HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 11-12-1997 SpecialPLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 129 1997
7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
1. Discussion of Proposed Activity Center
2. Discussion of Life Time Special Assessments
3. Discussion of Wellness Committee Proposal for Employee Fitness incentive Program
4. Discussion of Charter Issues
5. Discussion of Stop Sign/Speed Humps Policy
6. Discussion of Ways to Encourage Special Assessment Payments
DATE: November 12, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Summary of Agenda Items for November 12`' meeting
The list of topics for this meeting looks imposing. Several Council members have
expressed concern about the number of items on this agenda. Staff does not believe
each item needs to be discussed in full or be finally resolved. Rather staff proposes
specific requests and recommendations regarding the next specific incremental steps
toward final resolution. A summary of our recommendations or suggested outcomes:
1. Activity Center. Direct that staff negotiate an extension of the phase I contract
with the architect to also study the 34" Avenue site and bring back to Council for
approval. The Activity Center subcommittee is concerned about parking shortages and
tree loss with the various site plan proposals next to Life Time Fitness.
2. Life Time Special Assessments. Direct staff to negotiate with Life Time according
to the memo as drafted.
3. Wellness Committee proposal. Direct staff to bring forth a formal resolution at
the next Council meeting.
4. Charter Issues. Agree to accept the Charter Commission's invitation to meet with
them on the evening of December 2, 1997.
5. Stop Sign/Speed Hump policy. Direct staff to research how the Lakeville policy
would have affected several recent cases and report at the December special council
meeting. Staff does not believe any special committee is needed at this time. A formal
policy could be adopted at the second meeting in December.
6. Encourage special assessment payments. Staff has investigated printing the names
in the paper, but recommends no change in current procedures since delinquencies are
not a major financial problem and the City ultimately collects all delinquencies with 8%
interest.
e
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: November 7, 1997, for Council Meeting of November 12
TO: City Manager, Mayor and Council g
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Activity Center Feasibility Report
The Activity Center Subcommittee met on Thursday, November 6, to review the Activity
Center Feasibility Report. Committee members in attendance were: Councilmembers Wold
and Johnson, Park Commissioners Willegalle, Fiemann, and Anderson. Also in attendance
were Councilmember Black and Mayor Tierney. Staff in attendance were: City Manager
Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert and myself.
Our consultant, Del Erickson, presented the feasibility report to the subcommittee. The base
report provides four alternatives for building the activity center. Three of the proposals are
immediately adjacent to the south wall of the Life Time Fitness facility. One of the proposals
D) is separated from the facility and located approximately halfway between City Hall and the
Life Time Fitness facility.
In the report you will see a picture diagram of each of these facility locations, cost for building
the facility, including contingency, furnishings, fees and testing, etc. It also has the number of
trees and percentage of trees that would need to be removed for construction. These trees are
in accordance with the city ordinance and are significant trees of at least 8 inches in size or
larger.
Upon review of the report, the subcommittee was uncomfortable with proceeding, or
recommending any of the four proposals, because of the damage done to trees. However, it
was the consensus that amongst these four proposals, they thought the separated facility was
the most logical, in that it provided for the best enhancement to the current parking situation
being experienced at the recreational complex. It is the subcommittee's recommendation to the
Council that the consultant be authorized to look at an alternative site on 34th Avenue,
approximately one block east of City Hall. I have attached a map of the overall Plymouth
Creek Park, and this site is shown on that map and is referred to as tennis area and theme
r
playground area. This property is a high hill overlooking the wetland and is approximately 15
acres in size. There are no mature oak or maple trees on this property. Basically, it is scrub
cottonwoods that have grown up randomly. The Committee would like to see a master plan
for this 15 acres developed, which would include an activity center facility and a field house at
minimum. Once this master plan was prepared, they could then evaluate the merits of
developing on this piece of property versus back along Plymouth Boulevard closer to the
recreation center property.
Within the report, there is a written description of the City's activity center needs and some
architectural renderings of various floors of the building. It is not necessary to focus greatly
on the building, in that we have not spent time evaluating, or really trying to design the
building. These are meant solely to depict the size and shape of some of the preferred rooms.
At Wednesday's meeting, staff believes the Council needs to discuss further the idea of a joint
facility with the two school districts. In order to prepare realistic schematic plans for any
facility, it is necessary to know if we are going to partner with the school districts.
EB/np
r
i ._ --JIwwo•yam
f.i: ice, ..w F 1 %
SIN • z
1+ •:_•
w
T-%
1I
r { 42
k i
us
01
uj
tu
w-..
h'•"
M M.`4`
7 '\,
it n.'. /• V >?
t
w„
ch
Uospe
1
7
14Ix
zcc 3 j c3
aka• y i :,, I : o
Ail
Q ifTw
LLa wlow
Sal
W Quj
a r m f• / U
t a •
CA. ^ 8
fes • >E'7c:e 1. - _-. Pt
i
DATE: November 7, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Financing Proposal from Life Time Fitness
Background. Life Time President Bahram Akradi and his finance manager met with
Eric Blank and myself on Wednesday, October 15th. Their cost overrun of about $1.3
million is actually more significant than our added costs at the Ice Center. The Council
has previously approved an agreement to use special assessments at 7% interest over 10
years to collect what Life Time owes for its portion of the parking lot improvements
under our master agreement. This amount has been estimated at between $400,000 and
450,000.
On June 26, 1997, I wrote a memo to the Council indicating that Life Time requested
that "an additional amount of $400,000 be assessed, for a total of $800,000 in
consideration of `tenant improvements' they have made in the Club -Pool complex."
This additional assessment was to be in consideration for additions and improvements
they made to the project above and beyond the scope of our agreement, including the
size of the indoor pool area, the size of the outdoor pool, and the degree of finish in the
walkway between the buildings.
Current Proposal. Life Time states that Eric and I misunderstood the discussion last
June and that the real discussion was about assessing $800,000 above and beyond the
parking lot assessments, not just an additional $400,000 as I wrote to you in June.
This would mean the overall total Life Time financing request would be up to $1.25
million, not the $850,000 we had previously indicated. Life Time states they have
made commitments to other projects and ventures, based upon their belief that the City
would finance $800,000 above the parking lot costs. Roger Knutson, Eric Blank and I
clearly did not understand it this way, as my June memo to you indicates. In any case,
the Council was never presented with and never agreed to any amount yet over the
original parking lot costs. Given this different interpretation of events, we discussed
what could be done with the agreement to get value received for the additional
financing.
A
Life Time is willing to commit to any or all of the following items in return for
800,000 of financing beyond the parking lot costs:
A summer pool pass system for the outdoor pool, similar to what New Hope has,
would be implemented no later than the summer of 1999, regardless of the number
of memberships sold by Life Time. The current contract says it will be
implemented when the club reaches 10,000 members.
Life Time will increase the interest rate it pays to 8% from the original 7%. This
differential equates to a difference in future value of about $245,000 over the ten
years.
When compared with our current investment rate of about 6%, the differential is
about $471,000 over ten years.
Life Time will implement special senior citizen initiation fees of $90 with a renewal
fee of only $45 for those, such as snow birds, who would wish to freeze their
membership for several months a year. This could be especially helpful if we build
an Activity Center in the area. The current contract states that the club "shall
provide a senior rate, age 60 and above, acceptable to the City for Plymouth
residents which includes a reduced initiation fee."
Life Time would agree to immediately pay the outstanding balance of these
obligations if a public offering is made by the company which raises at least $20
million.
City employees get access to Life Time at daily fee rates, regardless of residency in
Plymouth. Employees have shown considerable interest in gaining more access to
Life Time.
Discussion.
Security. At this writing, we do not know if Life Time will agree to a letter of credit
to back all of the financing. This is very important to the financial security of the
agreement. There would also be some security in the main agreement, which provides
that if Life Time defaults on its commitments, the City can take over Life Time's
Plymouth Club and its equity by acquiring Life Time's mortgage debt on this club.
