HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 08-02-2012CITY OF PLYMOUTH
rp) COUNCIL INFO MEMO
August 2, 2012
EVENTS / MEETINGS
EQC Committee Agenda 08/08/12....................................................................................................... Page 1
August, September, October 2012 Official City Meeting Calendars .................................................. Page 2
Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ..................................................... Page 5
CORRESPONDENCE
New Three Rivers Commissioner Districts......................................................................................... Page 7
City Council Filings for 11/06/12 Election......................................................................................... Page 9
Letter from U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Re: Award of FY 2012 HUD Funds...... Page 10
Letter to Property Owner RE: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for property located between 54th Ave.
and The Canadian Pacific Railroad (2012054)............................................................................... Page 12
Letter to Property Owner RE: Variance to allow 8' high freestanding sign (2012060) ..................... Page 13
Minnehaha Watershed Dist. Public Hearing or Taft -Legion Volume ................................................ Page 14
NW Cable Communications 2012 Cable Capital Grant for $13,497.72 ............................................ Page 15
Water Governance Evaluation from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ....................................... Page 16
Plymouth Defends Closing Shooting Range, Star Tribune................................................................ Page 20
REPORTS
Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8).................................................................................. Page 22
Update on Credit Card Acceptance and On -Line Permits.................................................................. Page 41
Traffic Concerns on Shenandoah and 61St Avenue............................................................................. Page 43
MINUTES
Minutes, Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority 05/24/12 .............................................. Page 45
Minutes, Plymouth Planning Commission 07/18/12.......................................................................... Page 58
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
August 8, 2012
WHERE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed on the consent agenda* are considered to be routine by the Environmental
Quality Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Committee member, or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda.
1. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC FORUM — Individuals may address the Committee about any item
not contained in the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the Forum.
3. 7:15 P.M APPROVAL OF AGENDA - EQC members may add items to the agenda for
discussion purposes or staff direction only. The EQC will not normally take official action
on items added to the agenda.
4. 7:20 P.M. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. 7:40 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA*
A. Approve June 13, 2012, Environmental Quality Committee Meeting Minutes (Asche)
B. Receive Update on 2012 Composting Grant Program (Asche)
6. 7:45 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. 2011-2012 Recycling Update
7. REPORTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
8. FUTURE MEETINGS — September 12, 2012 (Adopt a Street & Buckthorn Project)
9. 8:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1
r�Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
August 2012
Modified on 07119112
Page 2
1
2
3
4
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
PLANNING
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
COMMITTEE
MEETING
MEETING
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake Room
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2:30-5:00 PM
7:00 PM
NIGHT TO UNITE
ENVIRONMENTAL
KICKOFF
QUALITY
Plymouth Creek Center
COMMITTEE
(EQC) MEETING
6:30-9:30 PM
Council Chambers
NIGHT TO UNITE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
PRIMARY
7:00 PM
ELECTION DAY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
8:00 PM
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Council Chambers
MEETING
Council Chambers
CITY COUNCIL FILINGS
CLOSE 5:00 PM
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
MEETING
PLYMOUTH
HRA MEETING
Budget Study Session
ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room
Medicine Lake Room
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
26
27
28
29
30
31
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Council Chambers
Modified on 07119112
Page 2
r�Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
September 2012
Modified on 07119112
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
LABOR DAY
L
MEETING
Council Chambers
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK ft REC
MEETING
QUALITY
ADVISORY
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
(EQC) MEETING
(PRAC) MEETING
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
16
17
18 7:00 PM
19 7:00 PM
20
21
22
REGULAR COUNCIL
PLANNING
MEETING
COMMISSION
Council Chambers
MEETING
Council Chambers
Rosh HoShanah
Begins at Sunset
23
24
25
26
7:00 PM
27
7:00 PM
28
29 PLYMOUTH
H
PLYMOUTH
HRA MEETING
FIREFIGHTERS 5K
ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room
Fire Station #2
COMMITTEE ON
11:30 AM
TRANSIT (PACT)
PLYMOUTH ON
STUDY SESSION
PARADE
Medicine Lake Room
CELEBRATION
i
City Center Area
Yom Kippur
/q o
Begins at Sunset
Modified on 07119112
Page 3
vPlymouth
Adding Quality to Life
October 2012
Modified on 01101112
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
6:30 PM
7:00 PM
VOLUNTEER
PLANNING
RECOGNITION
COMMISSION
EVENT
MEETING
Plymouth Creek
Council Chambers
Center
7
8
9 7:00 PM
10 7:00 PM
11 7:00 PM
12
13
REGULAR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK Ft REC
12:00-3:00 PM
MEETING
QUALITY
ADVISORY
FIRE DEPT.
