Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-29-1997 SpecialSPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JULY 299 1997 Public Safety Training Room I. Shenandoah Townhomes Funding II. West Medicine Lake Park III. Ice Arena IV. Activity Center V. City Council Meeting Procedures and Schedule EZ1 Nti of CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: July 29, 1997 TO: Plymouth City Councilmembe s i From: Mayor Joy Tierney Subject: Request for City of Corcoran Information Former City Councilmember Chuck Lymangood last week requested a copy of information sent to me from Mayor Frank Larkin of Corcoran. This was information sent to the City for me following a conversation I had with Mayor Larkin at a State of the Cities Northwest Chamber of Commerce meeting April 8th. He apparently has not had anyone address him or the council in such a manner before, and was uncertain as to how to interpret Mr. Lymongood's behavior at their council's March 27th (and other council meetings as I understand). He thought maybe I had some insights. The City did not keep a copy of this information and letter. Staff sent in on to me without copying the City Council. Since a copy has now been requested, I feel it is appropriate for the current council to receive a copy as well. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions - 473-1681. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 27, 1997 U CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Larkin called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Members present were: Mayor Larkin and City Councilors: Dixie Lindsley, Ernie Mayers, and Ken Kluck. Member Excused: Ken Guenthner. Also present: City Clerk Stacy Doboszenski, City Planner Gary Eitel, Police Officer John Hamilton, and Road Department Employees Bob Krei and Pat Meister. There were approximately 25 people in attendance at the meeting. SET AGENDA The agenda was set with the following changes: The Discussion on Ordinance for Meeting and Agenda Procedures was pulled from the Agenda Sewer Task Force Committee Report added under "Other Business" Discussion on Tires for the Road Grader added under "Other Business" Request by New Life Christian Center added under "Other Business" POLICE UNIONIZATION Mayor Larkin informed that Council that the Police Department is unionizing and that there needs to be a representative appointed from Corcoran. Mayor Larkin appointed Councilor Lindsley to represent the City. OPEN FORUM The following people addressed the Council during the Open Forum: Bill Halverstadt. 6420 Old Settlers Road Mr. Halverstadt was present to inform the Council of a problem he is having with a culvert on his property. The Council directed the Public Works staff to look into it. Chuck Lymangood Chuck Lymangood was present to request that he is given the results of the secret ballots for the vote on the Planning Commission alternate member and the Sewer Task Force Committee members. Frank explained his position and shared that he voted for Bill Glowacki for the Planning Commission. He then explained that these are advisory committees, they do not make policy. There was then a discussion between Mr. Lymangood and members of the council on whether or not they felt comfortable sharing who they voted for. Mr. Lymangood then requested that he be given copies, immediately, of all written materials the Council has received for the meeting. He was handed the "House" packet. He also requested copies of what was given to the Council in addition to the packet, and if he was denied those copies, he requested that the Council adjourn the meeting. He was informed that copies could be provided for him on Friday. No further action was taken. PAIGE PETERSON - QUESTIONS REGARDING SIX PROPERTIES ANNEXED TO MAPLE GROVE Ms. Peterson was present to discuss the annexation of six properties with the City Council. Ms. Peterson requested clarification of former Clerk/Administrator Bob Derus's letter regarding any future assessment to her property. There were also a few other property owners from Appaloosa Woods that questioned the annexation of six properties to Maple Grove and the rate at which 03/24/1997 09:17 6125570839 LYMANGOOD PAGE 03 March 24, 1997 Chuck Lymangood 11780 40th Place N. Plymouth, MN 55441 612-557-0839 fax Mayor Frank Larkin City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, NN 55340 Fax: 420-6056 VIA, FACSIMILE Dear Mayor Larkin, It is my understanding, the Corcoran City Council used a ballot process at their last meeting (March 12,1997) to appoint a planning commission alternate. I respectfully request, to know who each council member voted for on that ballet. Furthermore, it is my understanding that on your February 13, 1997 council meeting, written ballots were again used to appoint members to the sewer task force. Because of a tie vote on the first ballot, a second ballot was also used. I respectfully request to know who each council member voted for on both ballots. For convenience and expedience sa- ke, please *gait or fan me tEs finlor-oration. Sincerely, Chuck Lymangood cc: Ken Guenthner Dixie Lindsley 1 / t - , . - MAJOR ISSUES LIST Updates as of July 25, 1997 in BOLD Item Comment First or Next Offcial Action 1 Hans Hagen Development Neighborhood meeting was held June 3rd. Hagen has August 12th PC extended review deadline to Sept. 19th. 2 Gramercy Park New site plan received showing smaller building footprint, and August 26th PC more preservation of tree and wetland buffers. 3 Cellular antennas-Plymouth Middle School New application made for 132' antenna on commercial property to east. July 8 to PC US West to co-locate on this tower, if approved. Approved 7-23-97 4 Rottlund Development-Senior Housing New plan received with no single family homes. Plan submitted August 12th PC has insufficient parking. Senior Citizen complex still planned. 5 Town and Country-reguiding LA-2 vs. LA-3 Hearing postponed by applicant. ,Waiting for traffic study. August 12th PC Traffic Study underway for alternative site access points. 6 Shenandoah Apartment Complex Original proposal of 105 units re-designed to 64 units. August 6th CC Approved at Planning Commission. 7 Shenandoah Townhomes Financing Request Ordinance creating Housing Area passed June 18th. 45 day Study session on protest period started. Study session established for July 29th. July 29th 8 LifeTime Fitness/Plymouth Ice Arena Both indoor pools open at LifeTime. Second ice sheet open. Study session on Outdoor pool open. USA hockey tournament netted $19,000. July 29th 9 Activity Center Council approved RFP for architects on June 18th. Both School Approve architect District 281 and 284 expressed interest in a Family Resource Center in August 10 New High School/Peony Bridge Project Bridge complete except painting; road and utilitites by August 1 st Will be limited to two lanes until next year due to sewer settling. 11 Harbor Lane Street Reconstruction Bids received and under budget. Contract awarded May 28th Construction began July 7th. 12 Ridgemount Street Reconstruction Contract awarded June 18th. Construction began June 25th. 13 Vicksburg Street Reconstruction Project approved 6/4. Plans approved June 18. Bids received and Contracts awarded under estimate. 7/23/97 14 Zachary Lane Reconstruction Consultant selected June 18. Preliminary design and neighborhood meetings later in summer. 15 Cimmaron East Street Reconstruction Plans approved 5/28, assessment hearing and award on July 9th. Construction to begin about August 1st. 16 Parkers Lake industrial park-Lavander Loading docks too close to residential area. PC recommended August 26th PC denial. Applicant withdrew application and is resubmitting. 17 Ameridata Final agreements signed by all parties. Council approved May 28 Done 18 Parkers Lake Commercial Site Letter received from Mpis. Commercial buyer has withdrawn. August 12th PC Plan for assisted living for Alzheimers patients submitted. 19 New Moen Lauer project-36th Avenue Passed PC on May 13th. Interim use permit to stockpile dirt requested. Done Project approved June 4th. 20 Can-Do Zoning Violation Report made to Council May 28th. Staff believes Can-Do is still there. Approved 7-23-97 CUP application for new auto repair shop approved by PC. 22 Zoning Ordinance Updates Workshop with PC planned for early August Aug. 4th PC, 7 pm 23 Elim Homes Staff reviewing EAW. Publlc meeting at Sept. 9th PC. September 9 PC 24 Plymouth Ponds (Moen-Leuer) follow-up issues No action taken by Council July 9th. Application for outdoor Completed. trash containers has been approved. 25 US West-cellular tower at Co.Rd 9/Fembrook US West seeking to go on to an NSP tower instead of residential area. Application denied administratively. 