However, this by itself may not be sufficient to cover the amount of financing
requested.
Financial impact. The estimate that the City could net about $471,000 from the
transaction shows that the financing, if properly secured, will not harm and should
benefit the City. However, this financing is not permissible solely as an investment for
the City. The financing must also be authorized by law and serve a public purpose.
Legal Authority. The legal authority for entering into a financing of this type depends
on the circumstances. Significant tenant improvements were made, quite possibly
exceeding the additional $800,000 of financing requested. These improvements, which
include the finished walkway and the size of the two pools, were beyond what was
required to be built by Life Time in our contract and do benefit the public using the
club. However, the improvements were completed by Life Time with no agreement
with the City, even though discussions have been held several times throughout the
year. Entering into an agreement to finance improvements after they are completed can
raise questions about the directness of the relationship between the public financing and
the improvements.
Public purpose. The improvements and the additional contract items noted above
would benefit our citizens and employees and do provide a certain degree of public
purpose for the financing. However it is difficult to compare their worth on a dollar
basis with the amount of financing. The Council should determine if the physical and
contractual improvements bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of financing
requested. The Council has a fair amount of legislative discretion in determining this.
Recommendation: Of the four items discussed above, the security and the legal
authority are the two troublesome areas. The Council should not proceed without
security equivalent to a letter of credit. Secondly, if more "new" public purpose items,
whether physical or contractual, can be identified and made part of the financing
agreement, this would reduce the problems with the legal authority to finance an
improvement after the fact and also improve the overall public purpose to do the
financing. The Council should direct that security equal to a letter of credit be
provided and that additional new public purpose items be identified and included before
final approval is given.
t
Agenda Number: 3
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager, on behalf of the
City of Plymouth Wellness Committee
SUBJECT: Consider Employee Fitness Incentive Program for 1998
DATE: November 7, 1997 for November 12, 1997 Study Session
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Consider the proposed Employee Fitness Incentive Program for
1998. The Wellness Committee proposes to institute an incentive program at area fitness
facilities to encourage employees to make exercise a regular part of their daily routine. The
incentive will be based on regular employee attendance at the fitness facility. This program
will be instituted on a trial basis during 1998, and its success and continued funding evaluated
during the 1999 budget process. The estimated first year cost of the program is $25,000,
proposed for funding from 1997 surplus.
2. BACKGROUND: The Wellness Committee established Plymouth Pathways, an
employee health and wellness initiative, in 1996. The immediate goal of the program is to
improve employee awareness of health topics and issues. Long term goals are to improve
employee health generally and have a favorable impact on health insurance costs. Plymouth
Pathways has emphasized health and wellness topics in a variety of ways, such as articles in
the Rock, health fairs, seminars, flu shot clinics, and a bi-monthly wellness newsletter for all
employees. We have had a very successful partnership with HealthPartners, in which the cost
of most programs is based on a 50-50 split. This has enabled us to deliver a much wider range
of programming. The Pathways program is successful and well received by employees.
The Wellness Committee always has been interested in promoting employee fitness. The close
proximity of Life Time presents an opportunity to encourage employees to improve their health
through a regular exercise routine. The committee also recognizes that some kind of incentive
program, which rewards regular participation, is particularly effective in helping folks make
exercise a part of their life. Many Plymouth employees have expressed their hopes that the
city will make a contribution to a health club membership as part of its commitment to
containing health care costs through the wellness program. This issue has assumed a higher
profile with employees since the construction of Life Time Fitness.
Several Wellness Committee members have developed a proposal which provides an incentive,
meets the requirements of Minnesota's gift law and Plymouth's own internal policies and
I
practices on benefits. The Wellness Committee as a whole considered the proposal, made
minor adjustments, and enthusiastically supports it.
To ascertain the level of interest in a fitness incentive program, the Wellness Committee
conducted a survey during October. Over 280 surveys were distributed to employees and to
Plymouth firefighters; 210 surveys were returned. Employees have a high level of interest:
128, or 61 % indicated they would be very likely to participate
49, or 23 %, indicated they would be somewhat likely to participate
19, or 9%, indicated they would not be likely to participate.
14, or 7%, indicated they would not participate.
3. DISCUSSION:
Program Purpose. The City of Plymouth, through the Pathways Program, will reimburse
employees for health club monthly fees, subject to certain requirements.
General Program Guidelines.
Eligible Employees. All regular full time and part time employees of the City of Plymouth
are eligible to participate. Seasonal and temporary employees are not eligible.
Membership at Health Club. The employee must have an active membership at a health
club. The employee will pay the initiation fee. A portion of the initiation fee may be
reimbursed to the employee at the end of one year, if certain participation requirements
have been met.
Reimbursement Requirements. The employee must show proof from the health club that
he/she has had eight workouts on eight different days in a given month to qualify for
reimbursement. The city shall reimburse the employee $15 per month if the employee has
met the participation guidelines. Proof of monthly participation shall be submitted on a
quarterly basis. The employee is responsible for providing proof of participation. The city
shall reimburse all participating employees at the same rate of $15 per month, regardless of
the category of membership.
Initiation Fee Reimbursement. If, at the end of one year, the employee has had at least nine
months of qualifying participation, the city shall reimburse up to $100 of the initiation fee
to the employee. The employee must show a receipt for the initiation fee and nine monthly
participation forms. Initiation fee reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of the
initiation fee.
4. BUDGET IMPACT:
Estimated Cost. The Wellness Committee assumes that 50% of those indicating interest in
the program will participate, or 88 individuals. This equates to a yearly cost of $15,840
88 X $15 X 12). If all 88 employees maintain their participation throughout a year and
receive initiation fee reimbursement, the additional cost would be $8,800, for a total first
year cost of around $25,000.
Funding Source. For the past several years the Plymouth Pathways program has received
its funding from the Risk Management fund. For the employee fitness incentive program,
the Wellness Committee recommends funding from 1997 surplus. The entire program will
be evaluated for its success during the 1999 budget process and a recommendation made
for its continuation at that time.
5. PROS AND CONS TO THE PROPOSAL:
Pros: emphasize city's commitment to employees; long term positive impact on health
insurance costs; improve employee health and morale; encourage a healthy lifestyle and
have a positive impact on chronic health conditions (such as heart disease, obesity, high
blood pressure); other cities have fitness incentive programs.
Cons: relies on honor system of engaging in fitness routine and not only using non -
fitness amenities at the club; administrative burden; reminder of state auditor's 1993
investigation; may be difficult to show a direct correlation between this program and health
care costs.
6. RECOMMENDATION: The Wellness Committee recommends that the City Council
approve a one year trial of the Employee Fitness Incentive Program, to be funded through
1997 surplus.
The Wellness Committee believes this proposal will have a positive impact on employee
health, wellness, and morale, and will show the city's commitment to a healthy workforce.
We believe that the quarterly reimbursement will be a motivator for employees to take better
care of themselves through a regular exercise program. The participation threshold assures the
city that its money will reward only those who make a long term commitment to improving
their health and wellness.
If this proposal is approved by the City Council, administrative details will be finalized prior to
launching the program on January 1. In addition, the Wellness Committee hopes that the
pending contract changes with Life Time, which include a provision to allow city employees to
have daily fee access to Life Time, also will be approved before the end of the year. Such
access also would encourage city employees to make exercise a part of their daily routine.
Wellness Committee members:
Dale Hahn, Finance Bob Pemberton, Finance
Ed Goldsmith, Community Development Barry Sullivan, Public Works
Dan Faulkner, Public Works Tom Nelson, Public Works
John Ward, Public Safety Rick Kline, Public Safety
Karol Greupner, Park and Recreation Helen LaFave, Administration
Lisa Jenkover, HealthPartners Kathy Kamp, Grant Nelson Group
Kathy Lueckert, chairman
Agenda Number:4 #1
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathy Lueckert, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of Charter Commission Issue: Supermajority Vote
DATE: November 7, 1997 for November 12, 1997 Council Study Session
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the October 21, 1997recommendation of the Plymouth
Charter Commission to the Plymouth City Council to repeal Ordinance 96-9 and Resolution
96-555, pertaining to the proposed charter amendment on a supermajority vote requirement
for a tax rate increase.
