 2% N=12 17% N=79 100% N=477 Being honest 17% N=82 44% N=211 12% N=57 2% N=8 25% N=119 100% N=476 Treating all residents fairly 18% N=86 44% N=208 10% N=49 1% N=6 27% N=127 100% N=476 Table 45: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 64% N=309 30% N=143 5% N=24 2% N=8 100% N=483 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 30% N=146 52% N=252 16% N=79 1% N=3 100% N=480 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 38% N=183 49% N=233 12% N=55 1% N=5 100% N=477 Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 27% N=129 49% N=234 23% N=109 2% N=8 100% N=481 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 24% N=117 47% N=226 27% N=128 2% N=9 100% N=481 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=154 47% N=226 17% N=82 4% N=20 100% N=481 Overall economic health of Plymouth 40% N=192 51% N=244 8% N=37 2% N=7 100% N=480 Sense of community 27% N=130 50% N=241 22% N=105 1% N=6 100% N=482 Table 46: Question 14 Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: Major source Minor source Not a source Total Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) 60% N=282 32% N=149 8% N=40 100% N=471 Parks and Recreation Activities Guide 49% N=233 39% N=183 12% N=57 100% N=472 Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper 21% N=97 33% N=155 47% N=220 100% N=472 City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) 39% N=180 42% N=197 19% N=88 100% N=464 Emails from the City of Plymouth 22% N=104 41% N=191 37% N=170 100% N=466 City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) 18% N=85 35% N=166 46% N=218 100% N=469 CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) 8% N=39 24% N=115 67% N=315 100% N=468 Calling the City of Plymouth 22% N=104 42% N=196 36% N=166 100% N=466 247 The National Community Survey™ 15 Table 47: Question 15 How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Participating in surveys 55% N=265 37% N=177 5% N=24 3% N=13 100% N=479 Attending or watching public meetings 4% N=19 28% N=134 34% N=164 34% N=162 100% N=479 Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces 4% N=18 22% N=106 35% N=168 39% N=186 100% N=478 Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting 12% N=59 50% N=236 22% N=103 16% N=78 100% N=476 Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting 33% N=159 42% N=201 14% N=65 11% N=50 100% N=475 Table 48: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 1% N=4 2% N=7 3% N=15 11% N=51 84% N=392 100% N=469 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth 0% N=1 1% N=7 18% N=86 54% N=253 26% N=122 100% N=468 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 2% N=11 16% N=74 28% N=129 36% N=165 18% N=82 100% N=461 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 1% N=6 9% N=42 33% N=152 32% N=147 25% N=116 100% N=462 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=18 15% N=68 20% N=91 36% N=165 26% N=121 100% N=463 Vote in local elections 7% N=30 4% N=17 14% N=66 23% N=105 53% N=248 100% N=466 Table 49: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 27% N=127 Very good 41% N=191 Good 25% N=118 Fair 6% N=27 Poor 0% N=1 Total 100% N=465 Table 50: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 6% N=27 Somewhat positive 25% N=116 Neutral 53% N=242 Somewhat negative 15% N=70 Very negative 1% N=6 Total 100% N=461 248 The National Community Survey™ 16 Table 51: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 66% N=305 Working part time for pay 9% N=43 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=12 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 4% N=17 Fully retired 18% N=84 Total 100% N=462 Table 52: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Plymouth? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 17% N=76 Yes, from home 12% N=53 No 71% N=316 Total 100% N=445 Table 53: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Plymouth? Percent Number Less than 2 years 19% N=88 2 to 5 years 23% N=109 6 to 10 years 16% N=76 11 to 20 years 16% N=73 More than 20 years 26% N=121 Total 100% N=467 Table 54: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 56% N=267 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 43% N=205 Mobile home 0% N=1 Other 0% N=1 Total 100% N=474 Table 55: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 28% N=130 Owned 72% N=340 Total 100% N=470 249 The National Community Survey™ 17 Table 56: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 2% N=10 $300 to $599 per month 7% N=31 $600 to $999 per month 9% N=40 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 21% N=95 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 40% N=181 $2,500 or more per month 20% N=91 Total 100% N=448 Table 57: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 62% N=284 Yes 38% N=176 Total 100% N=460 Table 58: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 77% N=356 Yes 23% N=108 Total 100% N=465 Table 59: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 6% N=24 $25,000 to $49,999 9% N=39 $50,000 to $99,999 29% N=130 $100,000 to $149,999 23% N=101 $150,000 or more 33% N=146 Total 100% N=440 Table 60: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 95% N=440 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 5% N=22 Total 100% N=462 250 The National Community Survey™ 18 Table 61: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 8% N=37 Black or African American 4% N=17 White 88% N=408 Other 4% N=18 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 62: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=10 25 to 34 years 25% N=116 35 to 44 years 19% N=88 45 to 54 years 21% N=101 55 to 64 years 13% N=62 65 to 74 years 12% N=56 75 years or older 8% N=40 Total 100% N=474 Table 63: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 53% N=249 Male 47% N=217 Total 100% N=466 Table 64: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 79% N=366 Land line 9% N=40 Both 12% N=57 Total 100% N=463 251 The National Community Survey™ 19 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Plymouth chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Plymouth’s “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Plymouth’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Plymouth’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Plymouth’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Plymouth residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Plymouth’s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Plymouth’s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. Benchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% 252 The National Community Survey™ 20 National Benchmark Comparisons Table 65: Community Characteristics General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark The overall quality of life in Plymouth 97% 41 432 Higher Overall image or reputation of Plymouth 93% 42 340 Higher Plymouth as a place to live 98% 42 377 Higher Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 44 308 Similar Plymouth as a place to raise children 95% 42 368 Higher Plymouth as a place to retire 67% 135 348 Similar Overall appearance of Plymouth 94% 30 339 Higher Table 66: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth 93% 59 349 Higher In your neighborhood during the day 97% 61 346 Similar In Plymouth's downtown/commercial area during the day 98% 24 314 Higher Mobility Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 85% 58 273 Similar Availability of paths and walking trails 85% 30 309 Higher Ease of walking in Plymouth 77% 71 303 Similar Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth 66% 69 302 Higher Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth 30% 149 235 Similar Ease of travel by car in Plymouth 81% 46 301 Higher Traffic flow on major streets 70% 37 329 Higher Natural Environment Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth 90% 34 275 Higher Cleanliness of Plymouth 94% 28 282 Higher Built Environment Overall "built environment" of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 82% 14 264 Higher Overall quality of new development in Plymouth 71% 34 289 Higher Availability of affordable quality housing 44% 100 298 Similar Variety of housing options 70% 45 277 Higher Public places where people want to spend time 79% 53 258 Similar Economy Overall economic health of Plymouth 92% 12 270 Much higher Vibrant downtown/commercial area 47% 128 247 Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth 80% 36 272 Similar Cost of living in Plymouth 50% 93 266 Similar Shopping opportunities 68% 99 290 Similar Employment opportunities 73% 8 307 Much higher Plymouth as a place to visit 69% 118 284 Similar Plymouth as a place to work 85% 14 352 Higher Recreation and Wellness Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth 92% 16 265 Higher Recreational opportunities 87% 30 290 Higher Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 85% 32 256 Higher Education and Enrichment Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 89% 23 267 Higher Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 86% 46 205 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 76% 62 287 Higher Adult educational opportunities 84% 15 244 Higher K-12 education 91% 16 268 Higher Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 73% 54 263 Similar Neighborliness of Plymouth 76% 34 259 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 73% 38 290 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 75% 40 273 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 80% 44 264 Similar 253 The National Community Survey™ 21 Table 67: Governance General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Plymouth 93% 24 402 Higher Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 91% 31 368 Higher Value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth 74% 26 386 Higher Overall direction that Plymouth is taking 78% 34 311 Higher Job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement 74% 19 314 Higher Overall confidence in Plymouth government 76% 13 271 Higher Generally acting in the best interest of the community 77% 10 271 Higher Being honest 82% 9 262 Higher Treating all residents fairly 84% 5 268 Higher Services provided by the Federal Government 42% 52 251 Similar Table 68: Governance by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Police/Sheriff services 93% 31 427 Higher Fire services 96% 80 365 Similar Crime prevention 91% 36 350 Higher Fire prevention and education 93% 32 282 Similar Animal control 81% 18 318 Higher Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 84% 7 276 Higher Mobility Traffic enforcement 81% 26 354 Higher Street repair 64% 53 359 Higher Street cleaning 78% 44 314 Higher Street lighting 70% 81 316 Similar Snow removal 71% 94 266 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 71% 43 307 Higher Traffic signal timing 60% 44 261 Similar Bus or transit services 52% 105 229 Similar Natural Environment Recycling 89% 60 341 Similar Drinking water 69% 149 297 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 73% 40 253 Similar Plymouth open space 74% 33 241 Similar Built Environment Storm drainage 74% 59 332 Similar Sewer services 88% 25 303 Similar Utility billing 81% 32 233 Similar Land use, planning and zoning 67% 17 295 Higher Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 75% 12 373 Higher Cable television 67% 14 201 Higher Economy Economic development 79% 13 281 Higher Recreation and Wellness City parks 94% 15 310 Higher Recreation programs or classes 90% 15 311 Higher Recreation centers or facilities 88% 31 274 Higher Education and Enrichment City-sponsored special events 85% 22 281 Higher Public library services 95% 22 321 Higher Community Engagement Public information services 85% 23 284 Higher 254 The National Community Survey™ 22 Table 69: Participation General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 69% 67 302 Similar Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks 97% 6 281 Higher Remain in Plymouth for the next five years 91% 24 276 Similar Contacted Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 41% 211 319 Similar Table 70: Participation by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Did NOT report a crime to the police 90% 8 262 Higher Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 96% 11 271 Similar Mobility Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 13% 133 215 Lower Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 45% 99 250 Similar Walked or biked instead of driving 54% 144 259 Similar Natural Environment Made efforts to conserve water 78% 157 244 Similar Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 70% 212 246 Similar Recycle at home 98% 31 258 Higher Built Environment Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth 80% 2 253 Much higher NOT experiencing housing costs stress 72% 102 257 Similar Economy Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth 98% 48 256 Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 31% 147 258 Similar Work inside boundaries of Plymouth 29% 195 257 Lower Recreation and Wellness Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services 61% 80 239 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 91% 36 266 Similar Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 81% 157 247 Similar Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 90% 41 252 Similar In very good to excellent health 69% 58 252 Similar Education and Enrichment Used Plymouth public libraries or their services 69% 58 247 Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth 39% 142 205 Similar Attended City-sponsored event 48% 185 261 Similar Community Engagement Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 13% 231 240 Lower Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 13% 191 254 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth 30% 194 264 Similar Participated in a club 22% 157 245 Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 92% 115 254 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 81% 139 249 Similar Attended a local public meeting 17% 190 263 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 17% 177 233 Similar Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 81% 174 257 Similar Vote in local elections 90% 39 259 Similar Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Plymouth’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the American Community Survey (ACS) 2017 5-year estimates. Adams County, CO ................................................. 487,850 Airway Heights city, WA .............................................. 8,017 Albany city, OR ......................................................... 52,007 Albemarle County, VA ............................................. 105,105 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 17,716 Alexandria city, VA.................................................. 154,710 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 20,341 Ames city, IA ............................................................ 65,005 Ankeny city, IA ......................................................... 56,237 Ann Arbor city, MI .................................................. 119,303 Apache Junction city, AZ ........................................... 38,452 Arapahoe County, CO ............................................. 626,612 Arlington city, TX .................................................... 388,225 Arvada city, CO ...................................................... 115,320 255 The National Community Survey™ 23 Asheville city, NC ...................................................... 89,318 Ashland city, OR ....................................................... 20,733 Ashland town, MA..................................................... 17,478 Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,554 Aspen city, CO ............................................................ 7,097 Athens-Clarke County, GA ....................................... 122,292 Auburn city, AL ......................................................... 61,462 Augusta CCD, GA.................................................... 136,103 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 357,323 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 916,906 Avon town, CO ........................................................... 6,503 Avon town, IN .......................................................... 16,479 Avondale city, AZ ...................................................... 81,590 Azusa city, CA .......................................................... 49,029 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,689 Baltimore city, MD .................................................. 619,796 Baltimore County, MD ............................................. 828,637 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 51,505 Bay Village city, OH .................................................. 15,426 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 76,205 Bedford city, TX ....................................................... 49,082 Bedford town, MA ..................................................... 14,105 Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 139,014 Bellingham city, WA .................................................. 85,388 Bend city, OR ........................................................... 87,167 Bethlehem township, PA ........................................... 23,800 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 35,293 Billings city, MT ...................................................... 109,082 Bloomington city, IN ................................................. 83,636 Bloomington city, MN ................................................ 85,417 Boise City city, ID ................................................... 220,859 Bonner Springs city, KS ............................................... 7,644 Boulder city, CO ..................................................... 106,271 Bowling Green city, KY .............................................. 64,302 Bozeman city, MT ..................................................... 43,132 Brentwood city, TN ................................................... 41,524 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 38,016 Brookline CDP, MA .................................................... 59,246 Brooklyn Center city, MN ........................................... 30,885 Brooklyn city, OH...................................................... 10,891 Broomfield city, CO ................................................... 64,283 Brownsburg town, IN ................................................ 24,625 Buffalo Grove village, IL ............................................ 41,551 Burlingame city, CA .................................................. 30,401 Cabarrus County, NC .............................................. 196,716 Cambridge city, MA ................................................ 110,893 Canandaigua city, NY ................................................ 10,402 Cannon Beach city, OR ............................................... 1,517 Cañon City city, CO ................................................... 16,298 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,352 Cape Coral city, FL.................................................. 173,679 Carlsbad city, CA .................................................... 113,147 Carroll city, IA ............................................................ 9,937 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 20,235 Cary town, NC ........................................................ 159,715 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 57,274 Cedar Hill city, TX ..................................................... 48,149 Cedar Park city, TX ................................................... 70,010 Cedar Rapids city, IA .............................................. 130,330 Celina city, TX ............................................................ 7,910 Centennial city, CO ................................................. 108,448 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 245,160 Chandler city, TX ........................................................ 2,896 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 25,108 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................. 59,234 Chardon city, OH ........................................................ 5,166 Charles County, MD ................................................ 156,021 Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 173,236 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 46,487 Chattanooga city, TN .............................................. 176,291 Chautauqua town, NY ................................................. 4,362 Chesterfield County, VA .......................................... 335,594 Clackamas County, OR ............................................ 399,962 Clayton city, MO ....................................................... 16,214 Clearwater city, FL .................................................. 112,794 Cleveland Heights city, OH ........................................ 45,024 Clinton city, SC ........................................................... 8,538 Clive city, IA ............................................................. 17,134 Clovis city, CA ........................................................ 104,411 College Park city, MD ................................................ 32,186 College Station city, TX ........................................... 107,445 Colleyville city, TX..................................................... 25,557 Collinsville city, IL ..................................................... 24,767 Columbia city, MO .................................................. 118,620 Columbia city, SC ................................................... 132,236 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 5,054 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 52,905 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 128,160 Concord town, MA .................................................... 19,357 Conshohocken borough, PA ......................................... 7,985 Coolidge city, AZ ...................................................... 12,221 Coon Rapids city, MN ................................................ 62,342 Coral Springs city, FL .............................................. 130,110 Coronado city, CA ..................................................... 24,053 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 56,224 Cottonwood Heights city, UT ..................................... 34,214 Coventry Lake CDP, CT ............................................... 2,932 Creve Coeur city, MO ................................................ 18,259 Cupertino city, CA ..................................................... 60,687 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,929 Dakota County, MN ................................................ 414,655 Dallas city, OR .......................................................... 15,413 Dallas city, TX ..................................................... 1,300,122 Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,657 Darien city, IL .......................................................... 22,206 Davenport city, FL ...................................................... 3,665 Davidson town, NC ................................................... 12,325 Dayton city, OH ...................................................... 140,939 Dayton town, WY .......................................................... 815 Dearborn city, MI ..................................................... 95,295 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 22,022 Del Mar city, CA.......................................................... 4,338 DeLand city, FL ........................................................ 30,315 Delaware city, OH..................................................... 38,193 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 23,342 Denton city, TX ...................................................... 131,097 Denver city, CO ...................................................... 678,467 Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 214,778 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,536 Destin city, FL .......................................................... 13,421 Dover city, NH .......................................................... 30,901 Dublin city, CA.......................................................... 57,022 Dublin city, OH ......................................................... 44,442 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,066 Durham city, NC ..................................................... 257,232 Durham County, NC ................................................ 300,865 Dyer town, IN .......................................................... 16,077 Eagan city, MN ......................................................... 66,102 Eagle Mountain city, UT ............................................ 27,773 Eau Claire city, WI .................................................... 67,945 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 63,660 Eden town, VT ........................................................... 1,254 Edgewater city, CO ..................................................... 5,299 Edina city, MN .......................................................... 50,603 256 The National Community Survey™ 24 Edmond city, OK....................................................... 89,769 Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 41,309 El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 24,982 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA .................... 31,409 Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 166,228 Elmhurst city, IL ....................................................... 46,139 Englewood city, CO .................................................. 33,155 Erie town, CO ........................................................... 22,019 Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 6,248 Euclid city, OH .......................................................... 47,698 Fairview town, TX ....................................................... 8,473 Farmers Branch city, TX ............................................ 33,808 Farmersville city, TX ................................................... 3,440 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 81,235 Farmington town, CT ................................................ 25,596 Fate city, TX ............................................................. 10,339 Fayetteville city, GA .................................................. 17,069 Fayetteville city, NC ................................................ 210,324 Ferguson township, PA ............................................. 18,837 Fernandina Beach city, FL ......................................... 11,957 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 71,575 Forest Grove city, OR ................................................ 23,554 Fort Collins city, CO ................................................ 159,150 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 72,990 Frederick town, CO ................................................... 11,397 Fremont city, CA ..................................................... 230,964 Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 13,039 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 34,691 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 67,417 Galveston city, TX ..................................................... 49,706 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 21,059 Germantown city, TN ................................................ 39,230 Gilbert town, AZ ..................................................... 232,176 Gillette city, WY ........................................................ 31,783 Glen Ellyn village, IL ................................................. 27,983 Glendora city, CA ...................................................... 51,891 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 47,066 Golden city, CO ........................................................ 