COLUMBUS DAY
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
OPEN HOUSE
Observed
(EQC) MEETING
(PRAC) MEETING
Fire Station III
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
PLYMOUTH PUBLIC
WORKS DIVISION
CLOSED
14
15
16
17 7:00 PM
18
19
20
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
PLYMOUTH
HRA MEETING
MEETING
ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
STUDY SESSION
Medicine Lake Room
28
29
30
31
6:00-8:00 PM
Halloween on
the Creek
Plymouth Creek
Center
Modified on 01101112
Page 4
Tentative Schedule for
City Council Agenda Items
August 14, Regular, 8:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Authorize agreement with the Invitation Health Institute for reimbursement funding for underage
alcohol compliance checks
• Consider amending the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District 7-8 (Quest Development,
Inc.) (Tabled from July 24)
• Present Environmental Champion Award to Kathleen Hartman
• Approve Payment No. 2 and Final for Conor Meadows Improvement Project (110 19)
• Accept Streets for Continual Maintenance, Spring Meadows (2009025)
• Order and Accept Preliminary Engineering Report, Calling for a Public Hearing, Declaring Costs
to be Assessed, and Setting Assessment Hearing, Vicksburg Lane and Rockford Road Sidewalk
Improvement Project (12023)
• Encroachment Agreement for a Retaining Wall located on Lot 2, Block 2, Heritage Woods
Estates Addition
• Approve Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances for a 911 emergency
communications facility at the adult correctional facility site at 1245 Shenandoah Lane.
(Hennepin County — 2012036)
• Approve Variance for construction of a detached garage exceeding 700 square feet at 210
Niagara Lane. (Steven Anderson — 201205 1)
• Approve Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for "Kirkwood" for 46 single-family homes to be
located at 5205, 5250, 5330 and 5350 Dunkirk Lane. (US Home Corp - 201204 1)
• Approve Zoning Ordinance amendment to the text of the regulations pertaining to wall signage.
(City of Plymouth - 2012053)
• Approve Final Plat for Taylor Creek 4th Addition. (Tradition Development — 2012053)
• Approve Final Plat for Elm Creek Highlands East Third Addition. (Pulte Group — 2012055)
August 21, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Budget
August 28, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
September 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Approve 2013 proposed budgets, preliminary tax levies and budget hearing date
• Announce Plymouth Firefighters 5K Run on September 22
September 25, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce Plymouth on Parade on September 29
October 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Appoint additional election judges for the General Election
• Announce Fire Department Open House on October 20
October 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce Halloween on the Creek on October 31
November 131, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. Page 5
• Canvass 2012 General Election results
• Announce Plymouth Arts Fair on November 17-18
November 27, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce Old Fashioned Christmas on December 2
December 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Recognize Police Citizen Academy Graduates
• Announce New Year's Eve Event on December 31
Page 6
1 hreeRivers
PARK DISTRICT
July 27, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jason McGrew -King
Intergovernmental Media Relations Coordinator
763/559-6779
imcgrew-king@threeriversparkdistrict.org
NEW THREE RIVERS COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS ARE IN PLACE
With the primary election in Minnesota approaching on Aug. 14, Three Rivers Park District offers a
reminder that Three Rivers' Commissioner districts have changed due to redistricting. The seven -
member Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners includes five Commissioners elected by
residents of suburban Hennepin County and two members appointed on an at -large basis by the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. The Board adopted the redistricting plan for the Park District
this spring.
State statute requires that the population of each district be as equal as possible. To achieve that
population balance, four cities are split between two Commissioner districts. They are: Brooklyn Park
(Districts 2 and 3), Hopkins (Districts 3 and 4), Orono (Districts 1 and 4) and Richfield (Districts 4 and
5).