2. BACKGROUND: During 1996 the Plymouth Charter Commission and the
Plymouth City Council discussed the merits of requiring a supermajority vote (5/7) of the
City Council for a tax rate increase. In May 1996 the City Council passed Ordinance 96-9
attached), which requires a supermajority vote. The Charter Commission reviewed the
proposed amendment, and did not recommend its adoption and incorporation into the
charter. In October 1996, the City Council passed Resolution 96-555 (attached) which
places the supermajority amendment on the ballot in November 1998.
3. ALTERNATIVES: Several options are available.
The Council could choose not to repeal Ordinance 96-9 and Resolution 96-555, and have
the supermajority amendment considered by voters in November 1998.
The Council could choose to repeal the ordinance and the resolution and not have the
supermajority issue on the November 1998 ballot.
The Council could choose to repeal the ordinance and the resolution and discuss with the
Charter Commission other available options for a supermajority requirement.
The Council could propose a different supermajority requirement to the Charter
Commission for their consideration.
Another factor to consider is that the Charter Commission can also propose an amendment
to the voters on the same issue. If the Commission chose to do so, it is possible that the
November 1998 ballot could have two different proposed amendments on the same issue.
4. DISCUSSION: At its October 21 meeting, the Charter Commission passed a resolution
recommending that the City Council repeal Ordinance 96-9 and Resolution 96-555. The
Charter Commission affirmed its belief that the proposed supermajority amendment is not
in the best long term interest of the City of Plymouth. In the same resolution, the Charter
Commission indicated its willingness to discuss with the City Council at a joint meeting
other options for a supermajority requirement, should the Council be interested in such
discussions. The report given to the Charter Commission, which includes an opinion from
the City Attorney, is attached.
The Council has received a letter from Charter Commission chair Virgil Schneider,
suggesting that December 2, 1997 is an opportunity for a joint meeting between the City
Council and the Charter Commission.
The discussion points for the City Council are as follows:
Is the City Council comfortable with the proposed supermajority amendment, which will be
on the ballot in November 1998?
Does the City Council wish to meet jointly with the Charter Commission to discuss the
current proposed supermajority amendment and other possible options?
6. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City Council discuss the Charter
Commission resolution of October 21, 1997, which recommends repeal of Ordinance 96-9
and Resolution 96-555.
Attachments:
October 21, 1997 Charter Commission resolution P. 1
Ordinance 96-9 and Resolution 96-55 p. 2 - 5
Staff report to Charter Commission p. 6 - 15
City of Plymouth
Charter Commission
October 21, 1997
BE IT RESOLVED that the Charter Commission of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, does hereby recommend that the Plymouth City Council repeal Ordinance 96-
9, an ordinance amending the City Charter concerning taxation, and Resolution 96-555, a
resolution calling for an election on a charter amendment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Plymouth Charter Commission invites
the Plymouth City Council to a joint public meeting if the Plymouth City Council is
interested in further discussion of the issue of requiring a supermajority vote for a tax rate
increase.
Adopted by the Plymouth Charter Commission on October 21, 1997.
Vote:
Ayes: Schneider, Speck, Marofsky, Pauba, McKee, Duntley, Tierney, Singer
Schwartz, Sipkins, Peterson, Donovan.
Nays: None.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 96-9
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLYMOUTH
CITY CHARTER CONCERNING TAXATION
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, Minn. Sta. §410.12, Subd. 5 authorizes the City Council to propose
charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 7 of the City Charter is amended by adding Section 7.15
to read:
7.15 Increase in Tax Rate.
A two-thirds majority of all members of the Council is required to adopt a tax
levy resolution that increases the City's tax rate over the prior year. Tax rate means
the quotient derived by dividing the City's tax levy by the City's net tax capacity.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective only
when approved by the voters as provided in Minn. Stat. §410.12, Subd. 4.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 15th Day of May, 1996.
ce n T' rney, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laurie F. Ahrens, City Clerk
4Z
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 96-555
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION
ON A CHARTER AMENDMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. The City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Plymouth City
Charter, subject to voter approval, to provide as follows:
A two-thirds majority of all members of the
Council is required to adopt a tax levy
resolution that increases the City's tax rate over
the prior year. Tax rate means the quotient
derived by dividing the City's tax levy by the
City net tax capacity. "
2. The proposed Charter amendment was submitted to the Plymouth Charter
Commission. The Charter Commission has reviewed and rejected the
proposed Charter amendment and has reported its decision back to the City
Council.
3. The proposed Charter amendment shall be submitted to the voters of the
City of Plymouth. The form of the ballot attached hereto is approved. The
election shall be held between the hours of seven o'clock a.m. and eight
o'clock p.m. on the 3rd day of November , 19 98
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post and publish
according to law a Notice of Election and Ballot, and to prepare ballots for
use at the election, provided the form of ballot shall have such changes as
are necessary to be in the form approved by the rules by the Secretary of
State.
5. The election shall be held and conducted in accordance with the statutes of
the State of Minnesota applicable, and the Council shall meet as required
by law for the purpose of canvassing said election and declaring the results
thereof.
42898 _ 310/01/96
ADOPTED by the City Council this day of
1996.
Joycelyn Tierney, Mayor
ATTEST:
17Z 460t-e'-
Ldurie F. Ahrens, City Clerk
42898 -
10/01/96
OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
YES "Shall the Plymouth City Charter be amended to provide that a two-
thirds majority of all members of the Council is required to adopt
a tax levy resolution that increases the City's tax rate over the prior
NO year. Tax rate means the quotient derived by dividing the City's tax
levy by the City net tax capacity?"
INSTRUCTIONS
Put an (X) in the square before the word "YES" if you desire to vote for the
question; or put an (X) in the square before the word "NO" if you desire to vote against
the question.
42897 A-
Plymouth Charter Commission
Supermajority Vote Question
Attachments: --Section from Minnesota Statutes on amending charters
Three options for the supermajority requirement
Opinion from City Attorney about the process needed to change
the current supermajority proposal.
Background. Last fall the City Council voted to place on the November 1998 ballot an
amendment to the Plymouth City Charter which will require a supermajority vote (5/7) to
increase the tax rate. At the time this action was taken, there seemed some interest on the
parts of both the City Council and the Charter Commission to develop another alternative
to the direct amendment of the charter. Unless some action is taken by the City Council
or the Charter Commission or City Council to propose an alternative, or by the City
Council to repeal the ordinance which placed the amendment on the 1998 ballot, the
voters will decide the merits of the question next year.
Options. When the supermajority requirement issue was first presented to the City
Council, the City Attorney drafted three possible options. These are attached. The first
option is the one which will be on the ballot in 1998. The two other options also are
possibilities. Last year Option 3 seemed to be the middle ground for both the Council
and the Commission: to let the City Council decide by ordinance whether or not to
require a supermajority vote on a tax rate increase. Another option is found in the
statutes: section 410.12, Subd. 7. This also generated interest last fall.
Implications of Supermajority Requirement the 1998 Proposed Budget. Had the
supermajority requirement been in the charter this year, the adoption of the 1998 budget
would require a supermajority vote. The Minnesota Legislature made changes to the
property tax system for 1998 and 1998, namely the imposition of levy limits and the
compression of property tax class rates. The latter action particularly affected Plymouth,
reducing the city's tax capacity value. The compressed class rates reduced the tax
capacity value by 10%, even though the city's market value increased by 9.8%. Due to
the impacts of levy limits and property class rate changes, Plymouth's tax rate will
increase from 14.53 in 1997 to 14.87 in 1998. The imposition of property tax changes by
the Minnesota Legislature is an example of an outside source impacting how Plymouth
sets its tax rate. The current proposed amendment would have required a supermajority
vote. However, an option which allows the council to decide by ordinance whether or not
to require a supermajority vote would provide the flexibility needed to meet situations not
of the city's own making.