20,365 Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 21,208 Goodyear city, AZ ..................................................... 74,953 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,576 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 7,964 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................. 36,687 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................. 12,893 Greeley city, CO ..................................................... 100,760 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 90,347 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 62,782 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 15,397 Greer city, SC ........................................................... 28,587 Gunnison County, CO................................................ 16,215 Haltom City city, TX .................................................. 44,059 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,216 Hamilton town, MA ..................................................... 7,991 Hampton city, VA ................................................... 136,255 Hanover County, VA ............................................... 103,218 Harrisburg city, SD ..................................................... 5,429 Harrisonburg city, VA ................................................ 53,064 Harrisonville city, MO ................................................ 10,025 Hastings city, MN...................................................... 22,620 Henderson city, NV ................................................. 284,817 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 24,545 High Point city, NC ................................................. 109,849 Highland Park city, IL................................................ 29,796 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ....................................... 105,264 Homer Glen village, IL .............................................. 24,403 Honolulu County, HI ............................................... 990,060 Hoquiam city, WA ....................................................... 8,416 Horry County, SC .................................................... 310,186 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 1,709 Huntley village, IL .................................................... 26,265 Huntsville city, TX ..................................................... 40,727 Hutchinson city, MN .................................................. 13,836 Hutto city, TX ........................................................... 22,644 Independence city, MO ........................................... 117,369 Indio city, CA ........................................................... 86,867 Iowa City city, IA ...................................................... 73,415 Irving city, TX ........................................................ 235,648 Issaquah city, WA ..................................................... 35,629 Jackson city, MO ...................................................... 14,690 Jackson County, MI ................................................ 158,989 James City County, VA .............................................. 73,028 Jefferson County, NY .............................................. 116,567 Jefferson Parish, LA ................................................ 437,038 Jerome city, ID ......................................................... 11,306 Johnson City city, TN ................................................ 65,598 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 20,172 Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 62,373 Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 75,833 Kansas City city, KS ................................................ 151,042 Kansas City city, MO ............................................... 476,974 Keizer city, OR.......................................................... 37,910 Kent city, WA ......................................................... 126,561 Kerrville city, TX ....................................................... 22,931 Key West city, FL ...................................................... 25,316 King City city, CA ...................................................... 13,721 Kingman city, AZ ...................................................... 28,855 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 86,772 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,659 Knoxville city, IA ......................................................... 7,202 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 9,160 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 17,062 Laguna Niguel city, CA .............................................. 65,429 Lake Forest city, IL ................................................... 18,931 Lake in the Hills village, IL ........................................ 28,908 Lake Zurich village, IL ............................................... 19,983 Lakeville city, MN...................................................... 61,056 Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 151,411 Lakewood city, WA ................................................... 59,102 Lancaster County, SC ................................................ 86,544 Lansing city, MI ...................................................... 115,222 Laramie city, WY ...................................................... 32,104 Larimer County, CO ................................................ 330,976 Las Cruces city, NM ................................................ 101,014 Las Vegas city, NM ................................................... 13,445 Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 93,954 Lawrenceville city, GA ............................................... 29,287 Lehi city, UT ............................................................. 58,351 Lenexa city, KS ......................................................... 52,030 Lewisville city, TX ................................................... 103,638 Lewisville town, NC ................................................... 13,516 Libertyville village, IL ................................................ 20,504 Lincolnwood village, IL .............................................. 12,637 Lindsborg city, KS ....................................................... 3,313 Little Chute village, WI .............................................. 11,006 Littleton city, CO....................................................... 45,848 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 88,232 Lombard village, IL ................................................... 43,776 Lone Tree city, CO .................................................... 13,430 Long Grove village, IL ................................................. 7,980 Longmont city, CO .................................................... 91,730 Lonsdale city, MN ....................................................... 3,850 Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 18,031 Los Altos Hills town, CA .............................................. 8,490 Loudoun County, VA ............................................... 374,558 257 The National Community Survey™ 25 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 20,319 Lower Merion township, PA ....................................... 58,500 Lynchburg city, VA.................................................... 79,237 Lynnwood city, WA ................................................... 37,242 Manassas city, VA ..................................................... 41,379 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,698 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 55,427 Mankato city, MN ...................................................... 41,241 Maple Grove city, MN ................................................ 68,362 Maplewood city, MN ................................................. 40,127 Maricopa County, AZ............................................ 4,155,501 Marin County, CA ................................................... 260,814 Marion city, IA .......................................................... 38,014 Mariposa County, CA ................................................ 17,658 Marshfield city, WI .................................................... 18,326 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 37,902 Marysville city, WA ................................................... 66,178 Maui County, HI ..................................................... 164,094 McKinney city, TX ................................................... 164,760 McMinnville city, OR .................................................. 33,211 Mecklenburg County, NC ...................................... 1,034,290 Menlo Park city, CA ................................................... 33,661 Menomonee Falls village, WI ..................................... 36,411 Mercer Island city, WA .............................................. 24,768 Meridian charter township, MI ................................... 41,903 Meridian city, ID ....................................................... 91,917 Merriam city, KS ....................................................... 11,259 Mesa city, AZ ......................................................... 479,317 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................. 92,187 Miami city, FL ......................................................... 443,007 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 18,951 Middletown town, RI ................................................. 16,100 Midland city, MI ........................................................ 41,958 Milford city, DE ......................................................... 10,645 Milton city, GA .......................................................... 37,556 Minneapolis city, MN ............................................... 411,452 Minnetrista city, MN .................................................... 7,187 Missouri City city, TX ................................................ 72,688 Moline city, IL .......................................................... 42,644 Monroe city, MI ........................................................ 20,128 Montgomery city, MN .................................................. 2,921 Montgomery County, MD ..................................... 1,039,198 Monticello city, UT ...................................................... 2,599 Montrose city, CO ..................................................... 18,918 Moraga town, CA ...................................................... 17,231 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,446 Morrisville town, NC .................................................. 23,873 Morro Bay city, CA .................................................... 10,568 Mountlake Terrace city, WA....................................... 20,922 Murphy city, TX ........................................................ 20,361 Naperville city, IL ................................................... 146,431 Napoleon city, OH ...................................................... 8,646 Nederland city, TX .................................................... 17,284 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 30,429 Nevada City city, CA ................................................... 3,112 Nevada County, CA ................................................... 98,838 New Braunfels city, TX .............................................. 70,317 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 22,440 New Concord village, OH ............................................ 2,561 New Hope city, MN ................................................... 20,909 New Orleans city, LA............................................... 388,182 New Ulm city, MN ..................................................... 13,249 Newport city, RI ....................................................... 24,745 Newport News city, VA ........................................... 180,775 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,085 Niles village, IL ......................................................... 29,823 Noblesville city, IN .................................................... 59,807 Norcross city, GA ...................................................... 16,474 Norfolk city, NE ........................................................ 24,352 Norfolk city, VA ...................................................... 245,752 North Mankato city, MN ............................................ 13,583 North Port city, FL .................................................... 62,542 North Yarmouth town, ME ........................................... 3,714 Northglenn city, CO .................................................. 38,473 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 55,378 Novi city, MI ............................................................. 58,835 O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 29,095 Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 52,229 Oakley city, CA ......................................................... 39,950 Oklahoma City city, OK ........................................... 629,191 Olmsted County, MN ............................................... 151,685 Olympia city, WA ...................................................... 49,928 Orange village, OH ..................................................... 3,280 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 59,161 Orleans Parish, LA .................................................. 388,182 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,649 Oswego village, IL .................................................... 33,759 Ottawa County, MI ................................................. 280,243 Overland Park city, KS ............................................ 186,147 Paducah city, KY....................................................... 24,879 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ..................................... 53,119 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 82,356 Palo Alto city, CA ...................................................... 67,082 Palos Verdes Estates city, CA..................................... 13,591 Papillion city, NE ....................................................... 19,478 Paradise Valley town, AZ ........................................... 13,961 Park City city, UT ........................................................ 8,167 Parker town, CO ....................................................... 51,125 Parkland city, FL ....................................................... 28,901 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 70,607 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 498,136 Payette city, ID .......................................................... 7,366 Pearland city, TX .................................................... 113,693 Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,424 Pflugerville city, TX ................................................... 58,013 Pinehurst village, NC ................................................. 15,580 Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,793 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,747 Plano city, TX ......................................................... 281,566 Platte City city, MO ..................................................... 4,867 Pleasant Hill city, IA .................................................... 9,608 Pleasanton city, CA ................................................... 79,341 Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 76,258 Polk County, IA ...................................................... 467,235 Pompano Beach city, FL .......................................... 107,542 Port Orange city, FL .................................................. 60,315 Port St. Lucie city, FL .............................................. 178,778 Portland city, OR .................................................... 630,331 Powell city, OH ......................................................... 12,658 Powhatan County, VA ............................................... 28,364 Prince William County, VA ....................................... 450,763 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 25,452 Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 109,122 Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 9,217 Queen Creek town, AZ .............................................. 33,298 Raleigh city, NC ...................................................... 449,477 Ramsey city, MN....................................................... 25,853 Raymond town, ME .................................................... 4,497 Raymore city, MO ..................................................... 20,358 Redmond city, OR .................................................... 28,492 Redmond city, WA .................................................... 60,712 Redwood City city, CA ............................................... 84,368 Reno city, NV ......................................................... 239,732 Richland city, WA ..................................................... 53,991 258 The National Community Survey™ 26 Richmond city, CA .................................................. 108,853 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,466 Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................. 93,317 River Falls city, WI .................................................... 15,256 Riverside city, CA .................................................... 321,570 Roanoke city, VA ...................................................... 99,572 Roanoke County, VA ................................................. 93,419 Rochester city, NY .................................................. 209,463 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 70,764 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 66,420 Roeland Park city, KS .................................................. 6,810 Rohnert Park city, CA ................................................ 42,305 Rolla city, MO ........................................................... 20,013 Rosemount city, MN ................................................. 23,474 Rosenberg city, TX ................................................... 35,867 Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 35,624 Round Rock city, TX ............................................... 116,369 Royal Palm Beach village, FL ..................................... 37,665 Sacramento city, CA ............................................... 489,650 Sahuarita town, AZ ................................................... 28,257 Sammamish city, WA ................................................ 62,877 San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,390,966 San Jose city, CA ................................................. 1,023,031 San Marcos city, CA .................................................. 93,493 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 59,935 Sangamon County, IL ............................................. 198,134 Santa Fe city, NM ..................................................... 82,980 Santa Fe County, NM .............................................. 147,514 Sarasota County, FL................................................ 404,839 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 30,011 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,427 Schertz city, TX ........................................................ 38,199 Scott County, MN ................................................... 141,463 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 239,283 Sedona city, AZ ........................................................ 10,246 Sevierville city, TN .................................................... 16,387 Shakopee city, MN .................................................... 40,024 Sharonville city, OH .................................................. 13,974 Shawnee city, KS ...................................................... 64,840 Shawnee city, OK ..................................................... 30,974 Sherborn town, MA ..................................................... 4,302 Shoreline city, WA .................................................... 55,431 Shoreview city, MN ................................................... 26,432 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 16,809 Sierra Vista city, AZ .................................................. 43,585 Silverton city, OR ........................................................ 9,757 Sioux Falls city, SD ................................................. 170,401 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,773 Snoqualmie city, WA ................................................. 12,944 Snowmass Village town, CO ........................................ 2,827 Somerset town, MA .................................................. 18,257 South Jordan city, UT ............................................... 65,523 Southlake city, TX..................................................... 30,090 Spearfish city, SD ..................................................... 11,300 Springfield city, MO ................................................ 165,785 Springville city, UT .................................................... 32,319 St. Augustine city, FL ................................................ 13,952 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,730 St. Joseph city, MO ................................................... 76,819 St. Louis County, MN .............................................. 200,294 St. Lucie County, FL ................................................ 298,763 State College borough, PA ......................................... 42,224 Steamboat Springs city, CO ....................................... 12,520 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 86,886 Suisun City city, CA ................................................... 29,280 Summit County, UT .................................................. 39,731 Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 151,565 Surprise city, AZ ..................................................... 129,534 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 18,655 Tacoma city, WA .................................................... 207,280 Takoma Park city, MD ............................................... 17,643 Temecula city, CA ................................................... 110,722 Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 178,339 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 71,795 Texarkana city, TX .................................................... 37,222 The Woodlands CDP, TX ......................................... 109,608 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 51,355 Tinley Park village, IL................................................ 57,107 Tracy city, CA ........................................................... 87,613 Trinidad CCD, CO ..................................................... 10,819 Tualatin city, OR ....................................................... 27,135 Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 401,352 Tustin city, CA .......................................................... 80,007 Twin Falls city, ID ..................................................... 47,340 Unalaska city, AK ........................................................ 4,809 University Heights city, OH ........................................ 13,201 University Park city, TX ............................................. 24,692 Urbandale city, IA ..................................................... 42,222 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,425 Ventura CCD, CA .................................................... 115,218 Vernon Hills village, IL .............................................. 26,084 Vestavia Hills city, AL ................................................ 34,003 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 8,679 Vienna town, VA ....................................................... 16,474 Virginia Beach city, VA ............................................ 450,057 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 68,516 Warrensburg city, MO ............................................... 19,890 Washington County, MN ......................................... 250,979 Washoe County, NV ................................................ 445,551 Washougal city, WA .................................................. 15,241 Wauwatosa city, WI .................................................. 47,687 Wentzville city, MO ................................................... 35,768 West Carrollton city, OH ............................................ 12,963 West Chester township, OH....................................... 62,804 Western Springs village, IL ........................................ 13,187 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 38,604 Westlake town, TX...................................................... 1,006 Westminster city, CO .............................................. 111,895 Westminster city, MD ................................................ 18,557 Wheat Ridge city, CO ................................................ 31,162 White House city, TN ................................................ 11,107 Wichita city, KS ...................................................... 389,054 Williamsburg city, VA ................................................ 14,817 Willowbrook village, IL ................................................ 8,598 Wilmington city, NC ................................................ 115,261 Wilsonville city, OR ................................................... 22,789 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 23,386 Windsor town, CT ..................................................... 29,037 Winnetka village, IL .................................................. 12,504 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 40,799 Woodbury city, MN ................................................... 67,648 Woodinville city, WA ................................................. 11,675 Wyandotte County, KS ............................................ 163,227 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 93,182 York County, VA ....................................................... 67,196 Yorktown town, IN ................................................... 11,200 Yorkville city, IL ........................................................ 18,691 Yountville city, CA ....................................................... 2,978 259 The National Community Survey™ 27 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Plymouth funded this research. Please contact Laurie Hokkanen of the City of Plymouth at lhokkanen@plymouthmn.gov if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: • Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. • Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. • Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. • Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. • Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. • Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. • Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. • Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community. • Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident’s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality 260 The National Community Survey™ 28 with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” Selecting Survey Recipients “Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Plymouth were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Plymouth was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Plymouth households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Plymouth boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being within one of the four Wards. To choose the 1,700 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single- family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was publicized and posted to the City of Plymouth website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data. These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover.) 261 The National Community Survey™ 29 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on September 20, 2019. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The survey was available in English only. Both cover letters included a URL through which the residents selected for the mail survey could choose to respond online rather than by mail; a unique passcode printed on the letters restricted access to the online survey to recipients included in the random sample. The City of Plymouth chose to augment their administration of The NCS with an open-ended question. The results of this additional service has been provided under separate cover. Completed surveys were collected over the following seven weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became available to all residents on October 25, 2019 and remained open for three weeks. About 2% of the 1,700 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant, or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 1,666 households that received the survey, 493 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 30%. Of the 493 completed surveys, 136 were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by Ward; response rates by Ward ranged from 27% to 32%. The response rates were calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 1 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 347 residents completed the online opt-in survey; results of the opt-in survey can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results report provided under separate cover. 1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions here: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx for more information 262 The National Community Survey™ 30 Table 71: Survey Response Rates by Ward Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Overall Total sample used 478 390 405 427 1,700 I=Complete Interviews 141 123 105 117 490 P=Partial Interviews 1 1 1 0 3 R=Refusal and break off 0 0 1 0 1 NC=Non Contact 0 0 0 0 0 O=Other 0 0 0 0 0 UH=Unknown household 0 0 0 0 0 UO=Unknown other 322 261 290 295 1,164 NE=Not eligible 14 5 8 15 42 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 31% 32% 27% 28% 30% Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.2 The margin of error for the City of Plymouth survey is no greater than plus or minus 4 percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (493 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. NRC used SurveyGizmo, a web-based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into the system so respondents are automatically “skipped” to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). Survey Data Weighting Upon completion of data collection for both the scientific (probability) and nonscientific open participation online opt-in (non-probability) surveys, the demographics of each dataset were separately compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Plymouth. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the 2 A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. 263 The National Community Survey™ 31 community. Both survey datasets were weighted independently to best match the Census. The characteristics used for weighting housing tenure, housing unit type, age and gender. No adjustments were made for design effects. Results for the opt-in survey have been provided under separate cover. Table 72: Plymouth, MN 2019 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 28% 13% 28% Own home 72% 87% 72% Detached unit* 56% 62% 56% Attached unit* 44% 38% 44% Race and Ethnicity White 87% 89% 86% Not white 13% 11% 14% Not Hispanic 98% 97% 95% Hispanic 2% 3% 5% Sex and Age Female 53% 57% 53% Male 47% 43% 47% 18-34 years of age 27% 10% 27% 35-54 years of age 40% 31% 40% 55+ years of age 33% 58% 34% Females 18-34 14% 6% 15% Females 35-54 21% 18% 20% Females 55+ 18% 33% 18% Males 18-34 13% 4% 11% Males 35-54 19% 13% 19% Males 55+ 15% 26% 16% Ward Ward 1 30% 29% 28% Ward 2 24% 25% 22% Ward 3 23% 22% 26% Ward 4 23% 24% 24% * U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017 5-year estimates Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The data for the opt-in survey are presented separately in the report titled Supplemental Online Survey Results. 264 The National Community Survey™ 32 Appendix D: Survey Materials 265 Dear Plymouth Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Jeffry Wosje Mayor of Plymouth Dear Plymouth Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Jeffry Wosje Mayor of Plymouth Dear Plymouth Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Jeffry Wosje Mayor of Plymouth Dear Plymouth Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better City! Sincerely, Jeffry Wosje Mayor of Plymouth 266 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 267 September 2019 Dear City of Plymouth Resident: Please help us shape the future of Plymouth. You have been selected at random to participate in the 2019 Plymouth Community Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number being surveyed. Your feedback will help city council and city staff make decisions that affect our city. A few things to remember: • Your responses are completely confidential. • In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. • You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at the web address below using the access code provided: xx.webplaceholder.xx Access code: If you have any questions about the survey, please call 763-509-5051. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Jeffry Wosje Mayor of Plymouth 268 September 2019 Dear City of Plymouth Resident: If you haven’t already responded to the 2019 Plymouth Community Survey, here’s a second chance. If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice. Please help us shape the future of Plymouth. You have been selected at random to participate in the 2019 Plymouth Community Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help city council and city staff make decisions that affect our city. A few things to remember: • Your responses are completely anonymous. • In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. • You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at the web address below using the access code provided: xx.webplaceholder.xx Access code: If you have any questions about the survey, please call 763-509-5051. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Jeffry Wosje Mayor of Plymouth 269 The City of Plymouth 2019 Community Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Plymouth as a place to live ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to raise children ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to work ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to visit ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to retire .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Plymouth .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................... 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall “built environment” of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of Plymouth ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Plymouth .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks.............................. 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Plymouth for the next five years ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Plymouth’s downtown/commercial area during the day ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Plymouth ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Plymouth .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Plymouth ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Plymouth............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 270 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know K-12 education ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Plymouth ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth .................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial area ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Plymouth ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Plymouth ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Made efforts to conserve water .......................................................................................................................................1 2 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient ................................................................................................1 2 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ......................................1 2 Household member was a victim of a crime in Plymouth .............................................................................................1 2 Reported a crime to the police in Plymouth ..................................................................................................................1 2 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ...........................................................................................1 2 Contacted the City of Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ........................................1 2 Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ...............................1 2 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Plymouth? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or City park .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Used Hennepin County public libraries or their services ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth .................................................... 1 2 3 4 Attended a City-sponsored event ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving ............................................ 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ......................................... 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth .................................................. 1 2 3 4 Participated in a club ............................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 271 The City of Plymouth 2019 Community Survey Page 3 of 5 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Police services ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling ................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ....... 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth open space ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 City-sponsored special events ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The City of Plymouth ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 12. Please rate the following categories of Plymouth government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Plymouth is taking ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Plymouth government ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 272 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 5 13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ................................................ 1 2 3 4 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall “built environment” of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall economic health of Plymouth .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sense of community ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 14. Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: Major Minor Not a source source source Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) ........................................................................ 1 2 3 Parks and Recreation Activities Guide ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper ............................................................................ 1 2 3 City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Emails from the City of Plymouth ............................................................................................................... 1 2 3 City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) ................................................ 1 2 3 CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 Calling the City of Plymouth ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 15. How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very likely likely unlikely unlikely Participating in surveys ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Attending or watching public meetings ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces ....................................... 1 2 3 4 Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting ............................................ 1 2 3 4 16. What do you think is the single biggest challenge facing Plymouth today? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 273 The City of Plymouth 2019 Community Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Recycle at home .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth .................... 1 2 3 4 5 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vote in local elections ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 D2. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative D4. What is your employment status? Working full time for pay Working part time for pay Unemployed, looking for paid work Unemployed, not looking for paid work Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Plymouth? Yes, outside the home Yes, from home No D6. How many years have you lived in Plymouth? Less than 2 years 11-20 years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) Mobile home Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Rented Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? Less than $300 per month $300 to $599 per month $600 to $999 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $1,500 to $2,499 per month $2,500 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D11. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D15. In which category is your age? 18-24 years 55-64 years 25-34 years 65-74 years 35-44 years 75 years or older 45-54 years D16. What is your sex? Female Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number? Cell Land line Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 274 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 275 The City of Plymouth 2019 Community Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Plymouth as a place to live ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to raise children ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to work .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to visit ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth as a place to retire .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Plymouth .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall “built environment” of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of Plymouth ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Plymouth .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Plymouth to someone who asks ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Plymouth for the next five years ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Plymouth’s downtown/commercial area during the day ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Plymouth ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Plymouth .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Plymouth ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Plymouth .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Plymouth ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Plymouth ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 276 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Plymouth as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know K-12 education .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Plymouth ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Plymouth .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial area ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Plymouth ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Plymouth ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Made efforts to conserve water ................................................................................................................................1 2 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient ..........................................................................................1 2 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Plymouth (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ..................................1 2 Household member was a victim of a crime in Plymouth .......................................................................................1 2 Reported a crime to the police in Plymouth ............................................................................................................1 2 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency ..................................................................................................1 2 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ....................................................................................1 2 Contacted the City of Plymouth (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ....................................1 2 Contacted Plymouth elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ............................1 2 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Plymouth? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used Plymouth recreation centers or their services ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or City park ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used Hennepin County public libraries or their services .................................................. 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Plymouth ................................................ 1 2 3 4 Attended a City-sponsored event ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving ........................................ 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Plymouth ............................................. 1 2 3 4 Participated in a club ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ................................................... 1 2 3 4 277 The City of Plymouth 2019 Community Survey Page 3 of 5 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Plymouth: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Police services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ..... 1 2 3 4 5 Plymouth open space ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City-sponsored special events ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by Plymouth employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The City of Plymouth ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Please rate the following categories of Plymouth government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to Plymouth ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Plymouth is taking .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The job Plymouth government does at welcoming resident involvement ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Plymouth government .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 278 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 5 13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Plymouth community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall feeling of safety in Plymouth ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................................ 1 2 3 4 Quality of overall natural environment in Plymouth ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall “built environment” of Plymouth (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in Plymouth ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall economic health of Plymouth ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sense of community ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 14. Please indicate how much of a source, if at all, you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about the City government and its activities, events, and services: Major Minor Not a source source source Plymouth News city newsletter (mailed six times per year) .................................................................... 1 2 3 Parks and Recreation Activities Guide .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 Plymouth Sun Sailor or Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper ........................................................................ 1 2 3 City website (www.plymouthmn.gov) .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Emails from the City of Plymouth ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 City of Plymouth social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor) ........................................... 1 2 3 CCX Media (formerly Channel 12) ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Calling the City of Plymouth ................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 15. How likely, if at all, would you be to use each of the following methods to give input to the City of Plymouth? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very likely likely unlikely unlikely Participating in surveys ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Attending or watching public meetings ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Participating in advisory committees, commissions, or task forces .................................... 1 2 3 4 Attending an open house or neighborhood meeting .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Expanded use of technology, including using an app or texting ........................................ 1 2 3 4 16. What are the top three things you value the most about living in Plymouth? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 279 The City of Plymouth 2019 Community Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Recycle at home ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Plymouth ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vote in local elections ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 D2. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative D4. What is your employment status? Working full time for pay Working part time for pay Unemployed, looking for paid work Unemployed, not looking for paid work Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Plymouth? Yes, outside the home Yes, from home No D6. How many years have you lived in Plymouth? Less than 2 years 11-20 years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) Mobile home Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Rented Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? Less than $300 per month $300 to $599 per month $600 to $999 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $1,500 to $2,499 per month $2,500 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D11. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D15. In which category is your age? 18-24 years 55-64 years 25-34 years 65-74 years 35-44 years 75 years or older 45-54 years D16. What is your sex? Female Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number? Cell Land line Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 280 Regular City Council February 18, 2020 Agenda Number:8.3 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Amy Hanson, Fleet and Facilities Manager Reviewed by:Michael Thompson, Public Works Director Item:Consider Authorizing Contractual Agreement for Schematic Design and Construction Services with Architectural Firm for Plymouth Fire Station 2 and 3 (Res2020-079) 1. Action Requested: Adopt attached resolution authorizing contractual agreement with architectural firm for schematic design and construction services for Plymouth Fire Stations 2 and 3. 2. Background: In January 2019, the City contracted with CNH Architects to conduct a fire station study. The results of that study were presented to the Council on June 25, 2019. Based on the results of that study and other operational deficiencies with the fire stations, the City Council directed staff to begin the architectural selection process. In November 2019, staff solicited Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) from eight architectural firms with experience in the design and construction of fire stations. On November 18, seven firms attended an optional pre-submittal meeting which was held at Fire Station 3. The City received a total of seven responses to the RFQ. On December 9 the Fire Department and facilities staff (Battalion Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Fleet/Facilities Manager) met to review the RFQs. CNH, Leo A Daly, and Wold Architects were selected to continue in the selection process. The City then sent the three firms a Request for Proposals (RFPs) of which each firm submitted a proposal by December 30, 2019. Staff subsequently conducted interviews with all three firms on January 15, 2020. Those same staff members from public safety, administration, and facilities (City Manager, Public Safety Director, Public Works Director, Deputy Fire Chief, Battalion Chief , and Fleet/Facilities Manager) ranked the firms based on the submitted proposal and interview. The top two firms were identified as Leo A Daly and CNH. Staff believes both firms can successfully deliver the project. Leo A Daly's estimated costs are as follows: Phase 1 (Schematic Design) $127,282.61 and Phase 2 (Design Development/Administration) $721,268.11 for a total cost of $855.550.72. Travel and reimbursable is included in each Phase. CNH Architect's estimated costs are as follows: Phase 1 (Schematic Design) $119,100 and Phase 2 (Final Construction) $674,900. Travel and reimbursable of $11,000.00 for a total estimated cost of $805,000.00. At its special meeting on February 11, 2020 the City Council received presentations from both architectural firms, Leo A Daly and CNH Architects, followed by a question and answer period. The 281 City Council directed staff to put this item on its February 18 regular meeting agenda for additional discussion in order to make a final determination on the preferred architect. Staff recommends the City Council select its preferred architect. A project timeline is attached which outlines the next steps in the process after the architect is on-boarded. 