26 Water shortage Usage has been a reasonable 13-15 million gallonstday since 6/15. Was 24 mgpd. 27 US West PCS tower at 15th & Xenium US West wishes to place a new 75' tower on their own property Application denied. rather than on nearby City water tower. Application denied 28 County Communciations Antenna-Workhouse County proposes a 330 foot tower at workhouse to replace existing September 9 PC antenna. Would have daytime "strobe" lights. An EAW is automatically required. Does not meet current zoning ordinance. EAW draft under review. Found to be Incomplete, returned to japplicant. No new dates set Agenda Number: > TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager FROM: Edward Goldsmith, HRA Supervisor through Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director PrOrI SUBJECT: Shenandoah Townhomes Housing Improvement Area DATE: July 24, 1997 for the Special City Council Meeting of July 31, 1997 At the City Council meeting of June 18`h, the Council adopted an ordinance establishing the Shenandoah Townhomes Housing Improvements Area and set July 29`h as the date for a Council study session to discuss the options identified for financing the proposed improvements. The options identified were discussed in a Council Report for June 4, 1997. A copy of this report is attached. A City Council report dated May 28, 1997, outlined five options for the City to facilitate financing of the housing improvements. Option 1 would establish the Housing Improvement Area with the City funding the full cost of the improvements, estimated to be $1,400,000. A fee would be. levied on each property to be billed and paid with their property taxes over a specified number of years to re -pay the City, with interest. Options 2, 3, and 4 would have the City or Housing and Redevelopment Authority provide a direct loan (Option 2), loan guarantee (Option 3) or debt service reserve (Option 4) to the homeowners association. The association would be responsible for repaying any funds provided by the City. Option 5 would establish the Housing Improvement Area as a back-up to a City loan guarantee or debt service reserve for a private third party loan to the homeowners association. If the association was unable to make its debt service payments to a private lender, the City would make the payments in accordance with the terms of the guarantee or reserve. If the association was unable to re -pay the City for its payments, the City would recoup its funds by levying fees through the Housing Improvement Area. Staff and the Homeowners Association have been discussing the financing with three financial institutions. In order to facilitate the discussion at the study session, each of the institutions have been asked to provide information regarding their positions relative to the various proposed financing options. If the financial institutions respond as requested, this information should be available to be discussed at the study session. The 45 -day period within which property owners in Shenandoah Woods may object to creation of the Housing Improvement Area will end on August 2. If objections are received from 35% or more of the residents of the housing units or 35% of the owners of the housing units, the ordinance will not become effective. Some objections have been received. SASE's Cafe, Page 2 If the ordinance becomes effective, the next step will be for the Shenandoah Homeowners Association to present a financial plan to the City that provides for the Association to finance their maintenance and operation, and a long-range plan to finance needed capital improvements. The City Council could then approve a financing plan and fees to be imposed on the homeowners in the area. No date for further Council action has been set at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. June 11 Staff Report g:\cd\plan\staffrep\cc\CC97\shenandoah.doc Agenda Number: TO: Dwight Johnson, RRAManager FROM: Edward Goldsmi, Supervisor through Anne HHurlburt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Setting the Date for a Public Hearing on the Establishment of a Housing Improvement Area for the Shenandoah Townhomes, Shenandoah First and Second Additions DATE: May 28, 1997 for the City Council Meeting of June 4, 1997 1. PROPOSED MOTION: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing June 18, 1997 as the date for a public hearing to accept input regarding petitions from homeowners in the Shenandoah First and Second Additions requesting that the City Council establish a Housing Improvement Area for the purpose of re -siding the homes in their development under Minnesota Statutes 428A. 2. BACKGROUND: The City has received petitions with 131 non -duplicated signatures that validly represent 102 (47%) of the 219 homes in the Shenandoah Townhomes requesting that the City hold a public hearing to adopt an ordinance to designate Shenandoah Townhomes as a Housing Improvement Area under Minnesota Statutes 428A for the installation of new siding on the buildings. Copies of the petitions are attached. Shenandoah Townhomes are located at the southeast corner of Vicksburg Lane and 286' Avenue in Ward 1. The townhomes were constructed between 1971 and 1981. These are modest cost homes with assessor's market values of from approximately $60,000 to $98,000 and an average value of approximately $72,800. The 56 buildings were originally sided with plywood panel siding that has been subject to separation of the plies and weathering that has caused peeling of the paint that cannot be reasonably corrected by re -painting. The condition of the siding is unsightly in places and without replacement or significant repair will continue to deteriorate. Photographs of these conditions are attached. The Homeowners Association has hired an architect to evaluate the condition of the siding. The architect's recommendation is to re -side the buildings and paint remaining wood trim and doors at an estimated cost of just under $1.4 million (approximately 6,200 per home). Additional work recommended by the architect is not included in this estimate and would be financed separately by the individual owners. A copy of the architect's evaluation is attached. Other improvements, including re -paving of the private drives, re -roofing of the buildings, and replacement of retaining walls and sidewalks, are being done with the reserves currently being set aside by the Homeowners Association. However, the Association's reserves are inadequate to pay for the re -siding of the buildings. The Association has provided a list of over 60 financial institutions that they have contacted in an unsuccessful effort to find private financing for this improvement. Written documentation from four institutions indicates that the primary difficulties in financing these improvements are the multiple ownerships of the units, the difficulty in obtaining security to cover the loan, the inability of the Homeowners Association to meet underwriting standards, and the large increase that would be required in the monthly assessments paid to the Association by the owners. Copies of this documentation is attached. The Housing Improvement Area legislation was adopted in 1996 and became effective August 1, 1996. This legislation is modeled after special legislation that had been passed for the City of Hopkins in 1994. Under this legislation a minimum of 25% of the housing owners in an area of the City may petition the City Council to hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance to establish a Housing Improvement Area within which the City may impose fees on the housing owners for the cost of certain housing improvements, including any City administrative costs. This is the first petition received by the City under this statute. The City can use any of its unencumbered or non -designated funds or sell taxable private activity bonds to cover the front end cost of the improvements. The City can provide financial assistance to the homeowners association to do the work or contract directly for the improvements. The fees imposed on the property owners would be used to re -pay the City for its costs and to make any bond payments associated with the improvements. According to state statutes, the fees charged against the individual properties would be applied and collected the same as property taxes levied by the City. The ordinance must describe the basis for the imposition of the fees and the number of years that the fees are to be in effect and must include findings that without the housing improvement area, the proposed improvements could not be made by the condominium association or housing owners and that the improvements are needed to maintain and preserve the homes in the Area. Any time after adoption of the ordinance establishing the Area, a second public hearing is required before any applicable fees can be imposed upon the properties. Before a resolution approving the fees can be adopted, any condominium association located in the Area must submit to the City an acceptable financial plan that provides for the future financing of maintenance, operation and capital improvements of the common elements of the properties. 