Possible Next Steps. As outlined in the City Attorney's letter, several courses of action
are possible. The Council could repeal the ordinance which places the issue on the
November 1998 ballot. The City Council could propose a new amendment to the Charter
Commission, and the Commission then would have up to 150 days to review the
amendment and make a recommendation. The Charter Commission can propose an
amendment to the City Council at any time.
410.12 CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS
410.12 AMENDMENTS.
Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments tosuchcharterandshalldosouponthepetitionofvotersequalinnumbertofivepercentofthetotalvotescastatthelastpreviousstategeneralelectioninthecity. If the cityhasasystemofpermanentregistrationofvoters, only registered voters are eligible tosignthepetition. All petitions circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall beuniformincharacterandshallhaveattachedtheretothetextoftheproposedamend- ment in full; except that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than1,000 words, a true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk, andthepetitionshallthencontainasummaryofnotlessthan50normorethan300wordssettingforthinsubstancethenatureoftheproposedamendment. Such summary shallcontainastatementoftheobjectsandpurposesoftheamendmentproposedandanoutlineofanyproposednewschemeorframeworkofgovernmentandshallbesuffi- cient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in government is soughttobeaccomplishedbytheamendment. The summary, together with a copy of the Oro - posed amendment, shall first be submitted to the charter commission for its approvalastoformandsubstance. The commission shall within ten days after such submissiontoit, return the same to the proposers of the amendment with such modifications instatementasitmaydeemnecessaryinorderthatthesummarymayfairlycomplywiththerequirementsabovesetforth.
Subd. la. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule charter may beamendedonlybyfollowingoneofthealternativemethodsofamendmentprovidedinsubdivisions1to7.
Subd. I Petitions. The signatures to such petition need not all be appended to onepaper, but to each separate petition there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulatorthereofasprovidedbythissection. A petition must contain each petitioner's signatureininkorindeliblepencilandmustindicateafterthe 'signature the place of residencebystreetandnumber, or other description sufficient to identify the place. There shall
appear on each petition the names and addresses of five electors of the city, and on eachpaperthenamesandaddressesofthesamefiveelectors, who, as a committee of thepetitioners, shall be regarded as responsible for the circulation and filing of the petition. The affidavit attached to each petition shall be as follows:
State of ..................... )
ss.
County of ................. )
being duly sworn, deposes and says that the affiant, and the affi-
ant only, personally circulated the foregoing paper, that all the signatures appendedtheretoweremadeintheaffiant's presence, and that the affiant believes them to be the
genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be.
Signed............................
Signature of Circulator)
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ....... day of ...... 19 ....
Notary Public (or other officer)
authorized to administer oaths
The foregoing affidavit shall be strictly construed and any affiant convicted ofswearingfalselyasregardsanyparticularthereofshallbepunishableinaccordancewithexistinglaw.
Subd. 3. May be assembled as one petition. All petition papers for a proposed
amendment shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instru-
ment. Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city clerkshalldeterminewhethereachpaperofthepetitionisproperlyattestedandwhetherthepetitionissignedbyasufficientnumberofvoters. The city clerk shall declare any peti- tion paper entirely invalid which is not attested by the circulator thereof as required
El
d i
I
CLASSIFICATION; CHARTERS 410.12
r. .
the cit clerk shall cer- I
is this section. Upon completing an examination of the petition, y
tify the result of the examination to the council. If the city clerk shall certify that the
petition is insufficient the city clerk shall set forth in a certificate the particulars inwhichitisdefectiveandshallatoncenotifythecommitteeofthepetitionersofthefind -
w ' ings, A petition may be amended at any time within ten days after the making of a cer- tificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing a supplementary petition uponadditionalpaperssignedandfiledasprovidedincaseofanoriginalpetition. The city
clerk shall within five days after such amendment is filed, make examination of the
iamendedpetition, and if the certificate shall show the petition still to be insufficient,
RK' the city clerk shall file it in the city clerk's office and notify the committee of the peti- ; tioners of the findings and no further action shall be had on such insufficient petition.
The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of a new peti ! i
tion for the same purpose.
g'f ' bmitted to the qualified voters at a gen- Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be sus:.
eral or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The form ;• j
j
tl. of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ,
ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the quer- I i
tion from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes !
cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and cer- II
tificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and the amendment shall i
take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in 1f i
the amendment.
Subd. 5. Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a home
rule charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordi-
nance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter commission.
Within 60 days thereafter, the charter commission shall review the proposed amend-
z-. ' tend the time formentbutbeforetheexpirationofsuchperiodthecommissionmayex
review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining i
that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing the proposed amendment,
the charter commission shall approve. or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a ,
std:
substitute amendment. The commission shall promptly notify the council of the action .
r Y . taken. On notification of the charter commission's action, the council may submit to
the people, in the same manner as provided in subdivision 4, the amendment originally s ;'
proposed by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the charter commission. Theamendmentshallbecomeeffectiveonlywhenapprovedbythevotersasprovidedin
subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be filed in the same manner as other amendments. !
Nothing in this subdivision precludes the charter commission from proposing charter !:
amendments in the manner provided by subdivision 1. I
Subd. 6. Amendments, cities of the fourth class. The council of a city of the fourth
class having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments by ordinance with- out submission to the charter commission. Such ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted
by at least a four-fifths vote of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved
by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. The council shall submittheproposedamendmenttothepeopleinthemannerprovidedinsubdivision4, but
not sooner than three months- after the passage of the ordinance. The amendment
becomes effective only when approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If
so approved, it shall be filed in the same manner as other amendments. i
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter commis- {
sion the city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Such an ordinance,
if enacted, shall be adopted by the council by affirmative vote of all its members after
a,p ' h gri n upon two wgeks'ublished notice com, the text of the prop Steed j
amendment and shallbeapproved b the mayor and published as 1n the case of other !
ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90
days after passage and publication or at such later date as is fixed in the ordinance.
Within 60a s after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition request- dY P g
I
ii_
410.12 CLASSIFICATION; CHARTERS
ing a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such petition shall
be signed by qualified voters equal in number to two percent of the total number of
votes cast in the city at the last state general election or 2,000, whichever is less. If the
city has a system of permanent registration of voters, only registered voters are eligible
to sign the petition. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the
ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case
of charter amendments submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by peti-
tion of the voters, except that the council may submit the ordinance at any general or
special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may recon-
sider its action in adopting the ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of sub-
divisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance
amending a charter, and to the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
History: (1286) RL s 756, 1907 c 199 s 1; 1911 c 343 s 1; 1939 c 292 s 1; 1943 c 227
s 1; 1949 c 122 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 3.4, 1961 c 608 s 5.6. 1969 c 1027 s 3. 1973 c 503 s 1-4,
1986 c 444
410.121 SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR WINE; FAVORABLE VOTE.
If the charter which is to be amended or replaced contains provisions which pro-
hibit the sale of intoxicating liquor or wine in certain areas, such provisions shall not
be amended or removed unless 55 percent of the votes cast on the proposition shall be
in favor thereof.
History: 1969 c 1027 s 2
410.13 [Repealed, 1959 c 305 s 6]
410.14 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS.
In submitting a charter or an amendment to the voters any alternative section or
article may be presented and voted on separately, without prejudice to other articles
or sections of the charter or any amendments thereto.
History: (1288) RL s 757
410.15 SUCCESSION; SUBSISTING RIGHTS.
The new city so organized shall be in all respects the legal successor of the former
corporation, and no charter so adopted, nor any amendment thereof, shall prejudice
any subsisting right, lien, or demand against the city superseded, or affect any pending
action or proceeding to enforce the same. All rights, penalties, and forfeitures accrued
or accruing to such former corporation, all property* vested therein or held in trust
therefor, all taxes and assessments levied in its behalf, and all its privileges and immuni-
ties not inconsistent with the new charter, shall pass to its successor. All ordinances,
resolutions, and bylaws in force at the adoption of such new charter, and not in conflict
with its provisions, shall continue in force until duly altered or repealed.