3. Budget Impact: Leo A Daly's estimated costs are as follows: Phase 1 (Schematic Design) $127,282.61 and Phase 2 (Design Development/Administration) $721,268.11 for a total cost of $855.550.72. Travel and reimbursable is included in each Phase. CNH Architect's estimated costs are as follows: Phase 1 (Schematic Design) $119,100 and Phase 2 (Final Construction) $674,900. Travel and reimbursable of $11,000.00 for a total estimated cost of $805,000.00. Project costs will be tracked through a capital project code for each fire station: FM 210014.001 for Fire Station 2 and FM 210014.002 for Fire Station 3. The estimated fees for an architect are listed above and these soft costs would be part of the overall project cost. 4. Attachments: Leo A Daly Proposal Leo A Daly Presentation CNH Proposal CNH Presentation Fire Station Project Timeline Resolution 2020-079 282 ADF City of PlymouthFire Station 2 & 3 Architectural services proposal for reconstruction, expansion & renovation. December 30, 2019 283 LEO A DALY has completed the design of over twenty fire and emergency response facilities in the last twenty years. City of Bayport Fire Hall, Bayport, Minnesota • City of Richfield Fire Station No. 2 Renovation, Minnesota • City of Forest Lake City Center, New City Hall and Fire Station, Minnesota • Allina Health, Emergency Transportation, EMS Facility, Mounds View, Minnesota • Minnesota Fallen Firefighter’s Memorial, St. Paul, Minnesota • Grand Forks Air Force Base, Airfield Crash Fire Rescue Facility, North Dakota • Elko Regional Airport Rescue Firefighting Facility (ARFF), Elko, Nevada • Fort Riley Fire Station, Kansas • City of LaVista, Fire Station Study, Nebraska Ellsworth Air Force Base, Main Fire/Crash Rescue Station, South Dakota • Pennington County/Rapid City Fire Administration Headquarters, Rapid City, South Dakota • Myrtle Beach International Airport ARFF, South Carolina Palau International Airport Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility, Koror, Palau • Airport Rescue & Fire Fighting Station No. 2 Facility Improvements, Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii • Kalaupapa Airport, Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility and Perimeter Fence, Molokai, Hawaii • Peachtree City, Weber Fire Station, Georgia • Southside Public Safety and Fueling Complex, Gwinnett County, Georgia • Gwinnett County Fire Station #21, Georgia • Cobb County, GA, Fire and Police Superstation, Cobb County, Georgia • Peachtree City, Kedron Fire Station, Georgia • Hunter Army Airfield Fire Station #2, Savannah, Georgia • City of Peachtree City, Fire Station No. 83, Georgia • City of Peachtree City, Fire Station No. 82 Renovation, Georgia • City of Peachtree City, Fire Station No. 84 Addition, Georgia • Port Bolivar EMS Facility Design, Galveston County, Texas • High Island EMS Facility Design, Galveston County, Texas • San Leon EMS Facility Design, Galveston County, Texas • Crystal Beach Volunteer Fire Department, Galveston, Texas Commitment to Fire and Emergency Response Facilities 284 PLANNING ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING INTERIORS ABU DHABI ATLANTA AUSTIN BEIJING CHICAGO COLLEGE STATION CORPUS CHRISTI DALLAS DAMMAM DOHA FORT WORTH HONG KONG HOUSTON LANSING LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI MILPITAS MINNEAPOLIS OAKLAND OMAHA ORANGE RIYADH SAN ANTONIO SAN MARCOS TAMPA WACO WASHINGTON DC WEST PALM BEACH 730 Second Avenue South Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.338.8741 leoadaly.com December 30, 2019 Deputy Fire Chief Dave Dreelan Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Deputy Chief Dreelan: The City of Plymouth has the opportunity to design a new Fire Station 2 and an expansion and remodel of Fire Station 3 that will grow with your community. In this plan, the facility should be reflective of the community, both the community of Plymouth and the community of firefighters that work and live there. These communities will be integral in providing input into the design. These buildings should be flexible and allow for the growth of the service in the future and be a sound financial investment of resources. These new spaces should reflect trends in design including crew health and wellness, and trends in training and equipment like air exchange systems or cleaning systems that mitigate health hazards. The LEO A DALY team is uniquely positioned to partner with you on the design of these facilities. Some of the highlights of our team for your consideration include: • Strong local knowledge and working history with leading Minnesota firefighters and experience with 37 local jurisdictions. Our similar experience includes a facility at Forest Lake, a new 10-bay station for Bayport, and the renovation of Richfield’s Fire Station No. 2. As well, our Minnesota team leads the fire facility planning to our other eleven office regions around the country, providing us a national perspective at best practices; • Experience in listening to and incorporating personnel ideas. Our team members bring extensive knowledge in best practices for municipal/fire/emergency facilities; however, we count on the expertise of your personnel to provide valuable insight into how the facility needs to perform for you. City staff provide critical input on vision, building performance, systems, maintenance and utilities, budget and schedule performance; • Passion, commitment and gratitude for those who serve our communities, as shown through our donation of all professional design and engineering for the Minnesota Fallen Firefighters Memorial at the State Capitol Grounds; • An integrated team, the LEO A DALY team has access to all architecture and engineering disciplines within our office, making us well organized for rapid project service, seamless coordination and ready to mobilize. On behalf of LEO A DALY, we thank you for this opportunity. Should you have any questions related to our response, or need additional information please contact me. Sincerely, LEO A DALY Cindy McCleary, AIA, LEED AP Vice President, Managing Principal CAMcCleary@leoadaly.com 285 Minnesota Fallen Firefighters Memorial The Minnesota Fire Service foundation launched an initiative to move the Minnesota Fallen Firefighter memorial sculpture from the baggage claim area of the MSP International Airport, to a new prominent position of honor on the State Capital grounds. The new memorial provides a place for families, friends and community members to honor the 227 Minnesota firefighters that have died in the line of duty. From the original vision, through current day, the LEO A DALY team provided pro-bono design, project management and construction oversight services and renewal and maintenance services, in partnership with the Minnesota Fire Service Foundation. As an international architecture/engineering firm with 104 years of local roots in Minnesota, we pay tribute to the men and women of our state who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Through gifts as such, we may “Serve those who serve others.” 286 FIRM DESCRIPTION LEO A DALY Firm Description Firm: LEO A DALY 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.338.8741 www.leoadaly.com Contact: Cindy McCleary, Vice President, Managing Principal CAMccleary@leoadaly.com 612.341.9588 Length of time in business: 104 years Ownership: Family-Owned Number of employees (MN): Our Minnesota office houses 89 employees among a total of over 800 employees company wide. Great design endures, sustains, and transforms, bringing both solutions and new quality of life experiences.” Leo A. Daly III Chairman and CEO “In my family, the community of firefighters is something that crosses multiple generations. My father-in-law is a Fire Chief of 25+ years, I am fortunate enough to design stations, and my son has hopes to become a firefighter one day just like his grandfather. This community is one that truly affects the greater society. What it means to be a part of that group is something we would not trade.” - Matthew Keenan, LEO A DALY Design Team Lead Serving those who serve others. Fire station and emergency response design is important to the LEO A DALY team. This is our way to contribute to those that serve our communities. Fire stations are landmarks within our cities and towns and help shape neighborhoods and the community fabric. By working to better the procedures and processes of the individual firefighter and the department as a whole through building design, we become part of the firefighting team by contributing to faster response times, creating efficient and future minded facilities that help everyone get home at the end of the day. This is the type of design that allows us to better the community at large. 3 287 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEO A DALY Professional Services An integrated design team We believe that successful projects require mutually engaged teams comprised of LEO A DALY’s design team members and your team. At the foundation are philosophies that all must hold dear; (1) an active desire to understand needs and perspectives, gained through dialogue and listening, (2) the confidence to share creative ideas that both fill a need and serve a mission, and (3) the ongoing commitment to the project and the team to meet the agreed upon outcomes. The LEO A DALY team approach is unique from many firms providing similar services. We offer full architectural and engineering services by team members that have worked on municipal projects together. This team composition leads to an efficiency in our delivery of projects as we can spend more time on your project working on details, rather than on “negotiating, communicating and managing” many out-of-office subconsultants. This integrated delivery will benefit you because our work effort is focused and efficient. Our architecture team is experienced in fire station and emergency operations center design and will put our best practices in these project types forward into your project. Our engineering team has also completed the design of facility renovations of mission critical facilities that need to remain occupied while under construction. Working with Construction Managers Our team has extensive experience with the Construction Management process, having executed multiple successful projects, like the Bayport Fire Station, using this approach. We value our partnerships with Construction Managers to inform of real-time market conditions throughout design and to keep the scope in balance with market realities. We work throughout our projects, and closely with CM’s, to coordinate specs, details and construction assemblies. At the end of each phase we schedule Page-Turn reviews of the project documents with the CM and client representatives to catch any problems or clashes early in the design as possible to minimize change orders during construction. 4 288 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEO A DALY Our design process at a glance BAYPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT, BAYPORT, MNBAYPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT, BAYPORT, MN UP 221 SF STORAGE155 205 SF STAIR/TRAINING156 686 SF TRAINING/STORAGE157 633 SF MEZZANINE158 OPEN TO BELOW 85'-0"LEVEL 1100'-0" T/TOPPING APPARATUSSTORAGE110'-8" T/ROOF APPARATUS122'-8" KEY PLAN REVISIONS FILE LOG ACTIVITY Draw Design Manager Check STAMP ©LEO A DALY Company 2013 Project No. BY 654321 A B C D E 654321 A B C D E 11/4/2014 3:07:58 PMBayport, MN City of Bayport MEZZANINE AND TRAININGTOWER A-101 BAYPORT FIRESTATION 023-10215-000 10-23-2014 Checker Author Designer RFB SCHEMATIC DESIGN NOT FORCONSTRUCTION 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 1100Minneapolis, MN 55402-2455 USATel 612-338-8741 Fax 612-338-4840 294 North 3rd Street,Bayport, MN 55003 10-23-2014 Print Name: Signature: Date: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota. License # NO.DESCRIPTION DATE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-1011 LEVEL 2 - MEZZANINE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-1014 SECTION THRU TRAINING TOWER BAYPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT, BAYPORT, MN LEVEL 1100'-0" T/TOPPING APPARATUSSTORAGE110'-8" T/ROOF APPARATUS122'-8" T/PARAPET116'-0" LEVEL 4 TRAINING132'-8" 8"/12" LEVEL 1100'-0" T/TOPPING APPARATUSSTORAGE110'-8" T/ROOF APPARATUS122'-8" LEVEL 4 TRAINING132'-8" LEVEL 1100'-0" T/TOPPING APPARATUSSTORAGE110'-8" T/ROOF APPARATUS122'-8" T/PARAPET116'-0" LEVEL 4 TRAINING132'-8" KEY PLAN REVISIONS FILE LOG ACTIVITY Draw Design Manager Check STAMP ©LEO A DALY Company 2013 Project No. BY 654321 A B C D E 654321 A B C D E 10/19/2014 7:33:47PMBayport, MN City of Bayport BUILDING SECTIONS A-300 BAYPORT FIRE STATION 023-10215-000 00-00-0000 Checker Author Designer Project Manager SCHEMATIC DESIGN 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 1100Minneapolis, MN 55402-2455 USATel 612-338-8741 Fax 612-338-4840 294 North 3rd Street, Bayport, MN 55003 00-00-0000 Print Name: Signature: Date: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota. License # NO.DESCRIPTION DATE MONITORS BRING DAYLIGHT INTO THE TRAINING ROOM AND ADJACENT AREAS, REDUCING THE NEED TO TURN ON LIGHT FIXTURES TRAINING ROOM BAYPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT, BAYPORT, MN 48'-0" SITE STUDY 3 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0"0 30'60'N 10 30STAGECOACHTRAILN 5TH AVE N 768 766 764762760 758 756 754 752 756 PARKINGSETBACKBUILDINGSETBACK PAVEDAREA=44,670 S F 354'-8"464'-5" 48'-0" SITE STUDY 4 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0"0 30'60'N 10 30STAGECOACHTRAILN 5TH AVE N 768 766 764762760758 756 754 752 756 48'-0"53'-0"PARKINGSETBACKBUILDINGSETBACK 36'-0"24'-0" 468'-5" PAVED AREA = 48,120 SF 317'-7"48'-0"SITE STUDY 5 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0"0 30'60'N 10 30STAGECOACHTRAILN 5TH AVE N 768 766 764762760 758 756 754 752 756 48'-0"LADDER TRUCKLADDER TRUCKPARKING S E TBACKBUILDINGSETBACK PAVED AREA = 50,780 SF 443'-2"454'-3"36'-0"24'-0" PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES INPUT AND GOAL CONFIRMATION: As an active partner to both the City and Fire Department, our team will lead a series of meetings, site visits, and interviews to identify the project success criteria and coordinate with all city initiatives and department needs and goals. PLANNING & LAYOUT: Using the vision developed and information gathered as a guide, our team begins preliminary building layouts and site interaction diagrams. Throughout this process, our team will investigate operational benefits and costs. We will also be an advocate and perform public awareness to the community. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS: After all options have been considered and narrowed down to a single concept. The construction documents, systems, materials, site, spacial relationships, and technical elements will be finalized and detailed. Cost and owner review will occur at various intervals in this phase. CONSTRUCTION: Our Team remains an active partner throughout the bidding and construction process. We will work closely with the Construction Manager to ensure that the intent of the documents is captured in the final constructed facility. How we lead the design process Our design team uses a collaborative workshop approach that builds upon user input. We use a specific workshop strategy, called the charrette process, to define the project. The charrette is a collaborative design workshop engaging ALL critical project advisors around a common table. This includes key members of our design team and critical City participants, to put all issues and challenges forth, and to make a series of decisions that are vetted on-the-spot. This approach builds consensus, enables full access of the team to the City, and allows each participant to be an expert in their critical field. We have used this process on other city/emergency response facilities with great success. Throughout the design process we will use tools such as sketches, drawings, renderings (below), and virtual reality demonstrations (above) to allow you to visualize how pieces of the building fit together and what your new space can look and feel like. 5 289 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEO A DALY Input from the building committee, stakeholders and residents Your time is extremely valuable. This design process will be shaped by your input while maintaining focus on high value conversations and respecting – not consuming – your time. The meetings we do hold will set the direction of this facility that will impact your service and community for many years to come. The timeline below is a demonstration of how often we plan to meet with your Core Team, fire personnel, city council, and community/public. We will define how often and the goals of the process with the Core Team in our discussion at the kickoff meeting, but we understand that you and your Council values that everyone have a variety of opportunities for input. We find in projects like this, that different people respond to different types of input strategies. Therefore, we will construct a process with a variety of means of input, consistent meetings with the Core Team, and periodic project updates to the City Council. Some engagement strategies we use are: Engage the Core Team • Project kickoff workshop for goal setting and planning • Regular hands-on workshops with the Core Team and key stakeholders • Regular meeting minutes to allow for confirmation of information received/discussed • Regular meetings through construction to quickly address issues as they arise. Engage all fire service staff • Interviews at early and late stages during planning • Digital surveys to capture input/needs efficiently • Feedback sessions of design documents of department layout for comment and input. Engage the City Council • Critical point presentations to the City Council • Special sessions to answer questions and gather feedback. Engage the Plymouth community • Public meeting to collect public comments • Web-based presentations and posting of process documents • Public meeting to showcase project development. Public engagement was a goal that the City of Forest Lake held strongly during the design of their new fire/public safety facility. LEO A DALY assisted this client throughout all phases of design and construction and was an advocate and active partner. February March April May June July August September October November December January 2021 February 2021 3 10 17 24 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 Schematic Design & Estimate Design Development Construction Document Development Bidding Review Bid Construction Administration Meetings/site visits as appropriate through construction completion. Demonstration: Level of Engagement During Design Process (to be verified during kick-off) Key Core Team Meeting Open House + Core Team Conference Call Update City Council Public Presentation Meeting 6 290 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEO A DALY Maintaining the project budget No one likes standing in front of a City Council or residents to tell them the project is over budget. To mitigate the risk of exceeding the budget, we will work closely with you throughout the project to define the project scope up front, and to right-size the project for your budget. We work throughout the project to maintain the project size and scope and to monitor market conditions. Our cost estimating partner will accurately estimate the project at key intervals, using all information to inform the project evolution. We will schedule Page-Turn reviews of the project documents with your Core Team at each phase and schedule internal quality assurance/ quality controls (QA/QC) reviews prior to each phase completion. We take seriously the monitoring of the project to mitigate known market conditions and will be transparent throughout. Maintaining the schedule Meeting the project schedule is a team effort that requires high attention and effective team-oriented planning and forecasting. After our discussion with you at the project kickoff, our team will deliver a project schedule for the full project. We will regularly engage the Core Team/CM to review the schedule progress and make proactive adjustments. Based on review of our current workload, we have confirmed available capacity to accomplish the design documents in the required time with adequate reserve staffing to cover any contingencies. In addition, the schedules of the individual team members have been reviewed to assure their immediate and continued availability. Quality assurance/quality control We are committed to providing quality in design and the finished product. We integrate a belt-and- suspenders approach, consisting of internal technical reviews at monthly and end of phase milestones and a standardized national protocol manual that all of our offices follow. We also utilize detailed project work plans, schedules and internal weekly design team meetings; standardized cross-checklist to assure best practices are achieved; use sophisticated software programs including a building modeling system that integrates team members changes in real time showing all potential systems clashes; hold technical advisor document quality control reviews at select intervals and at the end of each phase; and page-by-page end-of-phase reviews with the Core Team and Construction Manager for inclusion of review comments. Internal document pinups and page turns allow our team to catch potential clashes throughout the design process. FebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly August September October November December January 2021 February 2021 3101724291623306132027411182518152229613 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 Schematic Design & Estimate Design Development Construction Document Development Bidding Review Bid Construction Administration Meetings/site visits as appropriate through construction completion. 100%90% 7 291 STAFF LEO A DALY Staff Project Lead / QC Matthew Keenan LEO A DALY Landscape Architect Jesse Symynkywicz DAMON FARBER Opt.- AV/Technology Brian Porter True North Consulting Group Opt. - Roof/Waterproof Dave Campbell Inspec Fire Protection Engineer Melisa Rodriguez LEO A DALY Electrical Engineer Jack Elliott LEO A DALY Architect Michelle Watanabe LEO A DALY PIC/Project Executive Cindy McCleary LEO A DALY Mechanical Engineer Adam Rohde LEO A DALY Structural Engineer Ahmet Senyurek LEO A DALY Cost Estimator Doug Holmberg PPM Project Designer Joe Bower LEO A DALY Interior Designer Virginia Pappas LEO A DALY Civil Engineer Zac Essig LEO A DALY Project Manager Todd LaVold LEO A DALY Design Team Leadership Design Team City of PlymouthCore Team Organizational chart McClearyLaVoldKeenanBowerWatanabePappasSenyurekRohdeElliottEssigRodriguezTrue NorthDamon FarberMN State Firefighters Memorial n n Arden Hills Readiness Center n n n n n n n n n n HERO Training Facility n n n n n n n n n n n Hennepin County Medical Examiner n n n n n n n n n n n Elko New Market City Hall n n n n n n n n n Bayport Fire Station n n n n Richfield Fire Station No. 2 n n n Oakdale Public Safety Expansion n n n n n n n n n n Forest Lake Fire Station n n n n n Recent projects of the proposed design team The proposed team as demonstrated experience in working on similar projects together. 8 292 STAFF LEO A DALY As the Managing Principal of LEO A DALY’s Minneapolis office, Cindy provides the overall commitment of the LEO A DALY organization to the design and delivery excellence of our projects. She will ensure team success and brings unique knowledge in design for wellness and trauma, as she was a keynote speaker at the national Trauma Informed Care Conference (2016) specifically on the role of architecture in the design of healthy environments and stress-reduced experiences for people who have experienced trauma. Cindy McCleary, AIA ROLE: Principal-in-Charge FIRM: LEO A DALY - Minneapolis YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 21 REGISTRATION: Architect MN #46940, LEED AP RELEVANT EXPERIENCE City of Forest Lake, City Hall, Fire Station and Police Facility Forest Lake, Minnesota City of Bayport Fire Station Bayport, Minnesota City of Richfield, Fire Station #2 Renovation Richfield, Minnesota Minnesota Fallen Firefighters Memorial St. Paul, Minnesota City of Plantation Fire Station Replacement Plantation, Florida City of Woodbury/City of Cottage Grove, HERO (Joint Use) Public Safety Training Facility Cottage Grove, Minnesota *Project completed with prior firm. Team management Our team is led by the management team of Cindy McCleary, Todd LaVold and Matthew Keenan. As project manager, Todd will manage the project budget and schedule. He is experienced in the design of several fire stations and will guide the team through the process and keep it on track. Matthew will be the primary contact through the design process and will attend all meetings, staying with you through the end of construction. He has extensive expertise in the design of mission critical facilities and understands the importance of keeping these buildings on-line and planning for phasing. Cindy provides the overall commitment of the LEO A DALY organization to the design and delivery excellence of our projects The LEO A DALY design team includes architects and engineers that have worked together on several similar municipal and county facilities. This team is focused on municipal projects and understands how these projects work. In addition, we have included partners that we have completed similar projects with before: • Damon Farber Associates for landscape architecture, they completed the landscape design for Bayport Fire Station, Forest Lake Fire/ Police/City Hall, and are currently working with LEO A DALY on the Hennepin County Medical Examiners Facility, • Professional Program Management (PPM) is a cost estimating firm with extensive experience estimating local municipal facilities. If the scope of the project grows to require specialty services, we also have deep relationships with: • True North Consulting Group, a partner we have worked with numerous times to assist in the design of A/V and communication systems. They have experience in the technology of EOC and 911 call center design, • Inspec provides expertise in complex waterproofing and roofing renovations. 9 293 STAFF LEO A DALY Todd LaVold AIA ROLE: Project Manager FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 21 yrs REGISTRATION: Architect MN #48181 Matthew Keenan ROLE: Project Lead FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 15 yrs *Project completed with prior firm. Todd’s overall responsibility is to manage the project schedule, assure budget compliance and coordinate the activities of the team. He has 21 years of experience in the design and management of a wide variety of public safety and civic buildings. Todd’s passion is to help clients realize their vision and working with design teams to maintain budgets and schedules. Matthew will be the primary project lead and your day to day contact in leading workshops on wants, needs and design. He will lead the LEO A DALY team in the development and coordination of the design and integration of your comments, and needs. Matthew brings 14 years of experience in government facility design and construction. His work history spans County and Municipal facilities with experience in County and City public safety, emergency dispatch, and headquarters facilities. He takes pride in the quality of our work and professional service. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE City of Forest Lake, City Hall, Fire Station and Police Facility Forest Lake, Minnesota City of Bayport Fire Station Bayport, Minnesota City of Richfield, Fire Station #2 Renovation Richfield, Minnesota Sauk Rapids Fire Station* Sauk Rapids, Minnesota City of Elko New Market, Police Department Addition/Renovation Elko New Market, Minnesota City of Lake Elmo Fire Station Replacement Site Study Lake Elmo, Minnesota City of Plantation Fire Station Replacement Plantation, Florida City of Oakdale, City Hall, Police Department and Police Training Needs Assessment and Renovation/Expansion Oakdale, Minnesota City of Woodbury/City of Cottage Grove, HERO (Joint Use) Public Safety Training Facility Cottage Grove, Minnesota RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Minnesota Fallen Firefighters Memorial, Phase 2 St. Paul, MN Itasca County 911 Dispatch* Grand Rapids, Minnesota City of Columbia Heights City Hall Columbia Heights, Minnesota City of Omaha Fire Station Design Concept Omaha, Nebraska City of Otsego Fire Station Design Concept Otsego, Minnesota Clay County and City of Moorhead Police Joint Law Enforcement Center and Garage* Moorhead, Minnesota Chisago County Emergency Communication Center / 911 Dispatch* Center City, Minnesota 10 294 STAFF LEO A DALY Joe Bower AIA ROLE: Senior Designer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 24 yrs REGISTRATION: Architect MN #42605 Virginia Pappas CID ROLE: Interior Designer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 24 yrs REGISTRATION: Interior Designer MN #46490 Ahmet Senyurekli PE ROLE: Structural Engineer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 15 yrs. REGISTRATION: Engineer, MN #47166 Responsible for leading the design vision of the project, Joe has focused his 24 year career on the design, vision, and creation of places for community to gather, educate, and serve. He brings passion and talent in transforming buildings through design and planning innovations. Relevant experience: City of Forest Lake, City Hall, Fire Station and Police Safety Facility; Minnesota National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters*, Arden Hills, MN; Faribault Armed Forces Reserve Center*, Faribault, MN. As an experienced designer, Virginia holds a wealth of knowledge in a variety of building types, including civic, corporate, commercial, government and judicial areas. She commits to providing end users with interior environments that meet their needs functionally and aesthetically. Relevant experience: City of Forest Lake, City Hall, Fire Station and Police Safety Facility; City of Bayport, MN New Fire Station; City of Richfield, MN Fire Station #2 Renovation; City of Oakdale, MN Police Remodel & PD Training Expansion. Ahmet has more than 15 years of professional experience in structural analysis and design, preparation of construction documents, structural observations, investigations, construction coordination, commissioning and oversight of other engineers. Relevant experience: Minnesota National Guard, Readiness Center, Arden Hills, MN; City of Oakdale, Police Remodel and Training Expansion; City of Woodbury, MN/City of Cottage Grove, MN HERO (Joint Use) Training Facility; Foreign Affairs Security Training Center, Vehicle Wash Facility, Fort Pickett, VA. Michelle Watanabe AIA, CCS, CDT, LEED AP BD+C ROLE: Project Architect FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 19 yrs REGISTRATION: Architect MN #50554 Michelle provides strong leadership and design skills to elevate each project and is involved in all aspects of the project life cycle. She engages pro-actively with the owner and contractor ensuring communication channels between all parties remain open and that responsibilities are clear. Relevant experience: City of Roseville Fire Station*; Rural Metro Fire Station #843*; City of Oakdale, MN Police Remodel & PD Training Expansion; City of Lake Elmo, Fire Station Replacement Study; City of Bloomington Police Dispatch Interior Refresh*. 