3. DISCUSSION: The holding of the public hearing and the adoption of an ordinance establishing a Housing Improvement Area are solely at the discretion of the City Council. If either 35% of the residents, or owners representing 35% of the residential tax capacity in the area file an objection to the ordinance with the City before its effective date, the ordinance does not become effective. The proposed improvements are necessary to maintain and preserve the homes in the area and prevent further deterioration of the property. The improvements would preserve modest affordable homes in the City that are in short supply, preserve property values in the area and prevent blight. Because of the nature of the siding as a common element of the structures it is not practical for the individual homeowners to undertake the re -siding. The Homeowners 2 Association would be the logical entity to undertake the re -siding, but it has demonstrated that it does not have the ability to finance the improvements without outside assistance. The Homeowners Association has indicated a willingness to work with the City to accomplish this work and follow the statutory requirements regarding the Association's responsibility forfuturemaintenanceandcapitalimprovements. Without some form of City assistance, the improvements could not be adequately made bytheindividualhomeownersortheHomeownersAssociationatthistime. While it is possible that the Homeowners Association could obtain the 2/3's vote of the owners necessary to levy a special capital assessment, it would take an inordinate amount of time for them to raise the funds necessary to do the required work. During such time the siding would continue to deteriorate and contribute to deterioration of other structural elements of the buildings. 4. ALTERNATIVES: Staff has been evaluating the Shenandoah homeowners' request and considering alternative responses. Alternatives to the establishment of a HousingImprovementArea (Option #1) include a City or HRA loan to the homeowners association Option # 2), a guarantee of a third party loan to the homeowners association (Option #3), or pledge of a debt service reserve to be used in the event the homeowners association fails to make loan payments to a third party lender (Option # 4). An Option # 5 could also be considered which would combine Option # 1 with Options # 3 or 4. The major distinction between use of the Housing Improvement Area statute (Option # 1) and a direct loan, loan guarantee, or debt service reserve (Options # 2, 3, & 4, respectively) is the method for repayment. Option # 1. Under the Housing Improvement Area each individual property owner would be billed by the County for their share of the improvements as part of their semi-annual property tax payment. Failure to pay would result in a tax delinquency that could lead to a tax foreclosure of the property. Any tax foreclosure would be undertaken by the County and at the earliest would be completed within six years of the first delinquent payment. Any delinquencies in excess of the amount factored into the financing for the improvements could be included into the total amounts due from all homeowners in the following year to minimize the City's exposure for delinquencies. In addition, since these payments would be part of the property tax payment, most mortgagors would include the payment as part of the owner's mortgage escrow and would require payment by the owner to prevent the propertyfrombecomingtaxdelinquent. Under the Housing Improvement Area loan option, the Cit; would provide the entire amount of the loan from either existing fund balances or bond sales. If a bond sale were the source of funds, it would be a general obligation of the City. City financing of the improvements would provide a lower interest rate for the homeowners than would private financing. The lower interest rate would slightly reduce the financial burden on the homeowners. A 2% difference in interest rates would amount to a difference of approximately $7 to $8 per month 80 to $95 per year) for loans of $6,200 per unit for from ten to twenty years respectively. Option # 2. Under the direct loan option, the City (or HRA) would provide the entire amount of the loan either through existing fund balances or bond sales. This would be the same as Option # 1 except that the homeowners association would be directly responsible for 3 payments on the loan rather than the individual property owners. This is similar to Options 3 4 more fully discussed in the next paragraph. Options # 2, 3, & 4. Under a loan, loan guaranty, or debt service reserve, the homeowners association would be responsible for loan payments. The association would assess the individual homeowners for their portion of the payment. This would require a 2/3's vote of the property owners to increase their association assessments. If the association was unable to get the 2/3's vote, a loan to the association would not be possible. The only option, if that occurred, would be use of the Housing Improvement Area statute. If a homeowner failed to pay assessments to the association, it could file a lien against the property and take legal action against the owner. Such action can include, as a last resort, foreclosure on the property by the association. At the earliest, a foreclosure action could be completed approximately eighteen months from the date of the first delinquent payment. If the association failed to take appropriate legal action against delinquent owners and as a result failed to make its loan payments, the City or HRA could take control of the management of the association to force such action. The City or HRA should also regularly monitor the operations of the association to be certain that the association is able to make the loan payments in a timely fashion. Option # 3. Under the loan guarantee, a source of City funds would have to be identified to either pay-off the balance of the loan or make debt service payments in the event of a loan delinquency or default, depending upon the terms of the guarantee. The homeowners' association would be liable to the City for any payments that the City was required to make under the guarantee or reserve options. Option # 4. Under a debt service reserve, the City would provide or pledge an amount less than the amount of the loan that would be available to cover delinquent loan payments to a third party lender. The amount of the debt service reserve could be capped at an amount less than the total amount of the loan. This could limit the City's exposure to an amount less than in Options # 1, 2, or 3. The homeowners' association would be liable to the City for any payments that the City was required to make under the guarantee or reserve options. Option # 5. The use of a Housing Improvement Area to back-up a loan guarantee or debt service reserve utilizing City funds to secure a private loan to the homeowners association would also be possible. Under this approach the City could minimize the funds that it would have to make available and it would not have to issue bonds. This would require that the homeowners association obtain a 2/3's approval of the property owners for an assessment to cover the debt service on the loan. In addition, to get the most favorable loan terms, each of the property owners would have to give written permission for the lender to obtain a credit report on each of them. If the homeowners association became delinquent on the loan payments, the City's loan guarantee or debt service reserve pledge would be exercised by the lender. If the City were unsuccessful in collecting the delinquent amount from the association, the City could either take over management of the association to collect the delinquent amounts directly through property liens against the delinquent properties or levy fees against all of the 219 individual properties under the Housing Improvement Area statute to recoup the delinquent amount. 19 This would be contingent upon the City and homeowners association being able to negotiatealoanwithathirdparrylender. An initial discussion with a local bank indicates that thismaybepossible. If it were not possible to negotiate such a loan, the Housing Improvement Area designation could be used to make a City loan for the improvements. The loan guarantee, debt service reserve and Housing Improvement Area loan proposals would requireCityCouncilreviewandfinalapprovalatalaterdate. 