History: (1289) RL s 758, 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7
410.16 - FORMS OF GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED IN CHARTER.
The charter commission may incorporate as part of the proposed charter for any
city the commission, mayor -council, council-manager form of city government or
any411
other form not inconsistent with constitution or statute, and may provide that all elec-
tive city officers, including mayor and members of the council, shall be elected at large
or otherwise.
History: (1290) 1909 c 170 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 5; 1961 c 608 s 7
410.17 [Repealed, 1973 c 503 s 6] t.
410.18 DISTRIBUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS. s
Such charter commission may also provide that the administrative powers, author- '
Agenda Number: 9a
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dwight D. Johnson,, City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to City Charter for supermajority vote to raise the tax rate
DATE: May 8, 1996
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Consider approval of one of the attached ordinances proposing
to amend the City Charter to require a supermajority vote of the City Council to raise the
City's tax rate.
2. BACKGROUND: At the May 1 Council meeting, Council member Christian Preus
requested development of a City Charter amendment to require a 5/7 vote of the City
Council to raise the City's tax rate in any fiscal year. The City Attorney has previously
opined that the current City Charter may not allow the Council sufficient authority to pass
an ordinance requiring a supermajority at this time.
City Clerk Laurie Ahrens has identified a section of the statutes that provides for the City
Council to initiate a charter amendment in ordinance form. A copy is attached. If the
Council initiates an amendment in ordinance form, the Charter Commission has 60 days to
review it. However, they can extend that time by an additional 90 days. The Commission
can propose an alternative to the initiative if it wishes. The City Council can then choose
between its own initiative and that of the Charter Commission and, under its own power,
can decide which version is presented to the voters. The voters have the final approval
over any charter amendment in this procedure.
3. ALTERNATIVES: Two alternative ordinances have been prepared by City Attorney
Roger Knutson. The first ordinance proposes a simple, straightforward amendment to the
City Charter which would place language directly into the charter requiring a two-thirds
majority vote for any increase in the City's tax rate.
The second ordinance would amend the Charter to enable the Council to pass its own
ordinance, but with conditions in the charter about how the ordinance applies and how it
may be repealed. The ordinance requiring a supermajority could apply to all situations
except where the City loses at least 20 % of its state aid or loses more than 10 % of its net
tax capacity for any reason. The latter provision would accommodate both state legislative
changes and substantial economic devaluations. Restrictions on repealing the ordinance
would include two required public hearings with notice.
Of course, there are many possible permutations of the second ordinance. The situations
that the eventual ordinance would apply to could be increased or decreased, and the
restrictions on repeal could be increased or decreased in various ways.
Finally, there is the option of taking no action.
4. DISCUSSION: The straightforward charter amendment represented by the first
ordinance has the advantages of simplicity and clarity, both for ourselves and the tax payers.
It also would appear to have more permanence, which may be reassuring to the taxpayers.
However, it is also the least flexible option if the City's budget and economic status should
markedly change. Examples of such change might include (1) no more growth beyond the
MUSA line, (2) State legislative changes in state aids, tax policy, fiscal disparities, and other
tax base sharing (Orfield type legislation), (3) major economic change in property values due
to economic distress, such as the tax abatements that occurred in the commercial/industrial
portion of the tax base a few years ago, (4) a major physical disaster such as a tornado or flood
and (5) opportunities might present themselves which would raise the City's tax rate, but not
the overall tax rate. An example would be if we took over the Met Council transit levy
locally, as legislation this year now authorizes us to do..
The second charter amendment draft loses some of the advantages of simplicity, clarity, and
permanence. However, it does provide for exceptions for many of the potential major changes
in the City's condition identified above.
In contemplating a charter amendment, some of the questions to consider might include:
1. How much specific language should be placed in the charter itself, which is our City
constitution?
2. How necessary is a charter amendment? Is it likely that the City would propose
increases in the tax rate in the foreseeable future without any restrictions?
3. Will Moody's be influenced to downgrade our AAA bond rating? Moody's spoke out
strongly against the Legislature's tax freeze proposal earlier this year and generally
dislikes revenue restrictions.
4. Will additional restrictions on raising the tax rate cause future Councils and
administrations to not cut tax rates when they otherwise could and should, for fear of
being caught with their tax levies down in a subsequent year?
5. How likely are the potential major changes in the City's status?
6. How much has the taxpayers trust in us as local official deteriorated, thus requiring
external" controls on us?
7. Will our adoption of a voluntary limitation show leadership to other local jurisdictions
who have been raising tax rates?
5. BUDGET EVWACT: There is little impact on the budget for the next year or two,
absent one of the major changes in our situation. Substantial growth revenues should
continue for another year or two, making in increase in the tax rate easily avoidable. Long
range impacts are more difficult to forecast.
P-
6. RECOMMENDATION: I strongly share the Council's goal to not increase the City's tax
rate. In fact, over the last three years, the City's tax rate has declined by over 17 % since
1993 (from 18.04 to 14.94), and we now have the lowest tax rate of any Minnesota City
over 10,000 population. I also agree with the concept of making a strong public statement
about our intentions to continue to keep the tax rate down in the future. Such a statement
would help build trust with our citizens, many of whom do not know our excellent recent
record on reducing tax rates. It would also show leadership to other jurisdictions that it is
possible to provide high quality services without constantly raising taxes.
It also seems likely that we are on the verge of major actions reforming the property tax
system in the 1997 Legislature. Individuals of both parties are now proposing legislation
that would eliminate HACA aid, currently $1.8 million for Plymouth. Our growth
revenues will also decline substantially within the next several years if we choose not to
move the MUSA line anytime soon. We have about a two year supply of residential land
at this time. It was only three years ago (1993) that we lost $1 million in tax abatements in
a single year. There may be reasons why we may want to assume the Met Council transit
levy (over $1 million) in the next several years.
Because so many elements of the property tax system in Minnesota are beyond our control,
and because a number of major changes in the system and our circumstances seem likely in
the next several years, I favor adopting a charter amendment that would enable the Council
to pass its own ordinance requiring a supermajority vote. The charter should provide a
very public and deliberate process for any repeal or amendment of the supermajority
ordinance. I do not believe that the charter needs to provide any specific exceptions for
major changes in circumstances if the Council can amend its own ordinance in the future
after a public process. I would therefore suggest consideration of version three attached.
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A May 3,96 9:52 No.003 P.02
P -
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLYMOUTH
CITY CHARTER CONCERNING TAXATION
V::
WIIEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 5 authorizes the City Council to propose
charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 7 of the City Charter is amended by adding Section 7.15
to read:
7.15 Increase in Tax Rate.
A two-thirds majority of all members of the Council is required to adopt a tax levy
resolution that increases the. City's tax rate over the prior year. Tax rate means the
quotient derived by dividing the City's tax levy by the City's net tax capacity.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall. become effective only when
approved by the voters as provided in Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 4.
ADOPTED by the City Council this day of ,
1996.
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A May 3,96 9=53 No.003 P.03
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLYMOUTH
CITY CHARTER CONCERNING TAXATION
PREAMBLE
VaWREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 5 authorizes the City Council to propose
charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTII ORDAINS:
5EK;TION 1, Chapter 7 of the City Charter is amended by adding Section 7.15
to read:
7.15 Increase in Tax Rate.
The Council may by ordinance require a two-thirds majority of all members of the
Council to adopt a tax levy resolution that increases the City's tax rate over the prior
year. Tax rate means the quotient derived by dividing the City's tax levy by the City's
net tax capacity. The ordinance, if adopted, shall provide that a simple majority of all
members of the Council may adopt a tax levy resolution that increases the City's tax rate
under any of the following circumstances:
a) if the City's state aid (i: e., local government aid and homestead and
agricultural aid) has been reduced by twenty percent (20%) or more from
the prior year;
b) if the City's net tax capacity has been reduced by more than ten percent
10 %) from the prior year.