11 295 STAFF LEO A DALY Adam J. Rohde PE ROLE: Mechanical Engineer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 9 yrs REGISTRATION: Engineer, MN #56073 Adam leads the design of mechanical systems, HVAC and plumbing. He has experience in environmental/mechanical systems, sizing and selection, construction documents, facility operations/energy strategies, building controls and sequencing, equipment/system comparison, sustainable design, Energy Star, energy standards and implementation, facility assessments, and energy simulation. Relevant experience: Mendota Heights, MN Fire Station Renovation and Expansion*; Minnesota National Guard, Readiness Center, Arden Hills, MN; North Metro Range Training Facility Predesign, Maple Grove, MN. Melisa leads a team of engineers and designers in the development of fire and life safety design. Incredibly active in her field, Melisa holds titles as President of the MN Chapter of SFPE, a principal member of the NFPA 14 Technical Committee, and vice-chair of the Minnesota Governor’s Council for Fire Prevention and Control. Relevant experience: Anoka County, MN Public Safety Campus*; City of Oakdale, Police Remodel and Training Expansion; HERO (Joint Use) Training Facility. Melisa Rodriguez PE, SET ROLE: Fire Protection Engineer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 14 yrs REGISTRATION: Engineer MN #47116 Jack Elliott PE ROLE: Electrical Engineer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 30 yrs REGISTRATION: Engineer MN #12408 Jack manages all electrical engineers and designers in all phases of quality electrical design. He has experience in cost projections, construction management, constructibility analysis, value engineering. As a former contractor he understands the complexity of replacing aged systems. He will bring these lessons-learned to our design team. Relevant experience: City of Oakdale, MN Police Remodel and Training Expansion; City of Woodbury/City of Cottage Grove HERO (Joint Use) Training Facility; Hennepin County, Medical Examiner Facility. Zac Essig PE ROLE: Civil Engineer FIRM: LEO A DALY EXPERIENCE: 14 yrs REGISTRATION: Engineer MN #54275 Zac has substantial experience in planning, design, project management and construction administration, his project management experience includes compiling proposals, budgetary responsibilities and working in highly efficient and effective collaborative team settings. Relevant projects include: City of Oakdale, MN Police Remodel and Training Expansion; City of Woodbury/City of Cottage Grove HERO (Joint Use) Training Facility; Hennepin County, Medical Examiner Facility. 12 296 STAFF LEO A DALY Doug Holmberg ROLE: Senior Cost Estimator FIRM: PPM EXPERIENCE: 41 yrs As senior cost estimator throughout all design phases in the cost estimating process, Doug’s diverse experience spans 41 years as a construction manager of local government, commercial, energy, industrial, institutional, mining, hospitality, multi-housing, and retail construction. Doug has personally estimated the construction cost of more than $11.6 billion worth of construction. Relevant experience: Minnesota National Guard, Readiness Center, Arden Hills; Maplewood MN Fire Station; HERO Training Facility. Jesse provides unique and contextually sensitive design solutions while maintaining a focus on delivering quality, cost effective, and buildable landscapes. Jesse is fluent through all phases of the design process, and works comfortably with clients and consultants to coordinate projects from concept through construction. He also worked with LEO A DALY in the design of the Forest Lake City Hall, Fire and Police Station and Hennepin County Medical Examiner landscapes. Relevant experience: Forest Lake Fire; Maple Grove Central Park; Eagan Central Park; Inver Grove Heights Civic Campus. Jesse Symynkywicz, LA ROLE: Landscape Architecture FIRM: Damon Farber EXPERIENCE: 23 yrs REGISTRATION: Landscape Architect MN #26970 David is the Supervisor of the Walls/Windows/Waterproofing Group at Inspec. He is a Licensed Architect, an accredited Green Roof Professional and one of only two Registered Waterproofing Consultants in Minnesota. He has a total of 38 yeas of experience. Mr. Campbell also created and teaches a course on the Building Envelope and Below-Grade Waterproofing at the University of Minnesota. As an Architect, he has devoted the last 30 years to the study, investigation, and design of below-grade waterproofing and subdrainage systems. David Campbell AIA, RWC, GRP ROLE: Optional - Waterproofing Consultant FIRM: Inspec EXPERIENCE: 38 yrs REGISTRATION: Architect MN #24188, Registered Waterproofing Consultant Brian specializes in designing audio/visual multimedia systems including power distribution, lighting, telephone systems, data systems, card access/security systems, power generation, fire alarm and sound distribution for various facilities. He recently worked with LEO A DALY for the new Readiness Center occupied by the Minnesota National Guard based out of Camp Ripley. Brian designed a network meeting the strict security standards set forth by the United States Military. TNCG’s scope included voice/data cabling, 5 different networks of varying security levels, A/V Multimedia Systems, Access Control, and Intrusion Detection. Brian Porter ROLE: Optional - AV/Technology/Communications FIRM: True North EXPERIENCE: 18 yrs 13 297 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALY Understanding your goals At over 40 and 30 years old, Plymouth’s Station 2 and Station 3 are showing their age. Years of deferred maintenance and repairs such as roof replacement and water infiltration are needing to be addressed. In addition, many best practices in fire station design weren’t in the original concepts and upgrades are needed to meet today’s standards. For Station 2, the City has decided to move forward on constructing a new station. The new station will be on the same site as the current Station 2 which should remain operational during construction and demolished when the new station is operational. Station 3 will expand to the east of the current footprint, and an extensive remodel will address water infiltration issues. The City would also like this station to remain operational during construction You are looking for a partner that has been through this process before, “gets” how fire stations operate, function and support firefighters, and is knowledgeable of modern trends/NFPA requirements. Your goals include: • Integrating best practices in building function, layout, incorporating in-station training opportunities and maximizing every space possible; • Integrating safety, wellness and NFPA design standards in fire station design; • Exhibiting a warm, welcoming presence in the community; • Planning for flexibility to address future uses, apparatus upgrades, and responding to changes in your service model strategy in the future. Project Objectives and Priorities Previous project experience • Integrate apparatus bay HVAC systems to achieve CO2 monitoring, exhaust, air exchange and consider heating systems specific to fire stations. For example, in-slab radiant heating minimizes overhead heat on apparatus paint, heats the space where the firefighters are, and melts snow which can damage vehicles; • Develop training components into the design solution which can be done more cost effectively at initial design and can keep firefighters in the jurisdiction during some training; • Incorporate innovative efficiencies such as in-floor vehicle water refilling / recharging; • Layout appropriate for shifts in gender diversity, including separation at dorms, lockers, showers and other spaces to better prepare for the future; • Proper planning and site organization at the early stage, can be best able to future-proof the design by planning for reasonable expansion. Designing to maximize your investment Fire facilities require consistent predictable operation. Not only to protect the assets of cities (fire apparatus is typically the largest vehicle expense) and to support efficient response but also to prepare firefighters for active service. The layout and sequence of physical spaces are critical to achieve ease in maintenance, effective and safe response times, separate “clean” and “dirty” activities, to ensure the natural flow of movement to a vehicle and to enable the effective on-site training, when able, to prepare and respond efficiently. Best practices include: • Develop apparatus bay size to accommodate contemporary vehicles to meet OSHA an NFPA requirements for working space around rigs, and provide options for protecting non-apparatus; • Establish backup generation, power and lighting to meet NFPA, FEMA and OSHA; 14 298 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALY Integrative training Fire facilities are a critical investment to many departments and should be considered a tool in the tool belt for the delivery of their service and the preparation of their firefighters. As designers we will never have to make that critical decision under extreme conditions that our firefighters do. However, we do design our facilities for human experiences, so in understanding your practice, it enables us to advance ours by providing you a thoughtful, effective environment catering to how you deliver service. An important strategy to service success is an enhanced facility that meets some of your advanced needs for training. Integrative training does not have to be expensive; but it does need to be closely considered. There is no better time to consider how to maximize your building investment than in planning and eventually design. Simple adjacencies or the integration of simple components, such as a breeching door or a rappelling hook can make a routine space into a compliment to your training program. A past client of ours and Fire Chief said it best, “train as you would respond”, and we have taken this philosophy to heart. The philosophy being, the more realistic you can make a training activity, the more innate the response becomes and the more your team can develop your standards. The more specific our conversations can be about your unique hazards, the more relevant the integrative training your building can support. Examples of training structures that can be included throughout the building ROOF VENTILATION TRAINING • Simulated roof installed at mezzanine level for Roof Ventilation Training Mezzanine filled with specific types of training opportunities: • Three variations of windows for rescue/ladder training • Smoke machine integrated into space for Limited Visibility Training • Movable partitions allow for situational training • Separate training sprinkler heads and standpipe system for sprinkler training • Framed openings for single and double door Forcible Entry/Breaching practice MEZZANINE TRAINING AREACAGED LADDER/BALCONY CONFINED SPACE TRAINING • Two caged ladders and an upper level balcony allow firefighters to train for multiple situations • 18” and 30” pipes installed horizontally and vertically for Confined Space Training STAIRWELL • Separate Fire Department Connection/Standpipe for hose training in stairwell • Smoke machine integrated into space for Limited Visibility Training 15 299 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALY DECOMPRESSION AREA • Includes: Dormitory, Exercise, Firefighter personal space. • Quiet / break away spaces for contemplation or work out spaces for firefighter physical/mental wellness. • Includes: Meeting, Dayroom, Kitchen, Administration, Staff Restrooms and Showers. • Completely separated from Hot Zone with independent HVAC and does not open directly into the hot zone. TRANSITION (WARM) ZONE • Includes: Public Entrance and Corridors, Public Restrooms, Dispatch, Department History and Memorabilia. • Creates a physical separation between the Hot and Cold Zones. HOT ZONE (NEGATIVE PRESSURE) • Includes: Apparatus Bays and Training Areas. • Location of contaminants, carcinogens, and vehicle exhaust. Completely separated from Cold Zone with independent HVAC systems. • Neg. Pressure - no air is pulled into other facility. POSITIVE PRESSURE ZONE • Includes: Turn-out Gear Room • HVAC system creates a positive pressure to ensure that exhaust and other contaminants from within the apparatus bay do not enter and settle on the turn-out gear. DECONTAMINATION AREA • Includes: Decontamination Showers, Laundry, SCBA Room and Compressor Area and Restrooms • Firefighters clean off contaminants within this zone so they are not brought into the cold zone. • Separate spaces for Compressors (noise issues) and SCBA filling ensures no cross contamination between spaces. SECURED STORAGE • Includes: Medical Equipment and Medication Storage • Secured and sealed room for limited access only. HOT ZONE COLD ZONE COLD ZONE Designing for wellness and healthy environments Our firm’s design principals for fire station design use a wholistic approach for personal wellness to create spaces that impact and positively affect the human behavioral response. Through our design process we will gather input from you on how the spaces will serve the work of the day. This process allows the architecture and engineering to balance the workplace and minimize the physiological and psychological impacts within the space. We recognize that certain colors, noises, smells, and spatial adjacencies are proven to raise cortisol, already high when one is under stress. The high cortisol impacts one’s ability to reason, conduct orderly logical sequences, and interact with others. Creating sleep friendly environments in addition to all the technical spaces needed is something that will be balanced with the user in mind. In addition, the overall facility will be designed to minimize cross contamination from firefighters, PPE and equipment returning from an IDLH fire environment. Bay areas = Hot Zone, the design will create a traffic flow from Hot to Cold Zone (dorms, day room and office space). The transition area (warm zone) will include DECON for equipment, PPE and staff, i.e. showers, extractors, gear drying, etc., preventing contaminated staff entering the cold zone. Additionally, air exchange systems will be used preventing contaminated air from entering the cold zone, i.e. higher pressure in the cold zone. Consideration when planning a healthy environment 16 300 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALY Your program and flow The LEO A DALY team has designed facilities that actively mitigate potential health and wellness issues. Our goal is to design a healthy workplace environment that includes both current and future apparatus and technology trends, as well as considerations to cancer, cardiac and emotional trauma that firefighters face daily. Creating areas for team building and camaraderie, places for wellness and exercise are all ways we focus on those inside the building. Knowing there are different users of the building and discussing how each user will flow through the building is critical to our design process. Administrative staff interact with firefighter staff and the public differently than Captains or paid-on call staff. Duty crew staff will respond quite differently than a paid-on call firefighter. Knowing these type of service models may or will change over time greatly informs the flow and efficiency of each user over the course of the building’s history. Planning to maximize your site and building Analyzing different users of the building as to how they will flow through the building is critical to our design process. Administrative staff interact with firefighter staff and the public differently than Captains or paid-on call staff. Duty crew staff will respond quite differently than a paid-on call firefighter. Knowing these type of service models may or will change over time greatly informs the flow and efficiency of each user over the course of the building’s history. 17 301 LEO A DALY Bayport’s Fire Department was located in a 6,630 SF facility built in the 1940’s that no longer met the needs of the community. The building didn’t provide adequate space for modern apparatus or meet current design principals for health safety and training. Designed by LEO A DALY, the new 18,150 SF Bayport Fire Hall is one-story plus mezzanine with five double-deep apparatus bays to accommodate pull-through capability with ten bay doors. The design accommodates safety needs and the ability to expand and evolve over time as service needs evolve. Planning for the future Bayport’s calls have doubled in the last ten years, and while all of their firefighters are currently paid on-call, they anticipate they will need to add full-time service staff in the future. The integration of dorms, residential areas as well as gender- neutral features assist this evolution. The building also includes new offices and storage, expansion space for apparatus and gear, equipment storage, laundry and mechanical shop. Owner City of Bayport Contact Logan Martin, Former City Administrator logan.martin@ci.rosemount.mn.us 651.322.2006 Size 18,150 SF Cost $4,792,258 Scope Planning, Programming, Architecture, Interior Design, Electrical, Mechanical, Structural, Civil Engineering, Construction Administration Completion Date 2016 City of Bayport, New Fire Station Bayport, Minnesota 18 302 LEO A DALY Integrated training opportunities Bayport has unique hazards. Not only residential houses and mid rise facilities, but prairies, the river, and the most challenging, the Anderson Windows and the Xcel Energy Power Plant. Training for response to these sites require confined space training, rappelling, dark space searches, caged ladder training and a variety of other unique training opportunities. To accommodate, training features include a stair tower with repelling capabilities, rescue balcony, confined space shaft, breaching doors and windows, roof venting, smoke mezzanine, and caged ladder which provide realistic simulation of the hazardous situations faced by firefighters on a regular basis. Community The Bayport Fire Department has over 125 years of history, and several families have served for three or four generations. There is a deep connection to those who have served before and the pride and tradition carries on. The design includes an honor wall showcasing the equipment, articles, and the many faces of years prior. Painted apparatus-red with checker plate backer, this feature created the rotating display of the decades of fire helmets, extinguishers, photos and uniforms that represented their history and families. This concept became the guiding force in the overall design to honor the sense of pride and camaraderie, with the red, checker plate and historical elements repeating throughout the facility. Relevant to Plymouth • Warm, welcoming architecture with concealed security measures; • Integrated health, wellness and training features into the building design, i.e., decontamination and fitness areas • Adequate storage for apparatus bay needs, and streamlined support spaces (linen / paper storage, washer/dryer) for office / day space needs; • Accommodate gender equity and support both male and female firefighters; • Community engagement; • Plans for future needs, i.e., potential change to include full-time staff. 19 303 LEO A DALY The City of Forest Lake commissioned LEO A DALY to design a new 65,000 SF municipal service center reflecting their community. Built as a place of gathering, a civic center, and a home, the building pulls influence from the quiet lakeshore of conservative cabin homes, the central park on the lake, and the humble surrounding buildings. The design captures those qualities with the front entrance of the facility mimicking a front porch where civic conversation sparks. The gathering spaces for firefighters focus on devoting the dayroom and training room to camaraderie while integrating essential training space to build trust. Integral training includes: stair, breaching doors, balcony, smoke room, confined space, and rappelling as well as exterior training spaces. The facility includes administrative offices for municipal staff, fire/dispatch/training spaces, public safety department and the emergency operations center. The public safety facility accommodates full law enforcement operations over two floors including squad operations, investigations, detention, secured squad parking, K-9, and fitness and training spaces. Planning for the future Important in furthering a growing community, the city of Forest Lake had need to plan for the future rather than simply accommodate the present. As key portion of a city redevelopment process, the design incorporates a newly constructed, operationally efficient fire station with state-of- the-art amenities including seven tandem drive-through bays, Owner City of Forest Lake Contact Rick Peterson, Director of Public Safety (651) 209-9725 Rick.peterson@ci.forest-lake.mn.us Size 68,198 SF Cost $19,000,000 Scope Architecture; Interior Design; Engineering; Programming; Landscape Architecture Completion Date 2014 City of Forest Lake City Center, New City Hall, and Public Safety Facility Forest Lake, Minnesota 20 304 LEO A DALY quick connects for recharge at each bay, in-floor heat, energy efficient systems, and door glass. Highly successful in careful planning and sizing of spaces and needs, this project enables the service to grow while not overbuilding in the present. The project resulted in a facility sized for efficiency $2M under budget. We separated vehicle spaces, on- call traffic routes and apparatus routes for safety and integrated best practices into HVAC systems separating clean and dirty. Integrated training opportunities Alongside sustainability goals and desire for high performing materials, integrated training needs for the fire station included a training stair with balcony as well as breaching doors and windows. We selected an extremely high performing roof membrane of which significantly reduces urban heat island effect and reduces energy loads of the building to meet sustainability goals. To include slip resistance, we integrated protection devices and guards to plan roof spaces and materials differently around training towers. Other integrated on-site training features include hose tower to support ladder training, breaching from rooftop, stair training, and storage garage to support confined space and limited- visibility maze training. Community Intended as a community space, the design process allowed multiple opportunities for meaningful public engagement at critical stages. Digital surveys, public meetings, web-based presentations and uploads, and public project development all allowed for public access to the process for transparent priority and ability to input. Relevant to Plymouth • Warm, welcoming architecture with concealed security measures; • Integrated health, wellness and training features into the building design, i.e., decontamination and fitness areas • Adequate storage for apparatus bay needs, and streamlined support spaces (linen / paper storage, washer/dryer) for office / day space needs; • Accommodate gender equity and support both male and female firefighters; • Community engagement; • Plans for future needs, i.e., potential change to include full-time staff. 21 305 LEO A DALY City of Richfield Fire Station No. 2, constructed in 1963, received only minor cosmetic improvements over the years despite the fire service changing significantly in the time passed. To bring the facility up to code, the city hired LEO A DALY to update the building achieving goals of gender equity, reduced energy usage, and maximized operational efficiency. In addition, the Richfield Community Development department, who has organized the revitalization of the Penn Avenue Corridor that the station resides on, encouraged the station to update the exterior facade on the Penn side of the building. While remaining operational during construction, the scope of this project encompasses 5,710 SF. The renovation design includes a complete reconfiguration of the interior, without expansion. This provides dedicated sleeping rooms to replace a one-room dorm and reconfiguration of toilets, showers, changing rooms, and lockers to achieve gender parity accommodating a modern day fire service team of men and women. Dedicated fitness space replaces free weights previously in the dorm allowing for firefighters to maintain critical skills and strength through integrated training and updated equipment of which has increased in size and technology over time. City of Richfield, Fire Station #2 Renovation Richfield, Minnesota Owner City of Richfield Contact Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Chief (612) 861-9700 wkewitsch@cityofrichfield.org Size 5,710 SF Cost $950,000 Scope Pre-design Study; Architectural Design; Interior Design; Structural, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineering Completion Date 2013 22 306 LEO A DALY Adequate storage for apparatus bay needs and streamlined support spaces for linen, paper storage, and washer/dryers help maximize operational efficiencies on top of the building layout. The renovation also includes sustainable elements such as an energy efficient water heater, windows, and rooftop equipment to maximize building efficiency as well. A small expansion included a new vestibule lobby and office providing a refreshed image of the fire service to the Penn Avenue Corridor, achieving the aesthetic, code, and energy goals of the Richfield Community Development department. LEO A DALY provided a pre-design study, architectural design, interior design, and structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services. Relevant to Plymouth • Facility renovation (bunk rooms, changing rooms, shower and locker) to accommodate gender equity and support both male and female firefighters; • Space for fitness equipment; • Reduced energy costs, update to mechanical and electrical systems; • Adequate storage for apparatus bay needs, and streamlined support spaces (linen / paper storage, washer/dryer) for office / day space needs; • Front exterior upgrade, apparatus doors and entry vestibule to accommodate code, energy goals, and Penn Avenue corridor recommendations. 