5. HRA RECOMMENDATION: At the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) meeting on May 15, 1997, the Board Members conducted a lengthy review and discussion of the Shenandoah homeowners' request. In a unanimous vote the Board adopted the followingrecommendations: That the City provide financing for re -siding the Shenandoah Townhomes through the Housing Improvement Area statute. That the City add its administrative cost up -front to the cost of the proposed work. That the City establish an interest rate of 8% to be charged to the property owners, except for financial hardship cases which could receive a reduced interest rate. That any interest collected in excess of the City's cost of funds be contributed to an affordable housing fund for the City. That the City establish approval criteria to be applied to any future Housing ImprovementArearequests. The HRA made these recommendations based upon the following discussion: A loan guarantee or debt service reserve would likely require that the City assume a large proportion of the risk and would be more complex than a direct loan. Charging the City loan payments directly against the properties to be paid with their property taxes is preferable to assessments through the homeowners association. The Housing Improvement Area fees would be superior to any other liens or indebtedness on the property. The homeowners' interest costs would be less with a City loan and the City could offer reduced interest costs in hardship situations. This is modest cost affordable homeownership housing within the City that must be preserved. The Housing Improvement Area statute requires that the homeowners association develop a plan acceptable to the City that provides for the long term financing of maintenance, operations, and capital improvements of the common elements of the property. The Housing Improvement Area mechanist:: for financing the improvements and collecting the fees through the property tax system would be simpler than a loan guarantee or debt service reserve involving a third party lender. 6. BUDGET IMPACT: Holding the public hearing has a minimal budget impact for the cost of advertising and mailing. Under the statute all costs of the Housing Improvement Area are to be charged against the affected properties. However, the City could have some short term risk to cover any delinquent debt service payments that exceeded the amount factored into the project costs. The City could recoup these costs from either the homeowners association or through the Housing Improvement Area fees charged against all of the properties. Continued deterioration of the property would adversely affect property values and property tax 5 revenues from these properties. The assessor's market value for the area is approximately15,500,000. Property taxes payable in 1997 are approximately $240,000. The potential short term risk to the City of providing assistance would be offset by preventing theinevitabledeclinesinpropertyvaluesthatwouldoccuriftheimprovementswerenotmade. Preventing a 10% to 20% decline in values would save approximately $24,000 to $48,000 inlocalpropertytaxrevenuesannually. In the long term, the proposed housing improvements would preserve and possibly increase property tax revenues for the City and other localtaxingjurisdictions. 7. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted whichprovidesforapublichearingtobeheldonJune18, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. This will allow the Council to take public testimony on the request from the property owners and residents of the area before discussing the various options proposed to address the conditions at ShenandoahTownhomes. By the time of the public hearing, staff will have additional information regarding the possible terms of a City assisted third party loan to the ShenandoahHomeownersAssociationfortheCounciltoconsider. MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: July 22, 1997 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: WEST MEDICINE LAKE PARK UPDATE One week ago, the City Council awarded the contract for grading and granular import of West Medicine Lake Park. This work will commence as soon as the contractor can complete their contracts, bid bonds, performance bonds, etc. At this time, the engineering department is working on simultaneously getting contractors lined up to perform some utility work, concrete curb and gutter work, and asphalt paving. Some of these items which are under $25,000 in value will be awarded based on written quotes. Any item that exceeds $25,000 will be brought back to the Council for award of bid. Mark Peterson is working with playground vendors at this time on the design of a major playground structure for the site. We will be out for bid on that project in August and will be proceeding as quickly as possible with the installation of the playground structure. The architect on open air picnic shelter has been reviewing the work on that project. We anticipate that there will be some simplification or modification of the picnic shelter design and that these will be rebid also in August. Altogether, we anticipate that the project will be substantially completed by the end of October. This year's capital improvement budget allocated $600,000 for the project. We spent $205,000 on phase 2, and the remaining $400,000 is allocated for phase 3. The site grading and granular import contract awarded by the Council was for $93,772. The playground installation and total will run approximately $100,000. The remaining $200,000 will be used for the parking lot, curb and gutter and picnic shelters. Based on our final bid on all these items, it is anticipated that there will be some additional money necessary allocated for this project to close it out. I would also just note again that the rebidding of the grading of the park site saved about 30,000 with the two week delay. EB/np MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: June 26, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Ice Arena/LifeTime Project Costs I would like to update you about the status of the project costs for the Ice Arena and Life Time Fitness project. Bills are still coming in, and construction is not 100% complete, but this is what we know at this point. The project costs will be part of the discussion at the Council study session scheduled for July 29`''. We should have more information at that time than we have now. After meeting with the Construction Manager in late May, the cost of the Ice Arena project, including architects, construction manager, permits, equipment and furnishings, was estimated at $7,171,002. In addition, overall site costs were estimated at a cost of $1,946,328, which includes parking lot costs assessable to Life Time and planned City Center TIF contributions to help the project meet City Center design standards. The total of the two costs is $9,117,330. Not all of this cost is for the Ice Arena alone, since some of the grading and utility costs in the $1,946,328 figure are attributable to our contract with Life Time Fitness. The cash contribution to Life Time is $1,600,000. Adding the $1,600,000 to the $9,117,330 totals $10,717,330 in City cost for the entire project. Our first and best estimate of the project cost came from an independent estimator hired by Shea Architects on March 14, 1996. It estimated the City's costs for construction at 8,958,230. After adding the LifeTime contribution of $1,600,000, the total project added up to $10,558,230. Compared to this first complete project estimate, the May, 1997 estimate shows that we are $159,100 or about 1.5% higher. Unfortunately, these estimated costs are about $790,000 more than the estimate given to the Council in September, 1996. It has been reported to the Council several times that we are running above the September, 1996 estimate, but not until later last month did it appear to be more than a few hundred thousand over. Throughout the project, the project team, including both our Construction Managers and our Architects, have been very optimistic that we could accomplish the project much more quickly and for much less cost than the original independent estimate. The ice arena was reduced in size by about 7,000 square feet to save money. Countless other everyday savings have been identified in materials, finishes, and design simplifications. However, these costs savings have been more than offset by unexpectedly bad soil and site conditions, a very difficult bidding climate, unusually severe winter weather in December and January, and an Attorney General's ruling that the project is subject to prevailing wage requirements. Partly offsetting these extra costs is interest received on project funds and a $100,000 increase in our State Mighty Ducks Grant award. As we near the end of the project, many bills are still being received. The Construction Manager believes that we may need an additional $100,000 to finish the project at this writing. However, our per square foot cost and time of completion is very much in line with other similar projects occurring in the Metro area. Staff does not believe that the final project will be either overpriced or overdue compared to other similar projects. For example, comparing our overall project with the new Maple Grove Community Center, the Maple Grove project is costing about 20% more per square foot and is taking about 2 months longer to complete, despite the fact that our project is 60% larger