The ordinance, once adopted, may not be repealed or amended without a public
hearing following two (2) publications in the official newspaper stating the time, place,
and purpose of the hearing. The two (2) publications shall be a week apart and the
hearing shall be at least three (3) days after the last publication.
37599.03
05/03/96 1'r
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A May 3,96 9:53 No.003 P.OQ
SE!QTION Z. effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective only when
approved by the voters as provided in Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 4.
1996.
ADOPTED by the City Council this day of
ATTEST':
Ioycelyn Tierney, Mayor
Laurie F. Ahrens, City Clerk
37599.03
05/03/96
2 lb
05/08/96 11:24 '$612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KMJTSON 444 PLYMOUTH 16002/002
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLYMOUTH
CITY CHAR'I'ER CONCERNING TAXATION
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 5 authorizes the City Council to propose
charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION X. Chapter 7 of the City Charter is amended by adding Section 7.15
to read:
7.15 Incarease in Tax Rate.
The Council may by ordinance require a two-thirds majority of all members of the
Council to adopt a tax levy resolution that increases the City's tax rate over the prior
year. Tax rate means the quotient derived by dividing the City's tax levy by the City's
net tax capacity. The ordinance, if adopted, may not be repealed or amended without a
public hearing following two (2) publications in the official newspaper stating the time,
place, and purpose of the hearing. The two (2) publications shall be a week apart and the
hearing shall be at least three (3) days after the last publication.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective only when
approved by the voters as provided in Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 4.
ADOPTED by the City Council this day of
1996.
ATTEST:
7oycelyn Tierney, Mayor
Laurie F. Ahrens, City Clerk
37599.04
05/08/96
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
Suesan Lea Pace
Ms. Kathy Lueckert
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
612)452-5000
Fax(612)452-5550
September 29, 1997 ;
RE: Supermajority Vote Proposal
Dear Kathy:
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl*
John F. Kelly
Matthew J. Foli
Marguerite M. McCarron
George T. Stephenson
Also licensed in Wisconsin
Of Counsel:
Gary G. Fuchs
Your letter of September 22, 1997, asked me a series of questions concerning the supermajority vote
proposal. The City Council adopted Ordinance 96-9 on May 15, 1996. The ordinance was referred to the
Charter Commission. On October 3rd the Charter Commission filed a report with the City Council rejecting the
proposed amendment. The City Council received the report and passed a motion placing the proposed amendment
on the November 1998 ballot.
The City Council could repeal Ordinance 96-9 before it is submitted to the voters. Since Minn. Stat.
Chapter 410 does not address the mechanism for repealing an ordinance before it has been submitted to the
voters, in my opinion the normal rule for repealing an ordinance would apply.
The City Council could not amend Ordinance 96-9 without resubmitting the ordinance to the Charter
Commission. Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 5 states that once an amendment proposed by the Council is submitted
to the Charter Commission only the "originally proposed" amendment or "substitute amendment proposed by the
Charter Commission" may be submitted to the voters. If the City Council submitted an amendment or new
ordinance to the Charter Commission the clock would start over.
Whether or not Ordinance 96-9 is repealed, additional Charter amendments can always be brought
forward by petition, the City Council, or the Charter Commission.
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:sm
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
I
Agenda Number:
F CITY'OF PLYMOUTH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 7, 1997 for the City Council Meeting of December 12, 1997
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: "ALL -WAY" STOP SIGN POLICY
ACTION REQUESTED: After discussion, provide direction to City staff on how to proceed
with the preparation of revisions to the City's policy for "All -Way" stop intersections in
residential areas requested by petition.
BACKGROUND: On October 15, 1997, the City Council adopted a moratorium on
consideration of "All -Way" stop intersections initiated by citizen petitions until the City
Council could study the issue and determine revisions to the current policy. The current policy
attached) only states that "if the request is not recommended by the City Engineer, that upon a
petition of 70% of the residents within 500 feet of the street intersection, it will be considered
by the City Council." There is no criteria established in the policy on what basis the City
Council will use in their consideration of the request.
After extensive review by a committee composed of citizens, staff, and input from their traffic
consultant, the City of Lakeville has recently adopted a policy concerning "All -Way" stops in
residential areas. The traffic consultant for Lakeville is the same consultant, SRF Consulting
Group, Inc., that the City of Plymouth uses for our traffic consultant.
The City of Lakeville policy establishes measurable criteria for establishing justification for an
All -Way" stop. It uses speed, traffic volumes, sight distances, and other conditions such as
pedestrian activity caused by nearby schools, parks, or other pedestrian generators. The
Lakeville policy is attached to this report.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council needs to determine how to proceed with developing a policy.
Several options are available:
The Council could direct the establishment of a committee similar to what
was used in Lakeville which included citizens, City staff, and technical
assistance from a traffic consultant.
Ply—nt\ntdiskI\PW\Engineering\SIGNSWOMMEMOS\Sign Policy.doc
SUBJECT: "ALL -WAY" STOP SIGN POLICY
Page 2
The Council could refer the establishment of a policy to the existing Public
Safety Committee.
The Council could adopt the City of Lakeville policy as the criteria to be
used by Plymouth.
DISCUSSION: I have discussed the formulation of the Lakeville policy with the traffic
consultant. It did involve a very extensive and time consuming committee preparation, with
extensive input in the measurable factors from the traffic consultant. The situations in the
residential areas in Plymouth which are generating the request are no different than what took
place in the City of Lakeville. For this reason, I believe extensive work has been done which
Plymouth could use.
Within the past year, there have been two residential areas in Plymouth where "All -Way"
stops were requested and established. These were on Zircon Lane in western Plymouth, and
Valley Forge Lane in the eastern part of the City. I believe we have, or could collect, the
necessary data to use the Lakeville policy to determine what the recommendation would have
been concerning these "All -Way" stops. We also have received a petition for an "All -Way"
stop at 47' Avenue and Cottonwood Lane, which has not been considered because of the
moratorium adopted by the Council. The necessary data can be collected for this intersection.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I would recommend that the City Council
direct the staff to conduct the analysis on a recommendation for an "All -Way" stop for Zircon
Lane, Valley Forge Lane, and the Cottonwood/47' intersection using the criteria established in
the Lakeville policy. This work could be completed and a report made for the Council study
session on December 10. I do not see the need to establish a separate committee to formulate a
policy.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
attachments: Copy of City of Plymouth's Current Stop Sign Policy
Copy of Lakeville's Stop Sign Policy
Ply_nt\ntdisk 1\PW \Engineering\SIGNS\STOP\MEMOS\Sign_Pol icy, doc
P \yr.,aot IN
C c, rre•,t po I : GY
POLICY CONCERNING REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN INSTALLATION
Resolution No. 90-583
September 10, 1990
Supersedes Res. No. 82-590, dated November 1, 1982; Res. No.
81-389, dated June 22, 1981)
The City Council is granted the authority to approve or deny
requests for stop signs at intersections within the City.
The City Council is aware that because of the emotional situation
often surrounding such requests, it is sometimes difficult to
analyze the request using rational criteria.
To enhance the Council's ability to use rational criteria in
evaluating stop sign requests and minimize the proliferation of
signage, except where required, the following guidelines are
adopted:
1. All stop sign requests are to be directed to the Engineering
Division.
2. The City Engineer will evaluate each request using the State
Uniform Traffic Warrant Criteria. A stop sign may be
required at an intersection where one or more of the
following conditions exist:
a. The intersection of a less important road with the main
road where application of the normal right-of-way rule is
unduly hazardous.
b. A street enters a through highway or street.
C. Unsignalized intersections in an otherwise signalized
area.
d. Other intersections where combination of high speed,
restricted view, and serious accident record indicates a
need for control by- the stop sign. (Further information
about stop sign criteria is available in the Minnesota
Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices.)
3. If the intersection meets the criteria set forth in the
Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices, the City
Engineer will request City Council approval of a resolution
authorizing stop sign installation.