23 307 LEO A DALY Fire Station No. 1 is the City of Plantation’s oldest fire station. The existing single story fire station was in need of replacement to accommodate increased staffing and operational needs. The City proposed to demolish the existing fire station and replace it with a new two-story fire station equipped with an emergency generator. As the site will remain operational during the course of construction, the design effort took into account placing the new building and vehicle circulation in ways that would not encumber existing service response. A modular building for staff operations as well as canopy style vehicle storage was utilized during construction. The new building concept streamlines operations by separating clear and dirty work flows and moving toward a racetrack arrangement to maintain the health of firefighters when coming into shift or returning from response. As a Mission Critical, Category 5 facility in a FEMA zone, remaining operational during construction was a must. In addition to fire and EMS calls, this station services as the local emergency operation center during storms, ocean surges, high-force winds and extreme flooding. Additionally, the site is the location of the regional cell tower and power generation must remain protected and functional during construction. These challenges influenced the final design strategy and phased construction. Owner City of Plantation Contact Monica Joy, ASID Construction Project Supervisor 954-585-2357 Size 15,000 SF Cost $6,000,000 Scope Full Architectural Design, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents/Administration Completion In construction City of Plantation Fire Station #1 Plantation, Florida 24 308 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALYLEO A DALY City of Plantation Fire Station #1 Phasing Plan Phase 2 Location of existing apparatus bay. Relocated apparatus to to new Temporary garage to enable demo of this bay and Phase 2 construction. Phase 3 Location of existing station, which remained during Phase 1 construction, but was removed to enable Phase 2 construction. Phase 1 Construct temporary apparatus garages to enable demo of existing apparatus bays and Phase 1 of new construction. 2525 309 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALY The City of Elko New Market has a need for modern facilities devoted to their police department. Prior to the final design, LEO A DALY began review of their existing police facility and requirements to phase the construction while still allowing for standard operations to occur. After extensive review of use, efficiency, and cost, the city determined a new expansion and remodel to existing city and fire hall appropriate based on LEO A DALY’s findings By combining these operations into a single facility, the city would see benefit and returns on cost of operation. Doing so created challenges regarding PHASING as both the city hall and fire hall must remain operational during construction. Working closely with the city prior to construction, LEO A DALY has ensured the construction documents include an understandable and appropriate phasing plan to alleviate confusion and/or added costs during construction. This phasing plan begins with utility and service re-routes, then construction of the new shell and interior spaces, followed by relocating existing fiber optic into a new network/ IT room as the future brains of the city. Lastly, select remodeling within the existing City Hall and Fire Hall areas upgrades and provides better joint services between the departmental spaces. The results of these proper phasing discussions during design will pay dividends on the back end and to the project’s bottom line. Owner City of Elko New Market Size 6,100 SF (New) 11,600 SF (Existing – Select Remodel) 17,700 Total Cost Est. $2,000,000 Scope Planning; Phasing; Architecture; Interior Design; Civil; Structural; Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Completion Date Est. 2021 Elko New Market Police Department Expansion Elko New Market, Minnesota 26 310 PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE LEO A DALY Renovating 24/7 facilities Our team has completed many projects that are mission-critical and need to remain occupied during renovation. Construction phasing in a high traffic space, or one with a sensitive occupancy requires careful planning and coordination with the functional program. When planning the renovation of the Richfield Fire and Plantation Fire facilities, the LEO A DALY team analyzed firefighter, vehicle, equipment and people flow, vehicle and equipment dimensions and maneuverability, and the overall life safety plans to ensure that not only were the temporary control provisions adequate for “business as usual” in the operating environment, but that firefighter safety was not compromised. Special attention was paid to construction barrier specifications, timing of the work, clearances of new and temporary walls, and maintaining critical infrastructure at all times. Another recently-completed project is the Hennepin County Behavioral Health Center, a 24/7 behavioral health living unit with vulnerable populations. The County wished to renovate and expand to three nursing, office and behavioral health residential living units within a functioning Public Health facility. The program included a substance abuse residential and nursing unit, a new advanced Sobering Center unit and a new 16-bed crisis stabilization unit. The facility construction and infrastructure ranged from 1920’s though 1980’s era posing significant challenges. The facility required a full gut and remodel of the HVAC, security and fire suppressions systems, exterior wall and window forensics and replacements, and significant floor and roof structural repairs/ restructuring while remaining operational and serving these vulnerable populations. Multi-phase project planning Expanding and building new emergency response infrastructure is something that often occurs while existing operations need to remain functional. Working closely with the Plymouth Fire Department and the City, we will take the time to understand early how the existing systems operate today and what needs to remain in use. Together we will create plans how phasing of the construction may occur with minimal disruption to the City’s ability to provide adequate and safe response times to the community. Phasing and construction sequencing decisions are a multi-layered process involving building systems, scheduling, safety, security and cost. The importance of these considerations is amplified when continuous occupancy and the unexpected nature of emergency calls are layered into the decision making. We can minimize firefighter and administration frustration with early and thorough planning. The engineers of LEO A DALY have had significant recent experience with building system modernizations and will work with you to find a solution that fits your process. The new Fire Station #2 is planned to be constructed on the site of the current station and it is required for the existing station to remain open. A facilities communication plan is essential in occupied construction sites such as these to ensure that both the ingress and egress of apparatus and firefighters s not hindered. Compiling this plan should occur in tandem with and inform the development of the construction sequencing and is a collaborative effort between the design team, construction manager and the fire department. By creating this plan, we ensure the response time to the community does not change while keeping the firefighters who work within these spaces safe throughout construction. 27 311 FEE LEO A DALYLEO A DALY Fee LEO A DALY’s fee is based upon and assumption of a single project effort anticipating a construction value of $9,280,000 for Station #2 and $4,861,550 for Station #3, for a total combined construction value of $14,141,550. For the scope indicated in the RFP, we propose a total fee of 6% of construction value. Therefore, the fee distribution is as follows: Phase 1 Schematic Design $127,282.61 • Travel & Reimbursables included Phase 2 Design Development - Administration $721,268.11 • Travel & Reimbursables included Total Combined Phase 1 & 2 $855,550.72* * If the City decides that extensive data/voice cabling, optical fiber and audio/video should be added to the scope of the project, True North Consulting Group is an available partner to our team. LEO A DALY has a close working relationship with TNCG and can add their services as necessary. In addition, if waterproofing requires more extensive inspection and mitigation design, Inspec is a partner we have frequently collaborated with and we can include their additional services if necessary. 2828 312 313 PLANNING ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING INTERIORS leoadaly.com Cindy McCleary CAMccleary@leoadaly.com 612.341.9588 730 Second Avenue South Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.338.8741 314 City of Plymouth Fire Station 2 and 3 February 11, 2020 315 TEAM Matthew Keenan Project Designer LEO A DALY Ahmet Senyurekli Structural Engineer LEO A DALY Adam Rohde Senior Mechanical Engineer LEO A DALY Virginia Pappas Interior Designer LEO A DALY Zac Essig Civil Engineer LEO A DALY Jesse Symynkywicz Landscape Architect DAMON FARBER Jack Elliot Electrical Engineer LEO A DALY Brian Porter Optional - AV/Technology/Security True North Consulting Leadership Design Team Michelle Watanabe Architect LEO A DALY Doug Holmberg Cost Estimator PPM Dave Campbell Optional - Roof/Waterproofing Inspec Cindy McCleary Principal in Charge Melisa Rodriguez Fire Protection Engineer Todd LaVold Project Manager Matthew Keenan Project Lead/QC 316 TEAM Cindy McCleary Principal in Charge Melisa Rodriguez Fire Protection Engineer Todd LaVold Project Manager Matthew Keenan Project Lead/QC 317 WE GET FIRE STATIONS 318 SPECIALIZED DESIGN TO IMPROVE HEALTH • Zones • Codes DECOMPRESSION AREA • Includes: Dormitory, Exercise, Firefighter personal space. • Quiet / break away spaces for contemplation or work out spaces for firefighter physical/mental wellness. • Includes: Meeting, Dayroom, Kitchen, Administration, Staff Restrooms and Showers. • Completely separated from Hot Zone with independent HVAC and does not open directly into the hot zone. TRANSITION (WARM) ZONE • Includes: Public Entrance and Corridors, Public Restrooms, Dispatch, Department History and Memorabilia. • Creates a physical separation between the Hot and Cold Zones. HOT ZONE (NEGATIVE PRESSURE) • Includes: Apparatus Bays and Training Areas. • Location of contaminants, carcinogens, and vehicle exhaust. Completely separated from Cold Zone with independent HVAC systems. • Neg. Pressure - no air is pulled into other facility. POSITIVE PRESSURE ZONE • Includes: Turn-out Gear Room • HVAC system creates a positive pressure to ensure that exhaust and other contaminants from within the apparatus bay do not enter and settle on the turn-out gear. DECONTAMINATION AREA • Includes: Decontamination Showers, Laundry, SCBA Room and Compressor Area and Restrooms • Firefighters clean off contaminants within this zone so they are not brought into the cold zone. • Separate spaces for Compressors (noise issues) and SCBA filling ensures no cross contamination between spaces. SECURED STORAGE • Includes: Medical Equipment and Medication Storage • Secured and sealed room for limited access only. HOT ZONE COLD ZONE COLD ZONE 319 SPECIALIZED DESIGN TO IMPROVE RESPONSE TIME • Day in the Life 320 ROOF VENTILATION TRAINING • Simulated roof installed at mezzanine level for Roof Ventilation Training Mezzanine filled with specific types of training opportunities: • Three variations of windows for rescue/ladder training • Smoke machine integrated into space for Limited Visibility Training • Movable partitions allow for situational training • Separate training sprinkler heads and standpipe system for sprinkler training • Framed openings for single and double door Forcible Entry/Breaching practice MEZZANINE TRAINING AREACAGED LADDER/BALCONY CONFINED SPACE TRAINING • Two caged ladders and an upper level balcony allow firefighters to train for multiple situations • 18” and 30” pipes installed horizontally and vertically for Confined Space Training STAIRWELL • Separate Fire Department Connection/Standpipe for hose training in stairwell • Smoke machine integrated into space for Limited Visibility Training SPECIALIZED DESIGN TO OPTIMIZE INVESTMENTS • Training Procedures • The Team • The Individual Mind/Body 321 OUR PROCESS EVALU A T EIMPLEMENT ASSESSP R E PARE 322 PREPARE • Set Goals • Communication Plan • CM • Schedule • Budget/Scope Creep • Core Team • Council • City Staff / Engineering • Firefighters • Public • Communication Staff Clear Expectations 323 ASSESS • Moisture • HVAC/Clean Air • Constraints • Space Needs 324 ASSESS • System Phasing • Site Program MEP Systems Operations/Communication Structural PeopleSwing Space MEPSwing Space Phase 2 Location of existing apparatus bay. Relocated apparatus to new Temporary garage to enable demo of this bay and Phase 2 construction. Phase 3 Location of existing station, which remained during Phase 1 construction, but was removed to enable Phase 2 construction. Phase 1 Construct temporary apparatus garages to enable demo of existing apparatus bays and Phase 1 of new construction.325 ASSESS • Phasing • Site #2 #3 326 EVALUATE • Collect Thoughts • Hands-on Workshops • Feedback • Pros/Cons • Review • Presentation Choosing by Advantages 327 EVALUATE • Collect Thoughts • Hands-on Workshops • Feedback • Pros/Cons • Review • Presentation BAYPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT, BAYPORT, MN 48'-0" SITE STUDY 3 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0" 0 30'60'N 10 30STAGECOACHTRAILN 5TH AVE N 768 766 764 762 760 758 756 754 752 756 PARKINGSETBACKBUILDINGSETBACK PAVEDAREA=44,670 S F 354'-8"464'-5" 48'-0" SITE STUDY 4 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0" 0 30'60'N 10 30STAGECOACHTRAILN 5TH AVE N 768 766 764 762 760 758 756 754 752 756 48'-0"53'-0"PARKINGSETBACKBUILDINGSETBACK 36'-0"24'-0" 468'-5" PAVED AREA = 48,120 SF 317'-7"48'-0"SITE STUDY 5 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0" 0 30'60'N 10 30STAGECOACHTRAILN 5TH AVE N 768 766 764 762 760 758 756 754 752 756 48'-0"LADDER TRUCKLADDER TRUCKPARKING S E TBACKBUILDINGSETBACK PAVED AREA = 50,780 SF 443'-2"454'-3"36'-0"24'-0" PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES 328 EVALUATE • Collect Thoughts • Hands-on Workshops • Feedback • Pros/Cons • Review • Presentation 329 IMPLEMENT • Visualization • Constructability • Confirm Phasing 330 IMPLEMENT • Up Front Planning with CM • Value Engineering is Ongoing Process with CM • We are a TEAM: Owner/Architect/CM 331 IMPLEMENT • With You Through The End 332 WHY US EFFICIENT, TRANSFORMATIONAL TIRELESS IN IMPROVING FIREFIGHTER HEALTH AND PREPAREDNESS 333 Demonstration: Level of Engagement During Design Process (to be verified during kick-off) February March April May June July August September October November December Jan 2021 Feb 2021 3 10 17 24 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 Schematic Design & Estimate Design Development Construction Document Development Bidding Review Bid Construction Administration Meetings/site visits as appropriate through construction completion. 100%90% Key Core Team Meeting Open House + Core Team Conference Call Update City Council Public Presentation Meeting SCHEDULE Cost estimate/design update Concept development/refinement • Systems review • Cost benefit review Concept review Kickoff meeting • Goal setting • Communication plan • Overall project budget & schedule review Community engagement • Purpose & needs statement declaration • Visual input session • Information gathering Design updateCouncil concept approval workshopScoping meeting • Review existing/other stations • Programming • Purpose & purpose statement Check-in workshop • Scope • Purpose/needs statement 334 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PROPOSAL FOR PLYMOUTH FIRE STATION ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DECEMBER 30, 2019 QUINN S. HUTSON, AIA Principal Architect qhutson@cnharch.com CNH ARCHITECTS 7300 W. 147th St., Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 952-431-4433 www.cnharch.com 19112 335 December 30, 2019 Deputy Fire Chief Dave Dreelan Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Re: Request for Proposals for Architechtural Services - Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 Dear Mr. Dreelan, On behalf of CNH Architects, thank you for considering our firm for the Plymouth Fire Station Architectural Services. CNH has been providing outstanding architectural design services for City, County, and State projects for over 50 years, and my experience with the firm spans more than two-thirds of that history. Our office excels at working on public projects and building consensus among the members of the community and the multiple stakeholders, as well as city staff and officials. The whole team and I are very excited for this opportunity to again work with the City of Plymouth and the Plymouth Fire Department to complete the designs our team developed in the early study to address your needs for these crticial facilities. CNH Architects’ public safety team is available, enthusiastic to focus on your project, and committed to meet your needs. Our proposal will describe the following attributes that make us uniquely positioned and highly qualified to provide the architectural and engineering design services for Plymouth Fire Stations 2 and 3. EXPERIENCED, PRINCIPAL-LED DESIGN TEAM CNH Architects believes strongly in the value of our very experienced public safety design team. We will focus on your project from design kickoff to occupancy - never handing off to less experienced or previously uninvolved staff - resulting in a deep understanding and follow through of the project goals and design intent throughout all phases of the project. This team has designed many fire stations, including the nationally recognized Roseville Fire Station. CNH Architects’ focus on fire station design means we have an in-depth understanding of this project’s critical elements as well as a strong understanding of the goals of the Plymouth Fire Department from our recent work together. Our fire station emphasis has kept us on the forefront of fire station innovation, including cost-saving training features integrally designed into the structure, indoor air quality separation and contaminant removal from firefighter environments, station alerting with graduated lighting and alarm tones to reduce firefighter stress, sustainable design features for comfort and energy savings, and NFPA standards related to fire station design. As the project’s Principal Architect and head of our public safety design team, I will be your main contact throughout and will be daily involved in meeting your needs. CLIENT-FOCUSED PROJECT APPROACH The best way to summarize CNH Architects’ approach is that we work cooperatively with our clients to reach the best solution specific to your goals and operations. Our team will listen carefully to your goals and concerns, add our expertise, and develop options and ultimately station designs that uniquely address Plymouth’s goals and budget. We take pride in being accessible to our clients, being trustworthy and providing high-quality service. At CNH we treat our clients, consultants, and construction personnel with respect, as we believe they all have a valuable perspective and role in a smooth, successful project. Again, thank you for this opportunity to present CNH Architects’ qualifications for this project. I am confident our experience and design philosophy will be a great fit. We look forward to assisting the City of Plymouth as you address the station needs of the Plymouth Fire Department. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. 952-997-4583 qhutson@cnharch.com CNH ARCHITECTS, INC. 7300 W 147TH ST, SUITE 504, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 | 952-431-4433 | WWW.CNHARCH.COM 336 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPANY HISTORY ............................................................................................. 2 Firm Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AVAILABLE .............................................................. 3 Reducing Toxin Exposure Efficiency by Design Visualization and Virtual Reality STAFF ...................................................................................................................12 Organizational Chart Roles and Responsibilities Project Team Resumes PREVIOUS PROJECT EXPERIENCE .................................................................. 18 Project Experience Roseville Fire Station Eagan Fire Station #1 Eagan Fire Station #4 — Addition and Remodel Mendota Heights Fire Station Lino Lakes Fire Station FEE ...................................................................................................................... 24 Fee 337 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 32 FIRM DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CNH Architects is a full-service architectural firm providing architectural and interior design; and along with our consulting engineers and designers, engineering, landscape architecture and other specialties. Our clients include corporate, commercial, manufacturing, recreational and government agencies. The Principals, Wayne Hilbert and Quinn Hutson, are directly responsible for all design work. CNH Architects has a staff with advanced training and certification in several areas including Certified Interior Designers, Certified Construction Specifier, LEED Accredited Professionals, NCARB certification, and Construction Document Technologist. With an efficient project team and over 50 years of experience, CNH Architects has a strong reputation for well thought-out design plans and personal attention to client requirements. CNH stresses strong design, quality contract documents, close communications with clients, and an intense field review and follow- up program. We are organized to assume full, single source responsibility for a thoroughly integrated and cost effective service. From a project’s beginning, program, budget, and schedule are established, and a team of experts is assembled under the principal and project manager to assure that elements are addressed, questions answered, and the design and construction process is fully coordinated. A growing list of satisfied and repeat clients is testimony to the discipline and persistence of an organization that will not settle for partial success. Over the last several years, CNH Architects has worked on construction projects which total between 50 - 60 million dollars annually. Our projects have varied including city, county, and state work, along with private sector clients. COMPOSITION OF FIRM Architects 6 Interior Designer 1 Designers 4 Administrative Support 2 Sustainable design is an integral part of our practice. A majority of our professional staff has LEED Accreditation and our office designed the first Green Globe projects in Minnesota. This is a third party national verification system as administered by the Green Building Initiative. 338 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 3 The following narrative describes the professional services that is the basis for CNH Architects’ work plan to ensure a very successful project. While the descriptions cover the high-level steps important for a project of this type, CNH has found that ultimately the day-to-day focus on the small but critical detail level tasks that underpin the high level goals are what leads to the success of our past fire station projects and our very satisfied clients. Although the following narrative does not generally list this level of attention to detail, rest assured that CNH’s team is committed to providing the City of Plymouth with this same focus which has been so effective in our past fire station facilities. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, EDUCATION, AND CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS Throughout the project, CNH Architects will work with the Building Design Committee to develop a plan for communicating the different milestones of the two fire stations to the City Council, broader stakeholders and the general public. This communications plan will lay out the timing for each update, format of presentation, and the intended audience. CNH will prepare graphical materials, drawings and realistic visualizations for meetings and publications and will assist City staff in presenting the project at open houses, Council meetings, and fire department presentations. We are experienced in responding to design questions from officials as well as engaging and educating the public in the value of the fire station elements. As the project design develops, we have found that the use of three-dimensional (3-D) video tours in addition to fixed renderings and project plans provides for the most realistic communication of the project to the viewer. PROJECT KICKOFF The project will begin with a detailed kickoff meeting to review the schematic plans CNH developed in the earlier study and discuss the Fire Department’s goals for these two facilities as well as gather input from any new building committee members. We will focus in on the detailed needs and expectations within the building, gathering information developed to this point as well expanding into the level of detail needed as we enter the design development phase. Finally, Quinn Hutson, the Principal Architect on the public safety team for your project, will lead the development of the project delivery planning documents: revising templates for workflow/schedule, design budget, construction budget, and setting up communication systems including a project collaboration website specific to this project. This kickoff process is critical to create a cooperative, engaging tone and finalize the expectations that will guide the rest of the project. SCHEMATIC DESIGN Once the design data and goals have been updated, the earlier schematic designs we created for each station will be reviewed and refined. Throughout this updating of the schematic design, the CNH team will continue to evaluate the many key elements in fire station design starting with the critical concern for firefighter health and wellness. We will share strategies we have developed and incorporated in other fire stations to reduce exposures to harmful chemicals, whether originating in the station or brought back from emergency calls. We have analyzed national studies and collaborated with regional experts to develop a comprehensive approach to toxin reduction in all our fire station buildings. CNH presented our recommendations to attendees at recent Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Conventions and will use this knowledge to review and upgrade your current concept plans to include recommended techniques along with discussing expanded strategies to maximize firefighter toxin reduction. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 339 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 34 After the concept plans for the stations are updated, CNH will develop multiple exterior image concept options for each station. We will incorporate appealing aesthetics, durable materials, clarity in public versus firefighter entrances, as well as a focus on sustainability in the building envelope. CNH will use high quality 3-D video tours along with fixed renderings to explore each visual option to assist the Building Committee in evaluating and selecting the most appropriate fire station aesthetics for both the new Station 2 as well as the remodeling of Station 3. With input from the Building Committee, and other stakeholders, a single preferred schematic design concept for each fire station will be identified. This selected concept design will be further adjusted based on the schematic design review feedback prior to further design development. Finally, the two stations will be evaluated by our cost consultant and the selected construction manager to ensure that all projects meet the budget goals. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT In this phase, we will work with the Building Committee to create the interior elements, texture and image of the two buildings. CNH Architects will emphasize the use of the 3-D imaging capabilities of our Revit Building Information Modeling (BIM) software to develop 3-D tours and renderings of the design options being considered, exploring different options together to find the right approach for each building. We will review and select materials and product choices, as well as develop interior architectural design elements such as millwork, signage, and specialty equipment to be incorporated in the facilities. Early in this phase we will discuss overall sustainability opportunities and set goals with the City that are appropriate for these projects. CNH will discuss possible goals for daylighting, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and low-maintenance landscaping, among other potential topics. This is also a busy time for mechanical and electrical design as the engineering team will fine tune mechanical and electrical system options, reviewing the best fit for each station. They will evaluate system upgrades or replacements for Station 3 and the best new approaches for Station 2 as an all new facility. Operational details will be discussed and information gathered on special systems within the fire stations such as any pre-emption controls, ramped lighting systems, turnout gear room ventilation, tailpipe exhaust systems, CO monitoring and other detail options specific to fire station design. During this phase we will also work with a custom spreadsheet that CNH Architects has developed to gather specific data on specialized equipment and systems that the Department will be bringing to or including in the new fire station. This spreadsheet will help navigate the multitude of options available, providing the data that our team needs to match the building systems to the specialized equipment. During design development, the firefighter training feature goals will be visited, training features will be selected and positioned within the design with cost, operational impacts for training and response, and multi-use of space will all be considered. We will lead a review of the many training elements developed for stations around the country, whether comprehensive elements such as those incorporated in the Roseville and Lino Lakes Fire Stations or simple props, like using an existing stairwell or corner of an apparatus bay. An outline specification will be produced indicating the material, brand, systems and other product information that has been determined during this phase. The drawing and specification information created during this phase will be regularly passed on to the cost estimating team at the construction manager’s office, allowing them to quickly provide a more detailed cost estimate at the completion of the design development phase. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 340 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 5 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Once the detailed design has been established, CNH Architects and our engineers assemble the drawings, specifications, schedules, and details that make up the construction documents. We take pride in developing very comprehensive construction documents with complete, clear information describing the systems and elements of the building to minimize contractor questions and uncertainty in bidding. Providing comprehensive documents also ensures the use of building detailing that has been shown to provide durability and value for past fire station and other public project designs. The fire station will be highly modeled in 3-D using Revit BIM software. In addition to the main architectural BIM model, all the engineering disciplines also model their designs in Revit. This allows us to link them all together to create a comprehensive model from design development through construction document phases. The engineering consultants are required to build all elements as 3-D objects, including smaller items such as light fixtures, power outlets, plumbing faucets, HVAC grilles and structural trussing and braces. This level of detail allows for a high level of coordination between disciplines, ensures clearances for all trades, and validates visual elements of the design. In addition, CNH Architects will conduct collision detection and create visual cuts throughout the combined Revit model, including structure, mechanical, and electrical models near the completion of the project construction documents to locate and eliminate overlapping or incorrectly located building elements. This final quality control step has shown to resolve many potential coordination items that would have been invisible in two-dimensional (2-D) drafting. Quality control during this phase will also include a final rechecking of the many building codes, accessibility requirements, NFPA and other standards that are applicable to the fire station design as well as a review of client goals and decisions that have been documented during previous phases of the project. As in all previous phases, CNH Architects will assist the construction manager to update the cost estimate will be d a final time prior to completion of the construction document phase, adjusting for changes in systems, quantities, material costs or other bidding environment issues. As in all previous phases, CNH Architects will assist the construction manager to update the cost estimate will be d a final time prior to completion of the construction document phase, adjusting for changes in systems, quantities, material costs or other bidding environment issues. BIDDING During this phase, CNH Architects and our design team will support the Construction Manager to administer the bidding and help maintain a smooth process. We will assist the City in advertising the project both for legal requirements and for maximizing bidder awareness. CNH and our team will be available to address contractors’ questions as they arise, will attend a pre-bid conference, and will write and distribute addenda to clarify bidding questions and to approve submitted substitutions where appropriate. CNH Architects will assist in the Construction Manager in their process of the opening of bids and evaluating the bid results. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 341 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 36 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION We feel the success of any project depends on staying on top of the process from early planning through construction. Where many firms lose interest in a project after the building is designed and drawings complete, CNH has found that much of the success of the project depends on working closely with the Construction Manager to assist in addressing the issues that arise during construction, making sure the client is represented and protected. Unlike many firms, CNH Architects and our engineering team provides the administration of the contract with the same personnel that designed the project. We feel these architects and engineers are the only ones who understand not only what is on the construction documents, but why the building was designed or detailed that way to begin with. This maintains continuity throughout the process, reducing the potential for construction changes that negatively impact the client goals or the integrity of the building systems. The Principal / Project Architect and other team members will regularly review the construction at each site to determine progress, conformance to the construction documents and to discuss upcoming construction all with the goal of a smooth, efficient construction process that is done professionally and correctly. We strive to work in a collaborative approach with the Construction Manager and prime contractors, valuing the knowledge and experience of the many skilled trades people on site. However, our primary objective will be to represent the City of Plymouth and the Fire Department, looking out for your best interests including the quality, conformance and timeliness of the construction. For this project we would schedule a weekly construction observation for the architectural team supplemented by the appropriate engineers as relevant trades are on site so that we can provide quick response to questions and very regularly review progress schedules to keep on top of the important project timeline. These construction observations will be documented with detailed reports including pictures of progress and items requiring correction. Other construction administration services will include providing the document and Information flow necessary for this phase of the project. This will include answers to RFI’s, writing supplemental information documents, shop drawings and other submittal review, writing change orders, and reviewing contractor applications for payment. CNH Architects will provide a web-based project collaboration website for the transmittal, storage and coordination of all information and document flows during the construction administration phase. This simple to use website has shown itself to be very helpful as a not only a transmission tool, but as an organized repository for the project information for all relevant project members. As the construction process comes to an end, CNH Architects will provide preliminary and then final punchlists of incomplete, non-conforming or damaged items for the contractor to address. Since the fire stations will transition to operations upon substantial completion, we will particularly focus on preliminary review and punchlist generation and contractor attention to these details as each area of the project approaches the last stages so that the fire department has as little disruption as possible during their ramping up and transition to live operations. After project completion, CNH Architects considers follow-up and being available for questions a regular part of our normal practice. We feel a large reason for our numerous repeat clients is the service we provide after the project is finished and occupied. Whether it is a problem that has developed that needs to be reviewed or just helpful advice on adding building systems, we make ourselves available to help. This post-occupancy contact with our buildings has also given us a great insight into what is performing well over time and what is not, which is information that allows us to provide our clients with the detailed information to provide the best design choices possible. PROJECT COLLABORATION WEBSITE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 342 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 7 DESIGN TO REDUCE TOXIN EXPOSURE CNH Architects and our design team are also keenly aware of the growing data on firefighter health concerns. We will share strategies we have developed and incorporated in other fire stations to reduce exposures to harmful chemicals, whether originating in the station or brought back from emergency calls. We have analyzed national studies and collaborated with regional experts to develop a comprehensive approach to toxin reduction in all our fire station buildings. CNH presented our recommendations at an attendee workshop at previous Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Conventions. The floor plan diagrams below show one of the aspects we evaluate in new or remodeled fire stations. Also of prime importance is the careful design of the HVAC systems to prevent cross-contamination between zones as well as ramped exhaust from “Hot” zones and positive pressure in “Cold” zones. While carcinogen reduction is critical, we will also focus on other protective measures to improve firefighter health and safety. These including minimizing the negative impacts of the “startle response” caused by sudden alarm signals. To combat this, we recommend designing the station with ramped lighting and soft-start alerting tone paging systems to reduce heart rate spikes and long-term hearing impacts. CNH will also incorporate a fitness area, including both strength training and cardiovascular health equipment for improved firefighter physical conditioning. Hot - High Hazard Zone Transition - Moderate Hazard Zone Cold - Low Hazard Zone SECOND FLOOR CONCEPT PLAN - ZONING FIRST FLOOR CONCEPT PLAN - ZONING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 343 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 38 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY THROUGH DESIGN Operational efficiency can take many forms, most of which can be directly impacted by the building design. CNH Architects and our design team offer significant expertise to maximize the efficiency potential of each new fire station. Some of these are items commonly associated with operational efficiency such as energy conservation and lifecycle cost analysis, while others unique to our project team address firefighter training opportunities or elements that specifically address recruiting and retention of quality firefighters. Because a municipal facility represents the investment of tax dollars, CNH Architects understands the importance of providing a design that will provide value in as many ways as possible and for many decades to come. INCORPORATION OF FIRE SERVICES TRAINING INTO FACILITY Designing fire training opportunities into fire stations is a concept that has been adopted by fire department leaders and architects. This “new generation” of fire stations are functional, affordable, durable, sustainable and educational. Incorporating on-site fire training into the new facility is a customized approach developed in conjunction with the building design and project budget. The first step is to complete a training Needs Assessment with the department training committee and potentially include other vested organizations such as law enforcement and local colleges. There are many benefits to providing training feature opportunities within the design of a fire station building. These include reduced external training costs, increased training availability, maintaining fire fighter availability for calls during training sessions instead of leaving the service area, as well as improve fire fighter recruiting for the department. Our recent fire stations have included training capabilities allowing fire fighters to work on 11 of the 12 Fire Fighter I certification requirements, essentially everything except for live burns. Many facilities also include some advanced training features as well. Some of the typical items often included are: • Ladder evolutions, both at windows and balconies • Rescue scenarios • Confined space drills • Stairway hose advancement • Floor breach exercises • Rappelling and tripod exercises PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAINING FEATURES 344 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 9 After obtaining this information, the team will establish a priority list of training elements and look for opportunities both interior and exterior. At a minimum, the department should adopt a “Basic Training” mentality and consider the following fundamentals: • Ground Ladder Training / Evolutions • Confined Space Rescue • Hose Advancement / Stairwell Evolutions • Search + Rescue • Rappelling • Salvage Operations • High Angle Rescue • Fire Attack • Elevators • Fire Suppression • Search Line Survival Training Incorporation of training features into the building and site has shown to provide significant cost, staffing and training efficiencies to past clients in several ways. First, this approach allows firefighters to update their fire training experience while remaining at the station and available to respond to emergency calls. There are no fees to train at other off-site locations and firefighter time is saved by not traveling away from the Fire House. As an example, the Roseville Fire Station incorporated training elements to allow for recertification on 11 of the 12 required Firefighter I skills, everything except live burns. PLANNING FOR A CHANGING FIRE DEPARTMENT The previous operational efficiencies provide savings from day one, but the future can bring even more costly impacts than the daily savings lost by not including energy use reductions or firefighter training elements. These costs are represented by the implications of NOT planning for the changes that will come during the decades the Fire Station is intended to serve the community. While we do not have the proverbial “crystal ball” to see clearly what will occur in the next 20 to 50 years, there are design approaches to be discussed and incorporated that will provide the flexibility, growth and adjustments that will maximize the ability for the facility and site to adapt to anticipated and sometimes even unexpected changes. CNH Architects and our design team has worked with many local fire departments. We have seen failures in facilities to address change, but more importantly, we will discuss the many creative ways fire departments are approaching the challenges that are to come. These approaches can include planning for adaptations as the City’s makeup changes, supporting departments with recruitment and retention goals, or the flexibility in firefighter scheduling. Each of these approaches represent just a few of the topics that may be anticipated in years to come. All of these topics have impacts that if considered during the initial design, can allow for flexibility in use of the original fire house, appropriate opportunity for expansion without major cost, or even the ability to extend the usable life of the building in later decades. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 345 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES VISUALIZATION AND VIRTUAL REALITY CNH Architects believes that graphic visualizations are one of the most important ways to explore and understand a project’s design with the client. While for some there is a tendency to embrace technology as an end in itself, our approach is that technology only has the value inherent in its ability to strengthen the communication with the client and improve the visual development of the project design. With this goal in mind, CNH Architects uses Revit, the leading Building Information Modeling (BIM) software, to create 3-D models of all project designs from schematic options to final construction documents. These visualization tools build excitement with their realistic imaging of interior or exterior views but can also study the use of different building materials, natural daylighting, or the views between or around spaces. We have added the capability to visualize this BIM model in virtual reality, allowing the client and design team to explore the architectural design together in an informal setting through live control of a walk-through, either on screen or connected to a visual reality headset. For formal presentations, exterior fly-by and interior walk-through videos can be created presenting the design in ways quickly visualized by city officials or shared to the public. During the schematic design phase, the use of the images and video from the BIM model provides the opportunity for the client to make decisions regarding multiple design options or future phases of a facility master plan with more visual information than possible with limited renderings or two-dimensional plans and elevations. Actual material colors and textures can be applied, and several variations evaluated, assisting the Owner and design team in the Design Development phase. The images developed have also shown to be very valuable when presenting the selected design to committees, stakeholders, and public agencies when approvals are required, or excitement generated. 346 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 11 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING347 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 312 PROJECT ARCHITECT BROOKE JACOBSON INTERIOR DESIGN ASHLEY KLIS MECHANICAL STEVE SCHREURS & BILL KOSANKI ELECTRICAL JAY HRUBY & CLIFF CHANG PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT QUINN HUTSON STRUCTURAL DOUG HUGHES CIVIL MATT WOODRUFF LANDSCAPE AMY BOWER COST ESTIMATE DOUG HOLMBERG PROJECT TEAM COLLABORATION Along with a talented multi-disciplinary team of professionals, CNH Architects brings a strong reputation for well-designed projects and personal attention to client requirements. The team has a long history of working together on public safety building design, including CNH Architects’ recent fire station projects as indicated in the matrix table below. Based on this extensive long-term collaboration experience, these firms under CNH’s leadership have fully developed coordination and design processes to efficiently and thoroughly support the overall project from schematic design through project occupancy. Architect Mech/Elec Civil/Struct Landscape Cost Est Eagan Fire Station #1 Eagan Fire Station #4 Lino Lakes Fire Station #2 Mendota Heights Fire Station Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3 Study n/a n/a Roseville Fire Station ORGANIZATIONAL CHART DESIGN TEAM From this project’s beginning, our highly experienced team will be assembled under Quinn Hutson, who will be the Principal / Project Architect leading all aspects of the Plymouth Fire Stations 2 & 3 project from design through construction administration. He will assure that all elements are addressed, each creative idea can be expressed, questions are answered, and the process proceeds smoothly from start to finish. Quinn brings over 35 years of experience leading design teams, has a history working with the team members, and a reputation for developing strong client communications. Specific to this project, Quinn’s experience includes decades of work in governmental and fire department facilities, resulting in a strong understanding of city and fire department operations as well as the public review and governmental approval processes. Quinn will be the main point of contact with the City of Plymouth staff for all aspects of the project. CITY OF PLYMOUTH CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 348 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 13 Brooke Jacobson as Associate Principal / Architect will bring extensive experience in construction projects and will lead the in-house production process. Brooke has been an integral part of CNH’s fire station design staff from the beginning with a strong understanding of fire station flow and training element options. She will also lead the team work schedule and coordinate the team members’ efforts. As one of CNH’s management, Brooke is directly responsible for the use and integration of technology within our practice and between all team disciplines. Specifically, she will direct the use of 3-D BIM software as an opportunity to communicate the project documents to the City, stakeholders and public. The head of our interior design department, Ashley Klis, will be responsible for developing the interior feel of each of the different elements of the new fire station, matching the specific personality and aesthetic direction derived from the Fire Department and city staff. Ashley’s calm and creative approach working with each client group leads to comfortable private spaces and professional operational areas. She will also work with the City to coordinate system and freestanding furniture to maximize efficiency and coordinate the finishes within each space. Directing the mechanical and electrical design for this project will be Principal Engineer of Engineering Design Initiative (EDI) Jay Hruby and Director of Mechanical Design Steve Schreurs. Assisting in leading each discipline will be Bill Kosanki and Cliff Chang. EDI brings extensive experience in fire station facility design and has been a key part of CNH’s public safety team from the earliest projects. Steve and Bill will compare and validate the best combination of energy sources and HVAC systems for firefighter health, building comfort as well as minimizing energy use. They will review connection requirements for all specialty fire station equipment as well as have significant input on sustainable design opportunities. EDI’s commitment to sustainable, balanced design will continue as Jay and Cliff work to develop energy saving lighting and power strategies. Further, Jay will lead the electrical team in selection and coordination of fire department lighting and alerting systems to be incorporated into your station. Matt Woodruff, Civil Engineer and Department Manager at Larson Engineering, will provide input on pavement, apparatus circulation, grading issues and utilities as they impact each fire station concept design and budget. Matt will review the traffic information, addressing both the firefighter response to the site as well apparatus safety leaving for a call. Also from Larson Engineering, the structural design will be directed by Doug Hughes, the Structural Department Manager. Doug will evaluate the best structural systems for the goals and spans proposed for this project as well as use his past fire station experience in managing the unique loading of training elements that will be considered in this fire station. Landscape architects from Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGi), led by Landscape Architect Amy Bower, will facilitate the landscape design for the new fire station, ensuring that the design includes low impact, sustainable materials to create a healthy environment for the station. HKGi’s landscape architects and planners share their design expertise and passion with clients striving to create quality places and facilities. Professional Project Management (PPM) is an independent cost consultant who is developing cost analysis for construction projects on a daily basis. Doug Holmberg, cost estimator with PPM, will provide the City with cost estimates at schematic design development and construction document phases that reflect the most current construction conditions and the goals of the Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 project. In addition to this list of key team members and roles, CNH Architects and the consultants on our team will provide sufficient additional staff support to efficiently meet the project needs and timeline. PROJECT TEAM 349 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 314 PROJECT TEAM QUINN S. HUTSON AIA, LEED AP, NCARB Principal Architect CNH ARCHITECTS As principal in the firm, Quinn leads the public safety design for CNH Architects, working with many fire stations across the area. In addition, he will lead all sustainability efforts for this project. His projects have been recognized by regional and national organizations. REGISTRATION Professional Architect, MN and CO; Certified Interior Designer, MN; LEED Accredited Professional SELECT PROJECTS • ABLE Fire Training Center |Burnsville • City of Bloomington, MN • South Loop Fire Station Study • City of Eagan, MN • Emergency Services Facility Remodel • City Hall / Police Department Space Needs and Concept Design Study • Fire Station #1 • Fire Station #2 Remodel • Fire Station #3 Remodel • Fire Station #4 Addition & Remodel • Fire Station - District Station Study • City of Lino Lakes • Fire House #2 Site Selection, Space Needs and Concept Design Study • Fire House #2 • Public Works Study • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of Roseville, MN • Roseville Fire Station • City of Plymouth, MN • Fire Station #2 & #3 Study BROOKE JACOBSON LEED AP, CDT Architect, Firm Associate CNH ARCHITECTS As Project Architect, Brooke will assist the Principal Architect tracking Depart- ment goals throughout the project. She will lead the internal team to develop complete, well coordinated docu- ments. Brooke also will lead the team’s visual communication efforts, directing the 3-D walk-through and graphical presentation information. REGISTRATION Professional Architect, MN; Construction Document Technologist; LEED Accredited Professional SELECT PROJECTS • ABLE Fire Training Center |Burnsville • City of Bloomington • South Loop Fire Station & Park Study • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #1 • Fire Station #4 Addition & Remodel • Fire Station #4 Dorm Remodel • Fire Station - District Station Study • City of Lino Lakes • Fire House #2 Site Selection, Space Needs and Concept Design Study • Fire House #2 • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of Roseville, MN • Roseville Fire Station • City of Plymouth, MN • Fire Station #2 & #3, Space Needs and Concept Design Study 350 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 15 PROJECT TEAM JAY S. HRUBY PE Principal, Electrical Engineer ENGINEERING DESIGN INITIATIVE, LTD. Jay has committed a large percentage of his electrical engineering career to the promotion of energy conservation and sustainability within his designs of commercial, industrial, educational and public safety buildings. REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer in MN, IA, MT, MI, WI, ND, SD, WA and WY SELECT PROJECTS: • ABLE Fire Training Center |Burnsville • City of Burnsville, MN • Fire Station #1 Humidity Assessment • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #1 - New Facility • Fire Station #4 - Addition & Remodel • City Hall / Police Space Needs and Schematic Design Study • City of Lino Lakes, MN • Fire Station #2 • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of Minneapolis, MN • Remodel & Upgrades (10 Fire Stations) • Building Automation System Installation (13 Fire Stations) • Apparatus Bay Gas Sensor Study (19 Fire Stations) • City of Plymouth, MN • Fire Station #2 & #3, Space Needs and Concept Design Study • City of Roseville, MN • Roseville Fire Station PHENG (CLIFF) CHANG EIT Electrical Engineer ENGINEERING DESIGN INITIATIVE, LTD. Pheng is dedicated to providing energy efficient designs that are intuitive to op- erate for all his commercial and public projects. He is experienced at incor- porating lighting and communications technologies to meet the unique chal- lenges of fire station buildings. SELECT PROJECTS • ABLE Fire Training Center |Burnsville • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #4 - Addition & Remodel • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of Minneapolis, MN • 300 Boarder Station • Currie Truck Wash Bay • Fire Station #1 OPR • Fire Station #1 OPR - Design • Fire Station #7 Rooftop Unit Replacement • Fire Station #15 Boiler • Hennepin County Ridgedale Sheriff’s Office Holding Expansion |Minnetonka • Metro Transit 677 Transfer Road |St. Paul ASHLEY KLIS CID, LEED AP ID+C Interior Designer CNH ARCHITECTS Ashley is head of our Interior Design department and has significant public and private industry experience. She excels at communicating and capturing clients’ vision for each project. REGISTRATION Certified Interior Designer, LEED AP ID+C SELECT PROJECTS • Berean Baptist Church Campus 3 |Inver Grove Heights • City of Apple Valley, MN • City Hall Remodel • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #4 - Addition & Remodel • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • Flint Hills Resources Café |Rosemount* • North Dakota State Capitol Café |Bismarck, ND* • Prince of Peace Lutheran Church |Burnsville* • Rochester Senior Center |Rochester* • St. Jude Medical |Plymouth* * While working with previous firm 351 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 316 PROJECT TEAM DOUGLAS R. HUGHES PE Structural Engineer LARSON ENGINEERING, INC. With over three decades of practical experience in the field of structural en- gineering, Doug has a keen eye for de- tail and understands industry demands and the importance of teamwork in project development. He is knowledge- able of code requirements and uses a variety of materials in his commercial, municipal and industrial facilities de- signs. REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer in MN and WI SELECT PROJECTS • City of Eagan, MN • Central Maintenance Facility Remodel and New Buildings • Fire Station #1 - New Facility • Fire Station #4 - Addition & Remodel • City of Lino Lakes, MN • Fire Station #2 • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of St. Cloud, MN • Fire Station No. 1 • Fire Station No. 3 • Melrose Area Hospital |Melrose • St. Louis County Jail |Duluth BILL KOSANKI Mechanical Designer ENGINEERING DESIGN INITIATIVE, LTD. Bill is dedicated to the promotion of energy conservation and sustainability. His designs include historical, educa- tional, correctional, institutional and commercial buildings. Bill is very ex- perienced maximizing hot-cold zone separations and providing contaminate removal from key areas in fire station design. SELECT PROJECTS: • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #1 - New Facility • Fire Station #4 - Addition & Remodel • City of Lino Lakes, MN • Fire Station #2 • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of Minneapolis, MN • Fire Station #14 Cooling System Replacement • Police Department Third Precinct * • City of Roseville, MN • Roseville Fire Station • City of Rosemount • Fire Station * • Buerkle Honda Addition |Vadnais Heights * While working with another firm STEVE SCHREURS PE, LEED AP Mechanical Engineer ENGINEERING DESIGN INITIATIVE, LTD. Steve has over thirty years experience in mechanical equipment and system design for industrial, commercial, insti- tutional and electric power plant facili- ties. This experience includes a strong focus on highly-efficient systems that provide a high level of occupant com- fort. REGISTRATION Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer in MN, MT, WI, IA, IL, NE, OH, WY, WA SELECT PROJECTS: • City of Eagan • Fire Station #1 - New Facility • Fire Station #4 - Addition & Remodel • City of Lino Lakes, MN • Fire Station #2 • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • City of Minneapolis, MN • Fire Station #1 Predesign • Douglas County Government Center Building Evaluation |Alexandria • GSA Minneapolis Federal Office Building Fire Safety Improvements |Minneapolis 352 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 17 PROJECT TEAM DOUG HOLMBERG PE President, Cost Estimator PROFESSIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PPM) Doug has 38 years of experience in a variety of project types for both public and private clients. He has a dual degree in Construction Engineering and Environmental Engineering and holds an MBA degree. REGISTRATION Registered Professional Cost Estimator SELECT PROJECTS • City of Lino Lakes, MN • Public Works Facility Office, Maintenance, Vehicle Storage Renovation & Expansion • Fire Station #2 • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #1 |New Facility • Fire Station #4 |Addition & Remodel • City Hall / Police Space Needs and Schematic Design Study • City of Maplewood, MN • Fire Station: DD and SD Phases • City of Mahtomedi, MN • Fire Station & City Hall Expansion, Options 5 and 1 • Fire Station & City Hall Expansion, Option 1 • City of Bloomington, MN • South Loop Fire Station Study • City of Roseville, MN • Fire Station AMY BOWER PLA Landscape Architect HKGI Amy has two decades of experience developing plans, site designs, con- struction documentation and construc- tion administration for public spaces. In addition, she is skilled at working with clients and stakeholders during the de- sign process, ensuring their input and needs are addressed during final de- sign and implementation. REGISTRATION Landscape Architect, MN SELECT PROJECTS • City of Blaine, MN • City Offices Landscape Site Design • City of Bloomington, MN • Civic Plaza Site Design and Construction • Cemetery Colombarium Addition Design and Construction • South Loop Fire Station & Park Site Study • City of Burnsville, MN • Parking Ramp Site Design • City of Eagan, MN • Fire Station #4 • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station Site Design • Lakeville Area Arts Center Site Design |Lakeville • Old Shakopee Road/France Avenue Streetscape Design |Bloomington MATT WOODRUFF PE Civil Department Manager LARSON ENGINEERING, INC. Matt Woodruff offers a wide variety of civil engineering experience including site design, municipal roadway and util- ity design, and design of storm water management facilities. Matt has exten- sive knowledge of local agency code requirements and design standards. REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer in MN, WI, ND, SD SELECT PROJECTS • Anoka County Highway Department |Andover • City of Eagan, MN • Central Maintenance Facility Remodel and New Buildings • Fire Station #1 - New Facility • City of Mendota Heights, MN • Fire Station • Anoka Technical College |Anoka • 2011 Parking Lot Reconstruction • 2012 West Entrance Improvements • Century College |White Bear Lake & Mahtomedi • 2010 Concrete Sidewalk Rehabilitation • 2011 East Campus - North Roadway Rehabilitation • 2011 West Campus - Parking Lot M Rehabilitation • University of Minnesota |Minneapolis • 4th Street Residence Hall Civil Site Design 353 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 318 PROJECT EXPERIENCE FIRE STATION DESIGN FOCUS CNH Architects and the members of our public safety design team are experienced and dedicated to the design of state-of-the-art fire stations. We research national trends as they develop, explore operational and design efficiencies within our fire station designs, and share this expertise with the broader fire service including lecturing at the MSFCA annual convention. We have worked with fire departments all around the Twin Cities metropolitan area providing fire station and site selection studies, additions and remodeling of existing fire stations, as well as many all new fire station facilities. The following is a list of projects within the last 10 years. ABLE Burn Building - Burnsville City of Apple Valley, MN Fire Station #1 - ALF Addition Fire Station #2 Fire Station #3 City of Bloomington, MN South Loop Fire Station & Park Study City of Eagan Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 Remodel Fire Station #3 Remodel Fire Station #4 Addition & Remodel Fire Station - Consolidated Station Design Fire Station - District Station Study City of Lino Lakes Fire Station City of Mendota Heights Fire Station Addition & Remodel City of Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3 Space Needs and Concept Design City of Roseville Fire Station CONSTRUCTION MANAGER PARTNERSHIP The Construction Management project delivery approach is a valuable method of building fire station projects - one that CNH Architects regularly recommends to our municipal clients. CNH’s collaborative project approach fits well with the incorporation of a Construction Manager throughout the design and construction process and we are pleased that the City of Plymouth is using this construction approach for the Fire Station 2 & 3 project. We feel that a Construction Manager will provide value during the design process providing additional cost estimating and general experience in construction systems. The Construction Manager approach is even more beneficial during the construction phase by having a team of construction personnel daily involved in the project and on site with the best interest of the City of Plymouth and the Plymouth Fire Department in mind. CNH Architects has worked with many of the local Construction Management firms that have experience in the fire station market including CPMI, Kraus Anderson, Terra Construction, and Wenck. 354 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 19 PROJECT EXPERIENCE ROSEVILLE FIRE STATION | Roseville, MN The Roseville Fire Station is a new facility that consolidates three former stations and the fire administration into a single location. To fit into the tight city government campus site of one of the former stations, special attention was given to apparatus turning radius and zoning of fire department circulation, public parking, and pedestrian paths, as well as other city staff operations, all with safety in mind. The fire station includes six apparatus bays, office, support functions and dormitories. State of the art training features are designed into the building, allowing fire fighters to do almost all of their recertification training on site. In addition the project focuses on sustainable design principles, including a shared heat loop from the adjacent ice arena. The system provides 100% of the fire station’s heating needs, significantly benefiting the occupants, citizens and environment. Project Challenge: The Roseville Fire Department decided to consolidate all their operations into a single facility and place it on the main city campus. This resulted in a very tight site with significant public and city staff traffic in the area as well as a regional bike and pedestrian path along the apparatus exit frontage. Our design focused on zoning the building and site to create clearly identified circulation, separation of emergency traffic, and custom warning signals all to maximize firefighter and public safety. AWARDS Nationally awarded top project in New Volunteer/Combined Station Category of the 2014 Station Design Awards by Firehouse Magazine. Named as a Top Project of 2013 by Finance & Commerce. Projects were judged for their degree of difficulty, cre- ativity in design, innovative construction techniques, and sustainability efforts. INNOVATIONCOMPLETED 2013 PROJECT COST $9,000,000 AREA 38,000 SF PROJECT ARCHITECT Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects REFERENCE Tim O’Neill, Chief, Roseville Fire Department 651-792-7305 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Wenck (formerly Bossardt Corp.) 355 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 320 PROJECT EXPERIENCE EAGAN FIRE STATION #1 - SITE SELECTION & DESIGN | Eagan, MN Designed for the Eagan Fire Department, Fire Station #1 replaces two older fire stations in a centralized location with quick access to this portion of the service area. The 16,500 square foot walk-out facility includes five apparatus bays on the lower level. Centrally located off the bays are the turnout gear lockers, decontamination, and support equipment storage, all of which are carefully designed to remove contaminants from the air brought back on vehicles, protective gear and equipment. The remainder of the first floor includes training rooms, offices, dispatch and wellness rooms. The firefighter living quarters including dayroom, kitchen, dining, dorms and laundry are arranged on the upper level between bays separated for air quality and quiet. CNH Architects designed an exterior building image incorporating a central tower, lighted Maltese cross and clock elements, and a special “thin red line” lighting accent to memorialize all fallen firefighters. The site design includes a curved sign wall facing the main intersection capped by a tall flagpole. The goal was to create a landmark image within the community. In the initial study for this facility, CNH Architects assisted the City of Eagan in evaluating multiple potential station sites, presenting the benefits and liabilities of each for staff and Council review. After the City Council selected the proposed site, we developed a full schematic design to determine image and provide a detailed cost estimate. Project Challenge: As the consolidation of two smaller existing fire stations, Station #1 required careful site evaluation and selection to appropriately address the larger coverage area. Also inherent in a consolidation and closing of the old stations was the careful integration of the concerns and history of each station’s staff. CNH Architects started the evaluation with two studies spanning several years until the perfect site was identified and consensus was formed. COMPLETED 2017 PROJECT COST $4,700,000 AREA 16,500 SF PROJECT ARCHITECT Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects REFERENCE Mike Scott, Chief, Eagan Fire Department 651-675-5901 mscott@cityofeagan.com 356 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 21 PROJECT EXPERIENCE EAGAN FIRE STATION #4 - ADDITION & REMODEL | Eagan, MN CNH Architects provided a complete facility assessment of existing Fire Station #4 for the City of Eagan. This study evaluated the existing condition of fire station exterior envelope and all interior elements to determine their life expectancy and repair costs. The facility was also reviewed for ADA accessibility, identifying deficiencies and recommended upgrades. In addition, the facility was evaluated for function, current staff and equipment needs, and finally fire fighter safety. From this review, CNH developed a list of recommended remodeling elements and an expansion to better fit the current apparatus and to expand gear locker clearance to meet NFPA safety standards. The final design of the facility improvements emerged from these recommendations. Project Challenge: Most notably, this project was an addition and remodeling to an existing station done by a low-bid contractor that required additional attention. CNH Architects believes that the construction administration phase is as important as the design phase and was on site regularly to represent the City of Eagan, verifying that the quality construction expected by our team was provided.ASSESSMENTCOMPLETED 2015 PROJECT COST $1,300,000 AREA 7,100 SF PROJECT ARCHITECT Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects REFERENCE Mike Scott, Eagan Fire Chief, 651-675-5901, mscott@cityofeagan.com 357 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 322 PROJECT EXPERIENCE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE STATION | Mendota Heights, MN The addition and remodeling upgrades to the Mendota Heights Fire Station will provide an up-to-date functioning fire station that will meet the needs of the Fire Department well into the future. Providing a separate, dedicated space for Turnout Gear with direct connections to firefighter parking and Apparatus Bays will help shorten response times and provide more room in the Apparatus Bays for apparatus and response. Grouping dedicated decontamination areas together in the support spaces that are separate from the Apparatus Bays will help with overall firefighter health and reducing carcinogen exposure. The administrative functions were moved to the north addition to provide more space and better separation from the decontaminated areas as well as separating the public and firefighter traffic to not disrupt response times. Project Challenge: As the only fire station serving the City of Mendota Heights, one of the most important goals of this current project was to develop a station expansion and remodeling design that would allow phasing of the construction in such a way to minimize disruption to the operating fire department. The resulting design provides for an addition that will be built first and then occupied while the remodeling is completed, maintaining essential operations throughout. ANTICIPATED COMPLETION 2020 PROJECT COST $6,806,000 AREA 27,500 SF PROJECT ARCHITECT Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects REFERENCE Dave Dreelan, Chief, Mendota Heights Fire Department 651-485-2272 mscott@cityofeagan.com CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CPMI 358 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 23 PROJECT EXPERIENCE LINO LAKES FIRE STATION - SITE SELECTION & STATION DESIGN | Lino Lakes, MN CNH Architects worked closely with the City of Lino Lakes to locate and then build a new fire station. The first step was an in-depth study to determine and evaluate potential sites. The review included drive time analysis, apparatus access and safety, site constructability and the comparative total project cost at each site. CNH Architects then led extensive discussions with the City’s design committee to review operational approaches, apparatus needs, on-site training options, and firefighter social activities as well as support space needs, from which a detailed space needs assessment was developed. The new 13,000 sf fire station has 3 double deep drive through apparatus bays. Other spaces include offices, classroom/ EOC, dayroom, kitchen and apparatus support spaces. Extensive training features were designed into the facility, including ladder rescue, floor breach, confined space rescue, search and rescue with cold smoke and maze, wet training tower with standpipe, and interior/exterior rappelling options. Durable and attractive materials such as brick, decorative cast concrete masonry units, and high performance coatings were used inside and out. The high-efficiency boiler, in-floor heat, daylighting, highly insulated envelope, low VOC materials and coatings, and LED lighting throughout are significant sustainable design features that will save operational costs and add comfort to the facility. Project Challenge: Due to a change in service model that included a hard deadline for the new station to be operational, the site selection, station design and construction needed to meet a very aggressive schedule. To ensure that this timeline was met, CNH started the project with a detailed critical path schedule exercise looking for areas where efficiencies could be found as well as calculating the project phases to avoid expensive winter construction impacts. SUSTAINABILITY COMPLETED 2016 PROJECT COST $3,900,000 AREA 13,000 SF PROJECT ARCHITECT Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects REFERENCE John Swenson, Public Safety Director, City of Lino Lakes 651-982-2300 john.swenson@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us 359 Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 324 FEE Based on the information contained in the Request for Proposal for Architectural Services for Fire Station 2 & 3 for the City of Plymouth, MN, CNH Architects proposes the following fees and reimbursable costs. This fee is based on the architectural and engineering services described in the RFP and includes the work scope defined in this proposal. The following fees are based on the two fire station designs and constructions occurring simultaneously under a single bid and construction process. PHASE 1: SCHEMATIC DESIGN This phase includes all kickoff, community engagement, and schematic design architectural services for the new Fire Station 2 building and the expansion and remodeling of Fire Station 3. For this Architectural Service we propose a flat fee of $119,100 plus reimbursable expenses incurred to a maximum reimbursable amount of $3,500. PHASE 2: FINAL CONSTRUCTION This phase includes all design development, construction documents, bidding,and construction administration architectural design services for the new Fire Station 2 building and the expansion and remodeling of Fire Station 3. For this Architectural Service we propose a flat fee of $674,900 plus reimbursable expenses incurred to a maximum reimbursable amount of $7,500. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Printing and Plotting Postage and Shipping Service Mileage CONTRACT AGREEMENT CNH Architects recommends and assumes a standard American Institute of Architechts (AIA) Owner-Architect Agreement will be signed for this project. For more than 100 years, the AIA has been developing standard forms and agreements for use on design and construction projects. AIA uses representatives ranging from owners, architects, contractors, attorneys, and insurance agents to develop AIA documents. On behalf of CNH Architects and our entire team, thank you for the opportunity to propose on the Plymouth Fire Station 2 & 3 project. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the City, staff and Fire Department to provide fire station facilities to meet your needs for many decades to come. Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. 360 CNH ARCHITECTS FIRE STATION #2 & #3February 2020361 Who We Are P ROJECT TEAM Principal Architect Quinn Hutson, AIA LEED AP Associate Principal Architect Brooke Jacobson, AIA LEED APPlymouth Fire Station #2 & #3Principal Engineer Jay Hruby, PE 362 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PROJECT TEAM CNH Architects Construction Manager EDI Larson Engineering HKGI PPM Steve Schreurs, PE Jay Hruby, PE Doug Hughes, PE Matt Woodruff, PE Amy Bower, PLA Doug Holmberg, PE Quinn Hutson, AIA Brooke Jacobson, AIA Ashley Klis, CID Mech/Elec Structural/Civil Landscape Estimating 363 PAST PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS Comprehensive Programs Firefighter Health Site Challenges Critical Timelines Award Winning Designs Response / Training Technology Training Components Energy Efficiency Life Cycle Costs Building Zoning Traffic & Circulation Public Image Remembrance / History Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #302 364 STATION DESIGN EXPERTISE 02 Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3NFPA Station Design Standards Fire Department / EOC Communications Training & Recertification Features 365 STATION DESIGN EXPERTISE Firefighter Health Physical & Mental Health Sound Isolation- Relaxation / Sleep Startle Response Reduction Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3366 STATION DESIGN EXPERTISE Firefighter Health – Carcinogen Reduction Fire Station Zoning Mechanical Elements Design & Equipment Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #302 367 Experienced LEED APs are leaders in sustainable architecture Balance Sustainability Goals with Budget Most Cost-Effective Sustainable Options More Than Energy Savings: Improved Occupant Experience, Health, & Productivity SUSTAINABLE DESIGN APPROACH Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3368 STATION #2 Station replacement determined to be best value Opportunity to meet today’s standards and future growth Operational during construction Improve response time Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3CONCEPT DESIGN 369 STATION #3 Remodel and addition determined to be best value Creatively designed to address all moisture issues at low cost Opportunity to meet today’s standards and future growth Operational during construction Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3CONCEPT DESIGN 370 20 Roseville Fire Station 371 20 Roseville Fire Station 372 20 Roseville Fire Station 373 20 Lino Lakes Fire Station 374 20 Lino Lakes Fire Station 375 20 Eagan Fire Station #1 376 20 Eagan Fire Station #1 377 20 Eagan Fire Station #4 378 20 Eagan Fire Station #4 379 TEAM VALUE Client-Focused Approach Principal-Led Throughout Experienced Public Safety Team Detail-Oriented Engaged Representation Availability Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #302 380 FIRE STATION EXPERIENCE Plymouth Fire Station #2 & #3381 November 2019 Develop Architect PFP/RFQDecember 2019 Interview Architects (Staff)January 2020 Interview and Select Architect (Council)February 2020 Develop RFP for Construction Manager with ArchitectMarch 2020 Select Construction Manager (Staff/Architect)March ‐ April ‐ 2020 Schematic Design & EstimateApril ‐ May ‐ 2020 Design Development Estimate May ‐ June ‐ 2020 Discuss CIP Bond Process ‐ Hold Public HearingMay ‐ June ‐ 2020 Fire Station Open HousesJune ‐ Nov ‐ 2020 Construction Document DevelopmentNovember 2020 Construction Document Estimate (Council)Nov ‐ Dec 2020 Bid Document Development Nov ‐ Dec 2020 Approve Bid Documents (Council)January 2021 Advertise For BidsFebruary 2021 Review Bids (Staff, Architect & CM) & Award Bid (Council)April 2021 Contractor MobilizationMay 2021 Construction BeginsJune 2021 Issue G.O. CIP BondsSeptember 2022 Construction EndsDraft Schedule ‐ Fire Station Projects382 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2020-079 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES WITH ARCHITECTURAL FIRM FOR PLYMOUTH FIRE STATION 2 AND 3 (PROJECT # FM-210014.001 & FM-210014.002) WHEREAS, the City would like to develop schematic design and construction services for Plymouth Fire Station 2 and 3; and WHEREAS, a request for proposal was sent to architectural firms that have expertise to deliver the project; and WHEREAS, proposals were received and evaluated by the City Council and city staff; and WHEREAS, City Council hereby designates CNHto be the architectural firm for this project. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to enter into agreement with CNH for the schematic design and construction services for the Plymouth Fire Station 2 and 3 (FM- 210014.004 and FM-210014.002) at an estimated cost of $805,000. APPROVED by the City Council on this 18th day of February, 2020. 383