than the Maple Grove project. Also, the cost of our two ice sheets (about $8.3 million) is costing the same or less per sheet than new sheets in New Hope ($4.2 million) or Champlin ($4.9 million). St. Louis park is just finishing a single ice sheet and a large outdoor pool complex for $11-12 million, with no indoor fitness or recreation space. The contract with LifeTime does not require them to be complete until September 1, 1997. Our major problem is that the project team became much too optimistic that we could significantly reduce the cost and time of construction from the original independent estimate. Staff does not foresee any financial difficulty in funding the final cost of the project. TIF interest funds or Project Administration Funds are available to assure the completion of the project. Attached is a copy of the original project estimate. One other financial note involves Life Time Fitness. The City Council has previously agreed to special assess to Life Time its share of costs for the parking lot over 10 years at 7%, our normal terms. This amount is expected to be about $400,000. Life Time has requested that an additional amount of $400,O00 be assessed, for a total._ of 800,000 in consideration of "tenant improvements" they have made in the Club -Pool complex. Staff does believe that Life Time has added improvements to the Club -Pool complex that significantly exceed what the original contract required, including the size of the indoor pool area, the size of the outdoor pool deck area, and the degree of finish in the walkway connecting the buildings. The City Attorney has drafted an amendment to the original contract to allow this additional assessment in a manner to maximize the protection of the City's interests and which also provides that City employees could access the Club -Pool area at daily fee rates, even if not residents of Plymouth. This draft agreement is currently being reviewed by Life Time, and would need official Council approval to become effective. Please call me or Eric Blank with any questions on any of matters discussed above. MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: July 25, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Status of Activity Center Project Recently the City Manager informed you that it appeared unlikely that a referendum on a possible Activity Center and/or Field House could occur this November, and that a special election after the first of the year seemed a better option. The delay is due in large part to the time involved with retaining an architect and developing a cost estimate by September 17, the practical deadline for placing an item on the November ballot. An RFP for architectural services was sent to twelve firms on July 18. The notice of the RFP was advertised in the Star Tribune over the weekend, and in the Sun Sailor on July 23. Several additional firms have requested copies of the RFP this week. A copy of the RFP is attached for your information. We hope to have a recommendation on the selection of an architect on the August 20 agenda. The project schedule calls for a preliminary cost estimate in October. Also attached is information on the Activity Center from earlier council meetings and subcommittee meetings. City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Request for Proposal for Architectural Services for Proposed Activity Center The City of Plymouth is seeking proposals for the architectural services associated with the design of an Activity Center. It is the intent of this request to secure a proposal to prepare a conceptual design and preliminary cost estimate for an Activity Center which can be presented to the Plymouth City Council. Description of Project The Activity Center is proposed to be up to a 40,000 square foot, two story building. The proposed location of the facility is adjacent to the Plymouth Life Time Fitness/Plymouth Ice Center. The first floor will contain space for senior citizen programs, recreation classes, a congregate dining facility, and general office space. The congregate dining area also is intended to be space suitable for rental for wedding receptions, etc. The second floor will be either a family resource center, including classrooms and day care facilities and built in collaboration with two school districts, or general commercial office space. RFP Requirements Your response to this request for proposal (RFP) should consider the project in two phases: the first is the preparation of a conceptual design and cost estimate; the second is full architectural services, to include schematic design development, site plan, working drawings, specifications, and bid documents. Your proposal must include a separate cost for each of the two phases. Costs quoted should be guaranteed maximum fee, exclusive of reimbursables, including a minimum of a weekly site visit/meeting during the construction period. Structural, mechanical, electrical, architectural and interior design service, site grading, and site plans must be in accordance with the City of Plymouth Building Code, Fire Code, and Zoning Ordinance. The proposal should accommodate a minimum of four meetings or presentations with the City Council, the City Council Activity Center subcommittee, or the Planning Commission. Your response also must incorporate the following requirements: Name, address, and fax number of primary project contact. 2. Brief history of the firm and statement of qualifications. 3. A list of all personnel who will be involved in the project, including education, background, and areas of specialty. 4. A list of similar projects completed, and reference names and numbers. A list of all in-house or outside service providers/consultants which your firm may use on this project. 6. An explanation of how your firm will handle design error and/or omissions, including all architect controlled consultants. Project Timeline RFP Deadline Interviews Selection of Firm Conceptual Design/Cost Estimate August 8, 1997 August 14 - 15, 1997 August 20, 1997 October 1997 Three copies of the RFP must be submitted no later than 4:30 on August 8, 1997 and addressed to: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 For further information about the project, contact: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager City of Plymouth 612-509-5052 Agenda Number: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Recommendations from Activity Center Committee DATE: June 6, 1997 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve a motion to direct staff to request proposals from architectural firms for design of an Activity Center, negotiate a contract which shall provide for an optional termination after preliminary design is complete, and submit the proposed contract to the City Council for final approval. 2. BACKGROUND: The Activity Center Subcommittee met on June 3, 1997 with members Tim Wold, Judy Johnson, and Saundra Spigner present as well as Mayor Tierney. At that meeting, the impact of the new tax law signed by the Governor was discussed in some detail. Information relating to a possible bond issue was also reviewed. Interest rates on bonds are favorable, and the City could save the equivalent of 5-10% of the project cost by issuing a General Obligation Bond. Bonding would also help preserve some capital for future projects. Any tax levy for a G.O. bond issue would be outside of the levy limits in the new tax law. A G.O. bond would require voter approval. The committee noted that both the Wayzata and Robbinsdale School Districts are holding school board elections on November 4', and that this might be the most convenient time for the voters to consider a bond issue for the City. A conceptual idea showing how a bond issue could be approved without raising the current City tax rate for 1998 was also discussed. The committee considered the financing for the Activity Center project in conjunction with a field house project also tentatively planned for 1998 in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan. The Committee favors proceeding with the first steps toward a possible bond issue referendum in November, 1997, but believes that it cannot progress much further with either a specific financial plan or planning for the possible uses of the building without the assistance of an architect. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the staff seek proposals from architectural firms so that a conceptual design and a better cost estimate can be obtained. 3. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives are to stop work on the project or consider going to the voters without a good cost estimate or any concept plan. gD I 4. DISCUSSION: The committee believes that the voters will need both a good cost estimate and an accurate presentation of what the purposes and uses of the building will be. A preliminary design by an architect is necessary to answer both questions. The committee believes that the need for the project has been well documented in its previous report to the Council as well as in the "Senior Citizens Future Needs Study" dated October, 1996 and that work should not be halted on the project. 5. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of hiring an architect for preliminary design will not be known until proposals are received, but staff expects it to be a small fraction of the normal 6-8 % fee for an entire project. The expense of seeking proposals, the action sought here, is negligible. The staff currently expects to pay for the architect from the Project Administration Fund. 6. RECOMMENDATION: On behalf of the committee and the staff, I recommend that the Council direct staff to seek proposals from an architectural firm and negotiate a contract for approval by the Council which will have an optional termination after preliminary design is complete. 4 FUNDING FOR ACTIVITY CENTER CONSTRUCTION Revised June 3, 1997 Previous Law New Law with Levy Limits Activity Center Funding 1997 Capital Levy 280,000 280,000 1996 Surplus Funds 420,000 420,000 Sale of Land 760,000 750,000 Community Improvement Fund 700,000 700,000 Subtotals 2,160,000 2,150,000 Field House Funding Project Administration 1,000,000 1,000,000 1998 Capital Levy 500,000 0 Community Improvement Fund 700,000 700,000 Subtotals 2,200,000 1,700,000 TOTALS 4,360,000 3,850,000 FUNDING NEEDS Low Estimate High estimate City Share of Activity Center $3,000,000 $4,000,000 Field House dome $1,500,000 $2,500,000 Field House building $5,000,000+ Total $4,500,000 $6,500,000-$9,000,000+ i ACTIVITY CENTER BOND ISSUE Advantages Receive positive voter approval Debt service is outside levy limits Does not deplete cash reserves Current interest rates are favorable Disadvantages Issuance costs Referendum and Bond issuance takes time May not get voter approval General Obligation Bond Issue: -Int. Rate, 10yr. =4.96%, 15yr. =5.17% Tax calculation based upon market value of all properties Bond issue would likely carry a Aaa bond rating Lower interest rate on bonds Requires voter approval CP O 7 c W VW LA e m9h m w 0 m ONO! M Co N dgggg 000CDP 0 V Co Cl CD CD ia O a oaac 0000 0000 o Lq C2 q o vn o LnNNt'7t"7 c NNe'!t'7 C C O 70 0 29 coo) C v a rz 1,-- coLO co a) 8800 Qcaa SIM 0000 Oc;c; ci o c w ca cc 0%.2 ticoti m 00 CIS Q 9 N ptp7 eri•-Oo0 E r- N N t'7 1 LA 1b d dgggg 000CDP Co Cl CD CD ia a oaac 0000 0000 o Lq C2 q o vn o LnNNt'7t"7 c NNe'!t'7 C LA J, POSSIBLE SPECIAL ELECTION Council adopts resolution calling special election (must be done 45 days prior to election day.) 45 days before election Send certified copies of resolution to County Auditor Request polling places Schedule election judges Order Ballots 30 days before election Absentee Ballots must be ready Post and publish legal notices 20 days before election Voter registration is closed prior to election Sat. before election Open for absentee balloting (1 p.m. -3 p.m.) Mon. before election Open for absentee balloting (8 a.m. - 7 p.m.) ELECTION DAY Council canvasses results of election within two days. The City Council must set an election date at least 45 days prior to election day. An election cannot legally be held on the date of the December Truth in Taxation hearing. School districts 284 (Wayzata) and 281 (Robbinsdale) each have school board elections on November 4. The advantage of the City also selecting this date is that voters would go to their polling location once to vote in both elections, and it is possible that we could gain a slight increase in voter turnout depending on the interest in the elections. The disadvantages of selecting this date are higher costs and confusion. If more than one issue is on the ballot, I would recommend using the optical scan equipment rather than paper ballots. Otherwise, election judges are counting multiple paper ballots until at least 1 or 2 a.m., and results are less accurate. An optical scan election is more expensive because of higher ballot printing costs, increased staff time for testing !,rrngr»mmin/Yre.^..°.r?.t.v^n (= overtln;e), a u the need for more election judges. There is also an element or confusion for staff and election judges in running joint elections and ensuring each voter receives the correct ballots because of the overlapping school district and precinct boundaries. I would request that if November 4 is selected as a special election date, we be provided more than 45 days lead time. The City would, by law, be conducting not only our own election, but coordinating the school district elections for 281 and 284 for Plymouth residents. This takes coordination with the school districts since we share polling locations, election judges, absentee balloting, etc. 7 INFORMATION FROM TOUR OF SENIOR CENTERS April 28, 1997 COON RAPIDS: Senior Center is 15,000 square feet and connected to a larger City Hall complex The cost was estimated at between $99 and $105 per square foot, furnished. Facilities include a large meeting room that hold 160 at round tables, a training room that seats 48, an arts and crafts room and a catering kitchen. There is also a recreation room with a pool table, a small library, and a gift shop. The staff reports that they could easily rent to groups of 350-400 if they had the space. The annual budget for the senior center is $128,000 and comes 96% from the General Fund. The senior center has 2.9 full time equivalent employees and uses 9 volunteers. The architects were Borman and Associates. NEW BRIGHTON: This Center was built collaboratively by the City and the School District. The School District actually owns 17% of the building and uses it as a Family Resource Center, similar to what the Wayzata District has proposed. The Family Resource Center exists on two floors. There is a main meeting room that hold up to 300 at round tables. It is rented every Saturday evening. New Brighton has a large, indoor playground that reportedly nets the City about 30,000 per year. The facility also has a full court gymnasium. The total facility is 70,000 square feet in size and was built for about $65 per foot. The Center reportedly serves 300,000 customers per year. The City charges a membership fee of $150 per year for individuals, $250 for families. The annual budget for the entire Center is $533,500 paid all or mostly by the fees. CRYSTAL: The Crystal Community Center is 34,000 square feet. It contains a large meeting room that holds 112 people, dividable into four rooms. The center opened in 1990. The Center also has a gym area, a meeting room, an arts and crafts area, and a large kitchen. Staffing includes 1 FT custodian, 2 PT custodians, 1 PT building manager, and various other part-time employees. Overall building expenses are $217,455 per year, with $55,000 in income. Seniors are charged a relatively nominal annual fee for membership. Overall senior program expenses are $17,370 with $19,000 in income from various fees. MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: July 18, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Council Procedures and Scheduling This item is proposed for discussion at the July 29`' special council meeting at this writing. At our staff meeting on July 17`', staff discussed the information and alternatives in the attached memorandum from City Clerk Laurie Ahrens. Laurie has done an outstanding job of providing some history, information from other cities, and realistic alternatives. One thing that seem clear from Laurie's memo: Plymouth is not alone among cities in facing the difficult dilemmas of accommodating all of the public's business in a reasonable amount of time. Also, nearly every previous Plymouth council has wrestled with the issue. The following are some prevailing thoughts about council procedures and scheduling from a staff point of view. I hope you find them useful in your discussion. 1. Staff encourages Council members to call us in advance with questions about agenda items. This not only will save time at council meetings, but occasionally results in a better solution being offered by staff at the meeting. 2. Staff would welcome a regularly scheduled study session. One of our biggest procedural problems is constantly trying t:- schedule such meetings. Staff suggests selecting an off -Wednesday, such as the fourth Wednesday of each month, for meetings similar to what we have scheduled for July 29'. I am personally concerned that scheduling regular study sessions immediately before Council meetings will create a perception that we are deliberately conducting public business in a separate meeting unlikely to be attended by the public or the press, and not on cable television. There are also real time limitations before council meetings and there is also a fatigue factor in meeting for five hours or more on such nights. Staff considers establishing a regular schedule for study sessions is preferable to a continued proliferation of subcommittees, from both a scheduling and staff coverage viewpoint 3. Staff supports an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time rather than automatically going to a schedule of three "regular" meetings every month. A third regular meeting each month would require a third full packet. While the total number of agenda reports would not increase, the deadline pressure for writing and reviewing reports would be almost constant and three packets would take more time to actually copy, collate, and deliver. If we found that meetings were consistently not being finished by 11 p.m., however, staff would then support a third regular meeting rather than going still later. 