4. If the signs do not meet the criteria, the City Engineer will
respond to the requesting party providing the reasons why the
signs are not recommended.
11
5. Residents will be advised that they have an opportunity to
bring their request before the City Council for consideration
if they are not satisfied with the City Engineer's
recommendation. The request shall be in the form of a
petition with signatures of 70 percent of the residents whose
property lies within a 500 foot radius from the intersecting
street center lines.
lla
C i'v o;
4 L o,.Key .Ile
ALL -WAY STOP
CONTROL POLICY
CITY OF LAKEVILLE G
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
DATE: April 21, 1997 _ RESOLUTION NO: 97-89
MOTION BY: Holberg SECONDED BY: Mulvihill
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL POLICY
WHEREAS, in an effort to address numerous requests by residents to establish All -Way Stop Control
intersections, on September 3, 1996, City Council authorized the establishment of a Traffic Safety
Committee to develop an All -Way Stop Control Policy, and
WHEREAS, this Committee consisted of 4 residents of the City, Steve Pecho, Greg Doyle, Ron Nystuen
and Robin Brown, and 4 City staff personnel to include the: Director of Operations & Maintenance Don
Volk, Police Lt. Richard Schwartz, Assistant City Engineer Tim Hanson, and Council Member Mary Liz
Holberg, and
WHEREAS, it was the goal of this Committee to establish an All -Way Stop Control Policy which would
establish consistency in reviewing All -Way Stop Control intersection requests throughout the City on
neighborhood streets, and
WHEREAS, this Policy was to be established to remain consistent with the Lakeville Transportation Plan
and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and
WHEREAS, this Policy will be reviewed annually to insure effectiveness in review of All -Way Stop
Control intersections requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville that the attached All -
Way Stop Control Policy be authorized for implementation to be effective on the date of Resolution
approval.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of Ar)ril , 1997, by the City Council of the City
of Lakeville.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
BY:
Duane Zaun, M6ir
TES
1
harlene Friedges, City` Jerk
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DEPARTMENT OP OPERATIONS
MAINTENANCE
ALL- WAY STOP CONTROL
POLICY/ PROCEDURES
JUSTIFICATION WORKSHEET -
USE AND APPLICATION GUIDELINES
ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL JUSTIFICATION WORKSHEET
RESIDENTS' PETITION
0 INFORMATIONAL FLYER
CITY OF LAKEVILLE DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
RESIDENTIAL ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL REQUEST
POLICY/PROCEDURES
Due to the increasing number of requests for all -way stop control and to address concerns
for vehicle speed and safety in residential neighborhoods, the City established a traffic
safety policy committee to review current residential all -way stop control policy and
procedures and recommend necessary changes in these policies and procedures.
This appointed committee was made up of representatives from the City Council. local
neighborhood residents and staff members from the operations and maintenance,
engineering and police departments. This committee was assisted by the City's traffic
engineering consultant.
Meeting regularly the committee compiled and reviewed extensive materials concerning
all -way stop control, neighborhood safety issues and other measures to respond to
neighborhood residents concerns and the subsequent requests for all -way stop control.
Based on this work the committee has formulated a recommended policy and procedure
to respond to requests for all -way stop control in residential neighborhoods and to address
the safety and quality of life issues related to these concerns. It is the il;ent of this policy,
to address the need for a review, screening and justification procedure for the installation
of all -way stop control in residential neighborhoods.
The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices establishes "warrants" for
all -way stop control. However, these warrants are not intended to address the conditions
present on residential neighborhood/local streets. These Mn/MUTCD warrants are
intended to address the conditions present on higher functional classification roadways
such as major collector and arterial streets.
The City of Lakeville residential all -way stop control policy recognizes that there are
conditions that may justify all -way stop control at local residential street intersections .
These predominant causes or conditions are related to vehicle speed, traffic volume, sight
distance, pedestrian activity and traffic accident history. It also recognizes that there
must be a method to screen requests for all -way stop control in order to reduce the
indiscriminate use of all -way stop control where it is not justified.
Upon receiving an initial request for all -way stop control the city will provide the
interested party with an informational flyer describing the policy and procedure and
specific information concerning all -way stop control. what it can and cannot do for the
neighborhood, what the likelv side effects of all -way stop control are, what cautions
should be considered, and who they should contact at the city should they choose to go
forward with their request for all -way stop control. Along with this flyer, a petition form
and instructions for use will be attached in order to obtain support in the form of
signatures from the neighborhood.
Should the neighborhood decide to go forward with their all -way stop control request,
they should complete the attached petition form and submit this petition to the City of
Lakeville Operations and Maintenance Department. Once this signed petition has been
received by the Operations and Maintenance Department a site survey and traffic data
collection will be scheduled for the subject intersection. This site survey and data
collection can be done only from May through October due to weather related conditions.
This site survey will include traffic volume counts on all intersection legs and an
approach speed survey on the uncontrolled approaches. A review of sight distance,
pedestrian use and traffic accident history for the past 12 months will also be completed.
When the site survey/traffic data collection has been completed, the subject site will be
evaluated based on a worksheet system where points are scored for the various speed,
volume, sight distance, traffic accident history and pedestrian use criteria. When a
minimum point threshold is reached or exceeded the all -way stop control may be
justified. The final recommendation to install all -way stop control will be made based on
this evaluation and the professional judgment of the appropriate city staff.
Once the final recommendation to install all -way stop control has been given, for the
subject intersection the appropriate Resolution for City Council action will be prepared
and included in the agenda for the next available City Council meeting. The
neighborhood will also be notified of this action.
If the final recommendation for the subject site is not to install all -way stop control, the
neighborhood will be notified of that decision and provided additional materials relative
to their case and what other actions or measures could be considered.
USE AND APPLICATION GUIDELINES FOR THE
CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESIDENTIAL ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL
JUSTIFICATION WORKSHEET
The residential all -way stop control justification worksheet was developed in order to
respond to increasing requests by residents for all -way stop control to address safety
concerns in their neighborhoods.
This worksheet is the product of a cooperative work between residents, city council, city
staff, and assisted by the City's traffic engineering consultant, all part of an appointed
traffic safety policy committee. In following the intent of the recommended policy and
procedures for residential all -way stop controls, this worksheet was developed to evaluate
the speed, volume, site distance, traffic accident, and pedestrian activity criteria for the
subject intersection request.
This policy and procedure is intended only for local/residential neighborhood street
intersections with speed limits of 30 mph. Higher functional classification streets such as
major collector or arterial streets are not applicable to this Policy Procedure and the
standard All -Way Stop Control Warrants in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices apply.
Following are directions for completing the worksheet.
Functional Classification Review
The first step in this process is to review the current City Transportation Plan to verify
that the subject intersection is not on a designated major collector or arterial street. If the
subject intersection is on a major collector or arterial street the vin Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices supersedes this procedure and the Mn.MUTCD warrants for All -
Way Stop Control shall be applied.
Residents Petition
Once the petition for residential all -way stop control has been submitted to the City, a
review is made of the number of "households" within 300 feet of the intersection that
have signed the petition. Either through the site survey or by use of appropriate mapping,
the "total" number of households is determined within 300 foot from the center of the
subject intersection and along the streets that would be affected by the AWSC. From the
number of households (not the number of residents) signed on the petition and the total
number of households within 300 feet of the subject intersection. the percent of
households sinning the petition is made. At least 51 percent of the total number of
households within 300 feet of the subject intersection must have signed the petition.
Approach Speeds
Based on the speed data collected for the uncontrolled approaches to the subject
intersection enter these speeds in the blanks on the worksheet and mark two boxes on the
worksheet, one for the highest 85th percentile speed and one for the highest recorded
speed group with 2 or more observations.
Traffic Volumes
Based on the average daily approach traffic volumes collected at the subject intersection,
enter the approach traffic volumes in the blanks on the worksheet and mark two boxes on
the worksheet, one for the major street '`total' approach volume (both approaches) and
one for the highest minor street approach volume (doubled or times two).