A map available on the Board of Commissioners page on the Park District's website shows the new
districts approved by the Board. The new Commissioner districts are:
Commissioner District 1
Corcoran
Minnetonka Beach
Greenfield
Mound
Hanover
New Hope
Independence
Orono - Precincts 1, 3 and 4
Long Lake
Plymouth
Commissioner District 2
Brooklyn Park: All Precincts Except W1 -O & W1 -R
Champlin
Dayton
Maple Grove
Osseo
(more)
Loretto
Rockford
Maple Plain
Rogers
Medicine Lake
Spring Park
Medina
St. Bonifacius
Minnetrista
Wayzata
Page 7
REDISTRICTING/2
Commissioner District 3
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park: Precincts W1-0 & W1 -R Only
Crystal
Golden Valley
Hopkins - Precinct 2
Robbinsdale
St. Anthony
St. Louis Park
Commissioner District 4
Deephaven
Edina
Excelsior
Greenwood
Hopkins: All Precincts Except 2
Minnetonka
Orono - Precinct 2
Richfield: All Precincts Except 6 & 9
Shorewood
Tonka Bay
Woodland
Commissioner District 5
Bloomington
Chanhassen
Eden Prairie
Fort Snelling
Richfield: Precincts 6 & 9
About Three Rivers Park District
Three Rivers Park District is a nature -based park system that manages park reserves, regional parks, regional trails
and special -use facilities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Three Rivers Park District's mission is to promote
environmental stewardship through recreation and education in a natural resources -based park system. The Park
District owns and operates more than 27,000 acres and serves more than 9 million visitors a year.
Page 8
City of Plymouth City Council Filings
for the November 6, 2012 General Election
Ward 1(4 -year term)
Judy Johnson
4600 Jewel Ln.
Plymouth, MN 55446
(612) 384-4636
judyinplym@comcast.net
Ward 2 (2 -year term)
Jeff Wos j e
1760 Ranier Ln. N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
(763) 473-2882
jeffwosieforcitycouncll@gmall.com
Ward 3 (4 -year term)
Bob Stein
2740 Medicine Ridge
Plymouth, MN 55441
(763) 542-9828
At Large (4 -year term)
Jim Willis
16511 26" Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
jgwillismn@comcast.net
Page 9
�p'YEVT"
%G IIIIIIII .*.
04a orv£}
Ms. Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
Dear Ms. Ahrens:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Minneapolis Field Office
920 Second Avenue south, Suite 1300
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4012
JUL 3 0 2012
SUBJECT: Award of FY 2012 HUD Funds
Plymouth, Minnesota
CEIVED
JUL 31 2012
V
I am pleased to advise you that we have approved your FY 2012 Annual Action Plan.
Approval of this plan constitutes an award of funds in the following amount:
CDBG $ 230,998
We recognize that reduced FY 2012 funding levels may require program restructuring
and further prioritization and targeting of these limited resources at a time when communities
around the country continue to face significant need. We are committed to doing everything we
can to support you as you face these challenges. If you would like assistance from CPD in
redesigning, prioritizing or targeting your programs, either you or the head of the agency that
administers your program may request technical assistance through your Community Planning
and Development Representative.
We have enclosed three copies of the grant agreement for the CDBG Program. Please
execute the enclosed documents and return two copies to our office. As you review each
document please note any special conditions and/or reminders for each program. One condition
is that you may not obligate or expend funds that were not included for activities in projects that
have been previously cleared of environmental conditions. You may obligate or expend them
only after HUD has approved in writing the compliance with environmental regulations at 24
CFR Part 58. The use of even non -HUD funds is limited in some situations. These requirements
do not apply to activities that are exempt under § 58.34, or not subject to § 58.5 under § 58.35(b).
You may undertake such activities immediately.