4. Staff believes that there will be a couple of times per year when a third regular" meeting is needed. September, 1997 will likely be one of those months. Again, for ease of scheduling, staff would suggest that a specific day be chosen in advance, such as the second Wednesday of any month, for a third regular meeting. The second Wednesday could also be the normal date for a second study session if a second study session is needed in any given month. 5. Council meetings that unexpectedly approach the agreed upon adjournment time with important or urgent business still to be considered should recess to the following evening. 6. Staff supports revised meeting procedures that emphasize getting a motion on the table before council debate begins. This will help focus the debate on a specific proposal. 7. Staff supports revised public input procedures for items that have had formal hearings before the Planning Commission. The new procedures would allow public input only for new information or issues not presented at the Planning Commission public hearing. This will help avoid the duplication for both the citizens and the City of having, in effect, two public hearings. It would also discourage people from bypassing the official Planning Commission hearing. It is also a point of law that the official record on land use issues is largely established at the Planning Commission hearing, so that hearing should be as thorough and as complete as possible. 8. Staff supports strict enforcement of an existing 15 minute rule on "presenters", usually applicants. Staff also recommends removal of the fourth bullet under 4C of the attached current council procedures relating to a show of hands by the audience in support or opposition to an issue. The City Attorney states that this could present a legal problem based upon court decisions. POLICY ON THE CONDUCT OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL 1. Parliamentary Procedure: The Council has adopted Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, to be the parliamentary procedure for its regular meetings. 2. Council Meeting Schedules: The Council normally holds its regular meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month and has established 10:00 P.M. as the normal adjournment time. If there is sufficient business, a third council meeting may be held on an alternate date. 3. Public Hearings: Public hearings will be conducted as required by state laws and regulations, the City Charter, the City Code, and these procedures where they are not in conflict with them. Public hearings on development issues are held by the Planning Commission. The City Council does not conduct another public hearing but welcomes public comment, especially if new information is available. 4. Guidelines for Public Comment Outside of Public Hearings: A. Presentations by Applicants and Petitioners. The Council expects that applicants and petitioners, or their representatives, can make presentations to the Council within 15 minutes, not including time for answering questions by the Council. Upon request, the Mayor may extend the time subject to the consent of the Council. Submission of written material in advance is requested. The Council requests that previously submitted written material not be read in its entirety. B. Comments by Citizens. Citizens may request permission to speak on agenda items by completing a blue card found on the table at the rear of the Council Chambers and handing it to the City Clerk, the Mayor, or Council. Please state on the card whether you are pro, con or "Other" on the issue if applicable to assist the Mayor and Council in hearing all sides. Speakers will not normally be recognized more than once on any agenda item. Citizens are invited to offer comments up to 5 minutes in length, not including time for answering questions by the Council. Upon request, the Mayor may extend the time of any speaker subject to the consent of the Council. C. Agenda Items of High Public Interest. If numerous requests ,to speak on an agenda items are received, the Mayor will inform the Council of the number of requests. The Mayor or any member of the Council may propose a total length of time for public comment on the item, which mint hi- nnproved by rhe mninrity of Council members to be effective. The ::.ayor will. use the gavel to indicate when the time for public comment is in order. In addition, the Mayor may request some or all of the following procedures to be followed: Ask that groups of citizens choose a spokesperson for the group. Request that speakers do not repeat previous speakers, but simply indicate agreement or disagreement with an argument previously made. Announce the order of speakers and ask that the following speaker to be seated near the podium area. Ask for a show of hands in support or opposition to an issue. Defer and consolidate any questions asked during the citizen comment period. Ask for a motion from the Council prior to public debate to help the audience members determine if they wish to speak to the proposed course of action. 45a 5. Conduct of Speakers. Speakers are to first give their name and address and then direct all comments to the Mayor and Council as a body. Proper decorum is expected at all times and speakers are asked to treat everyone with respect. 45b MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: July 14, 1997 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Mana er FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Issu s Following the July 9 meeting, I have been asked various questions about Council meeting procedure. I believe it is important to note that these issues are not new! The issues of too much Council business for the agenda, excessively long meetings, whether to conduct more study sessions, how to more efficiently run meetings, and whether and how to limit the time of public input has been experienced by every Plymouth Council in the past 15 or so years. The previous Council chose to address the issue through adoption of policies on Council meeting conduct, use and enforcement of Roberts Rules of Order, and heavy use of Subcommittees for items needing study. Other Councils have established frequent study sessions or more regular meetings to handle the business, or have limited comment or not taken public input on items that have already received a public hearing. Still other Councils have decided, intentionally or by default, to hold regular meetings and stay "as long as it takes" to get the business done. The mix truly varies by City Council. Here is some history that may be of help in considering this issue. History -- In 1988, the City Council held three meetings a month -- on the l'`, 3rd, and 4`h Mondays. The first two meetings of each month were similar to our current regular meetings. The third meeting was primarily used as a study session for items needing policy discussion or study, although the Council occasionally took action on non- controversial items at that meeting. The large volume planning and engineering items were geared toward the first and second meetings of the month. The third meeting was not televised. All of these meetings started at 7:30 p.m. An 11 p.m. adjournment rule was in effect. (In fact, the 11 p.m. adjournment time had been in effect since before 1967.) When the hour of 11 p.m. came, any councilmember could "invoke the 11:00 rule", whereupon the presiding officer would immediately adjourn the meeting. There was no second or vote required. The Forum was not part of the regular Council agenda. It was held only at the first Council meeting of each month beginning one-half Page 2 hour prior to the Council meeting. The Forum was not televised. By Council policy, speakers were limited to three minutes, unless additional time was granted. In 1990, the meeting time was changed from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. At about the same time, the Council discontinued the third meeting of the month. In 1992, the Council policy was amended to delete the 3 minute speaker limit. No time limit was placed on speakers. In 1994, the wording of the 11 p.m. rule was changed to include the provision that a second was needed and a majority vote. A few months later, the 11 p.m. adjournment time was changed to 10 p.m. The City Council expanded from five to seven members. An