Sight Distance
Based on the site survey, determine if the available site distance on each uncontrolled
approach to the subject intersection is adequate. This can be done by driving or walking
those uncontrolled approaches and stopping at a "point" 300 feet and also at 450 feet
from the subject intersection. At each of these locations look to see if some feature on the
controlled approach like a car, curb, sign or other appropriate feature is visible from that
location. Measure the distance between a "point" at 300 feet and also at 450 feet from the
center of the subject intersection using either a vehicle installed distance measuring
instrument (DMI) or measuring wheel.
Mark the box and score 60 points on the worksheet if the sight distance is less than
300 feet (unsafe condition). Where the controlled approach is not visible from the
300 foot point.
Mark the box and score 10 points if the sight distance is greater than 300 feet but less
than 450 feet (uncomfortable condition). Where the controlled approach is visible at the
300 foot point but not at the 450 foot location.
Other Conditions
Based on traffic accidents recorded by the City police for the last 12 month period enter
the number of accidents (not number of vehicles or persons involved) in the blank space.
Multiply this number of accidents by 10 points and enter the score in the adjacent box.
Based on the site survey and other available information mark the box and score
10 points if there is significant pedestrian activity crossing the subject intersection caused
by a nearby school, park, bus stop or other pedestrian generator.
Worksheet Results
Total the points scored for each category box marked or the points for accident history
and enter that total in the total points box. If the total point score is greater than or equal
to 100, all -way stop control may be justified at the subject intersection. The final
recommendation to install All -Way Stop Control at the subject intersection will be made
based on the results of this worksheet and the professional judgment of the City Staff.
CITY OF LA KEV I L L E DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
RESIDENTIAL STREET ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL JUSTIFICATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION LOCATION:
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: DATE:
ihis Residential Street All -Way Stop Control Justification'Norksheet is applicable only to intersections of residential streets with speed limits
of 30 miles per hour. This proceedure is 'not' to be applied to the intersection of a focal residential street with a major collector or arterial
street as identified in the Citys Transportation Plan.
I
RESIDENTS' PETITION
A petition has been submitted to theiCity which has been signed by more than 501.0 of the residents within 300 feet of the subject intersecticn
and who live on the streets that would be affected by the requested All -way Stop Control.
SUBMITTED BY: DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
APPROACH SPEEDS 1 2
Uncontrolled aoproacn speed. Check two boxes, one for the 85th percentile 27.5 miles per hour or less 0 points
approach speed group and one for the highest recorced speed group with
27.6 to 32.5 mites per hour 10 points
two or more observations.
32.6 to 37.5 miles per hour 20 points
85th percentile approach speed (hignest approach). n 37.6 to 42.5 miles per hour 30 points 110
M = highest recorded speed group with rro or more observations. 40 El Elto47.5 miles per hour paints
47.6 to 52.5 miles per hour 50 points
52.6 miles per hour or more 60 paints
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1 2
Intersection approach daily traffic volume. Check two boxes, one for the Less than 250 vehicles per day 0 paints
total major street approach volume and one for the highest minor street leg.
250 to 450 vehicles per day 10 points
11 = total daily traffic volume for both major street approaches. 450 to 700 vehicles per day 20 points
2 = highest minor street approach daily traffic volume (times two). 700 to 1000 vehicles per day 30 points
More than 1000 vehicles per day 40 points
SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTION
The safe stopping sight distance on any uncontrolled approach is restricted to less than 300 feet by horizontal and/or 60 points
vertical roadway alignment, or by other 'permanent' obstructions to sight distance.
The safe stopping sight distance on any uncontrolled approach is greater than 300 feet but less than 450 feet due to 10 points
horizontal and/or vertical roadway alignment, or other *permanent' obstructions to sight distance.
OTHER CONDITIONS
f
The number of reported traffic accidents at the subject intersection within the past 12 months = x (times) 10 points =
School, park, bus stco or other major pedestrian generator causing many pedestrians to cross the subject intersection. 10 points
PREPARED BY: Total Points
It the worksheet point total Is greater than or equal to 100, all -way stop control may be 'Justified' at the subject intersection.
See the reverse side of this worksheet for an explaination of the results of this review and the status of this request.
CITY OF LA KEV 1 L L E DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
RESIDENTIAL STREET ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL JUSTIFICATION WORKSHEET
RESULTS AND STATUS OF THIS RESIDENTIAL STREET ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL REVIEW
Total
Points Results and Status
100+ Conditions at the subject intersection may 'justify' installation of residential street all -way stop control.
After further review, a final City staff recommendation will be made based on the results of this worksheet
and professional judgement. If the recommendation is to install All -way Stop Control a City Council
Resolution will be prepared and submitted for Council action on the next available City Council agenda.
Once the City Council has approved this Resolution the all -way stop control will be installed as soon as work
schedules permit.
80-90 Conditions at the subject intersection 'do not' justify installation of residential street all -way stop control at
this time. However, conditions do warrant further future review. In approximately 12 months the City staff
will initiate contact with the neighborhood to verify continued interest in all -way stop control installation at
this intersection. If so, traffic data collected will be updated and the intersection re-evaluated. After one
re-evaluation that results in 90 points or less the neighborhood will be reguired to submit a new petition at
such time that they feet conditions have changed significantly and continue to want All -way Stop Control.
80 Conditions at the subject intersection 'do not' justify installation of residential street all -way stop control at
this time. However, further review may be justified at some future time. After two or more years, or after the
neighborhood feels there has been a significant change in conditions, the neighborhood can submit a new
petition for residential street all -way stop control at this intersection.
Should there be any questions or comments concerning this review please contact:
Don Volk, Director of Operations and Maintenance at: 9854541
CITY OF LA KEVI LLE DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
LRESIDENTS' PETITION FOR RESIDENTIAL STREET ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL REVIEW
INTERSECTION LOCATION:
Neighborhood Representative: Date:
Representative's Address: Phone:
We; the undersigned residents of the neighborhood within 300 feet of the above referenced intersection
and residing on the subject streets, petition the City of Lakeville to undertake a review of conditions at
this intersection in consideration of installation of Residential Street All -way Stop Control. This Petition
is submitted to the City in response to concern for safety and well being in the neighborhood.
Specific concerns identified for each household are listed as follows (choose one or two most important):
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Speeding Traffic Through Sight Traffic Other
Traffic Volume Traffic Distance Accidents (state)
HOUSEHOLD ADDRESS HOUSEHOLD SIGNATURE CONCERN ;#
No
DATE: October 6, 1997
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Dale Hahn, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Publishing delinquent utility customers listing
At the September 3`d Council meeting, Councilmember Bildsoe inquired about the
possibility of publishing the listing of delinquent utility customers in an effort to reduce
the volume of delinquencies. I have asked Roger Knutson if there is a problem with
doing this. He said it is legal to do so. I have inquired into the cost of publishing this
listing. The estimated cost would be about $500.
I have attempted to list the pros and the cons of doing this:
PROS CONS
Encourage more payments Cost of publishing
Reduce volume of delinquent letters May aggravate some citizens
Save staff time preparing rolls etc. Real dead beats won't pay anyway
Will still need to hold public
hearing for balance of delinquencies
The City also receives 8% interest on all levied assessments from the date of levy
until December 3151 of the following year.
November 10 , 1997
Gleason Lake Drive Association
n ,
i
1 - iuthvrogoryAlaustnerPeterfist
To The: City Council of Plymouth:
GLDA)
Q
Robert Hall
To implement the five requests we presented to The City
Council on October 15, 1997 for your consideration, we ask
that you do so for item number five, namely that there be
signs p,)sted at each end of this one mile stretch of
Gleason Lake Drive stating "No through trucks."
We do request that The City Council pass an ordinance which
restricts all trucks with axle weight of 3000 pounds or
more from passing through Gleason Lake Drive between
Carlson Parkway and Vicksburg Lane and not having business
along our road.
Thank you.
Gleason Lake Drive Association (GLDA)