ordinance amendment changed regular meetings from Mondays to the first and third Tuesdays in 1995. Also, in 1995, the Council policy was amended to limit presentations by applicants and petitioners to 15 minutes and comments by citizens on non-public hearing items to 5 minutes (copy attached). In 1996, the ordinance was amended to indicate that the Council "shall annually establish a schedule of meetings for that year." Regular meetings have been scheduled for the first and third Wednesdays of each month in 1996 and 1997. I've gathered the following information from several years of Council meetings: Regular Meetings Study Meetings Average meeting of Speakers length Blue Cards) of Agenda Items Special Meetings yr. 1997 3.1 hours 127 383 or 32 per mtg. 12 study sessions 1.5'hr. average' 1996 2.2 hours 232 714 or 28 per mtg. 22 study, sessions 1.3 hr: average 1995 2.2 hours 196 742 or 31 per mtg. 24 study ses.i,ns' 1.5 hr: average,,,,: 1994 3.4 hours 329 796 or 33 per mtg. 41 study sessions 2:0 hr. average 1993 3.7 hours 375 742 or 31 per mtg. 43 study sessions":'r, 1.4 hr."average 1990 4.7 hours 387 881 or 37 per mtg. No records kept;:. pre 1993 Page 3 I also contacted the following cities for some general information about their meeting procedures— Bloomington Two regular meetings each month; V and 3`d Mondays. Average regular meeting length for the past 4 years is 3.25 hours. When there is a fifth Monday in a month, there is a study meeting on the 5' Monday; Average length is 2 hours. No other study sessions are held. Each agenda contains about 42 items. Each agenda has a 20 minute public comment period. Parliamentary procedure used well and Mayor suggests that speakers limit comments, not repeat, etc. Staff person believed that reasonable meeting times is due to good use of parliamentary procedure and that the City is nearly fully developed so there are no "long, drawn out development issues." Their meetings are significantly shorter than they were during development era. Brooklyn Park Two regular meetings each month; 2"d and 4' Mondays. Burnsville Average meeting length is 4 hours; there is no set adjournment time. Work sessions are held on the 1" and 3`d Mondays; average length is 3 hours. Each agenda has about 25 items. There is no Open Forum on their agenda; however, anyone is allowed to speak on any issue (even if not on agenda). There is no time limit on speakers. They have implemented a Governance Model to transfer management to staff and allow time for Council to set policy (same system as Burnsville). Staff person noted that their meeting lengths are much shorter than they used to be. In past years 2 or 3 a.m. was a typical adjournment time. Two regular meetings each month; ls` and 3`d Mondays. Mandatory 11:30 p.m. adjournment time for regular meetings; meetings typically go about this long. Two work sessions each month; 2"d and 4`h Tuesdays Work sessions typically last 3.5 hours each. Agenda contains approximate times for each agenda item. This has helped move the meetings along. Each agenda contains an average of 28 items. When it appears that an agenda item will be lengthy or becomes lengthy during discussion, the item is moved to the end of the agenda and all other business is handled first. Council and staff have done meeting management sessions to cut down on meeting time. Page 4 There is a citizen comment period at the beginning of their agenda which is a maximum of 10 minutes total. The Council only accepts new information on issues that have had a Planning Commission hearing. The City Council members receive copies of the Planning Commission tapes to review. All speakers are asked to keep their comments concise and occasionally the Mayor asks for a spokesperson. The City Clerk has recently researched their meetings and determined that about 50% of their agenda items relate to development issues. However, about 75 % of their council meeting time is spent on these issues. Coon Rapids Two regular meetings each month; 15` and 3rd Tuesdays. Average regular meeting length is 2.5 hours. They have an 11:30 adjournment time. Study sessions called as needed, usually one per month; length 3 hrs. Each agenda contains about 35 items. Each agenda has an open mike section; 5 minutes per person with no total limit. There is no time limit on speakers, and Mayor encourages only new information. Staff person noted that Coon Rapids is 95 % developed. Their meetings are much shorter than they used to be when development was heavy. Eagan Two regular meetings each month; 1' and 3`d Tuesdays. Average meeting length is 3.5 hours; there is no set adjournment time. Work sessions are typically held before every regular meeting; average length is 1.5 hours. Each agenda has about 30 items. Each agenda has a "visitors to be heard" section; no time limits. There is no time limit on speakers. Eden Prairie Two regular meetings each month; 15` and 3`d Tuesdays. Average regular meeting length is 2 hours. They have an 11:00 adjournment time. Study sessions are scheduled along with the regular meetings at the beginning of the year. This year 21 are scheduled; typically held prior to the regular meetings; average length is 1.25 hours. Each agenda has about 25 items. Each agenda has an open podium which has no time limits. There is no time limit on speakers. Mayor often asks for a group spokesperson. Page 5 Staff person noted that their meetings are currently much shorter than they used to be a couple of years ago (meetings often went to 2 a.m. or later) because there are not so many development issues. Maple Grove Two regular meetings each month; 1" and 3rd Mondays. Average meeting length is 2.5 hours; no set adjournment time. Work sessions are set as needed; about 1 per month; average length 1.5 hours. There is an Open Forum on the agenda; maximum of 5 minutes per person but no total time limit. There is no time limit on speakers. Minnetonka Two regular meetings each month; 2nd and 4`h Mondays. Average meeting length is 4+ hours; midnight adjournment time. Two work sessions each month; 1S` and 3`d Mondays; average 4 hours. Each agenda has about 33 items. There is a "Citizens Not on Agenda" section on each agenda with no time limits. There is no time limit on speakers; Mayor will suggest spokesperson, etc. A comparison of the data from the eight cities and Plymouth shows the following: Items of Comparison 8 Cities Average Plymouth Number of Regular Meetings per month 2 2 Number of Agenda Items 31 32 Hold Study Session? Yes Yes Number of cities with scheduled study sessions 6 Number of study sessions per year 18 24 Average length of regular meetings 3.1 3.1 Total hours of meetings per month, regular and study 9.7 9.2 Page 6 Here are some general directions to consider: Add More Regular Meetings Hold 3 Regular Council Meetings per month (151, 3`d, and 4' Wednesdays; or 151, 2nd, and 3`d Wednesdays). Hold 3 Regular Council Meetings per month, with the exception of summer months when only 2 Regular Meetings would be held. Establish a regular schedule of Study Sessions Hold one regularly scheduled Study Session each month, in addition to the 2 Regular Meetings Hold a study session (5:30 p.m.) prior to every Regular Council Meeting. Establish more study sessions on an "as needed" basis. Set meeting schedule quarterly, to build into the calendar study sessions needed for the upcoming three months. Council and staff could better anticipate when study sessions or additional regular meetings are needed than when they are scheduled for a full year in advance. Lengthen the existing Regular Meetings Begin the Regular Meetings at 6:30 p.m., rather than 7:00 p.m. Change the 10 p.m. rule to 11 p.m. Restructure the Meetings or Make More Efficient Amend Council rules and procedures on who is allowed to speak at a Council meeting, when, and for how long. The Council could only allow speakers on issues where a public hearing has not already been held, or limit speakers to new information only. Have a Registered Parliamentarian (a parliamentary procedure professional) evaluate a couple of Council meetings and conduct training, if necessary, with the City Council and/or Presiding Officer. Establish anticipated times for items on the agenda or for various categories of items. The City Council has used this effectively at study sessions. Delete the Forum from the agenda, or request that citizens call in advance to be placed on the agenda for the Forum, or hold the Forum only at the first meeting of each month. Delete reports, recognitions, and proclamations from the agenda. Use other communication methods for these items. Place items carefully on the agenda when they are removed from Consent or when it is likely that all items cannot be handled by adjournment time. Make more use of Subcommittees -- Make more use of existing ad hoc Subcommittees; send more items directly to the Subcommittees for recommendation to the full Council. Establish more standing Subcommittees.