Be reminded that the award of these funds does not constitute approval of the individual
activities included in the Action Plan portion of the submission. Nor does it indicate that we
have determined that they meet programmatic requirements. We want to remind you that an
annual performance report is required in accordance with the Consolidated Plan regulations at
24 CFR 91.524.
www.hud.guv espanol.hud,gov
Page 10
We look forward to working with your community in the coming months. If you have
any questions or concerns you may contact me directly at 612-370-3019. My staff contact point
for program management issues is Christine DeLarbre, Program Representative, and she can be
reached at (612) 370-3019, ext. 2157.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
Michele K. Smith, Director
Office of Community Planning and Development
Page 11
r uCity of
9)p
lymouth
Adding Quality to Life
August 3, 2012
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED BETWEEN 54TH AVENUE AND THE CANADIAN PACIFIC
RAILROAD (2012054)
Dear Resident/Land Owner:
The city has recently received the subject application from US Homes Corporation dba Lennar,
under file no. 2012054, requesting approval of the following items for a proposed plat to be
called "KIRKWOOD II" for the roughly 28.5 -acre site: 1) a rezoning from FRD (future
restricted development) to RSF-3 (single family detached 3) and 2) a preliminary plat to create 77
single-family lots. A map showing the location of the subject property is provided below.
This letter is being mailed to all landowners within 750 feet of the site in order to provide notice
and information about the application — in advance of the official notice that will be sent out
prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing on the matter. The city will send out another
letter notifying you of the Planning Commission public hearing date, not less than ten days prior
to the hearing date. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow neighboring property owners to
appear in front of the Planning Commission to ask questions and make comments relating to the
application. You may also submit comments in writing. All written comments will become part
of the public record.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this application or the review procedures,
please call Marie Darling, Senior Planner, at (763) 509-5457.
INFORMATION relating to this request may
be examined at the community development
information counter (lower level of City
IIall), on Mondays and Wednesday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and on
Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m., except
holidays.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
3400 Plymouth Blvd • PLymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.plymouthmn.gov
F1_ -W1 ling ApphudomTC Xafl AMUM012054 fialmmi—do-
tis
Page 12
c;ry or
rp)
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
August 3, 2012
SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT -FOOT HIGH FREESTANDING SIGN
(2012060)
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a
request by St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church, under File No. 2012060, for a variance to
allow an eight -foot high freestanding sign, where six feet is the maximum allowed for property
located at 17205 County Road 6. Under the proposal, the applicant would construct a new
freestanding, electronic sign located on the north side of the church parking lot along County
Road 6. A map showing the location of the subject property is provided below.
Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 200 feet of the site of this
proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a public meeting to be held
by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, August 15, 2012, in the
Council Chambers at Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be invited
to offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, or feel free to call the
city planning department at (763) 509.5450 for more information. You may also submit
comments in writing. All written comments will become part of the public record.
INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the community development
information counter (lower level of City Hall), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m., except holidays.
Sincerely,
Barbara G. Thomson, AICP
Planning Manager
PIPlanning Applications/PC Notices/2012/2012060 propnotice.doex
3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.plymouthmn.gov
Page 13
MINNEHAHA CREEK I
The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District is
committed to a leadership
role in protecting,
improving and managing
the surface waters and
affiliated groundwater
resources within the
District, including their
relationships to the
ecosystems of which
they are an integral part.
We achieve our mission
through regulation,
capital projects,
education, cooperative
endeavors, and other
programs based on
sound science,
innovative thinking, an
informed and engaged
constituency, and the
cost effective use of
public funds.
QUALITY OF WATER
July 20, 2012
Mr. Derek Asche
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF LIFE
JUL 2 3 2012
Re: Public Hearing for Taft -Legion Volume and Load Reduction Project
Dear Mr. Asche,
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board of Managers will hold a
Public Hearing at the Meeting of the Board of Managers on Thursday, August 2, 2012 at
6:45 p.m. for the Taft -Legion Regional Volume and Load Reduction Project.
The proposed project will be completed in partnership with the City of Richfield to
provide treatment for urban stormwater runoff discharging into Taft Lake and Legion
Lake, subsequently improving the quality of water discharged to Lake Nokomis and
ultimately Minnehaha Creek. The feasibility study for the project can be found at:
www.minnehahacreek.or Taft -Le ion -Project.
The total estimated cost for the project is $2,700,000 and would be funded through a
combination of upfront city financing and a reduced, recurring annual District ad valorem
tax levy over 20 years. Approximately 4.19% of the ad valorem costs will be allocated to
Carver County and 95.81% of the ad valorem costs will be allocated to Hennepin County.
If the Managers find that the project will be conducive to public health, promote the
general welfare, and is consistent with the MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan, they will order and formally establish the project at the August 23,
2012 Board Meeting.
The meeting will be held at the MCWD Offices, 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard,
Deephaven, MN 55391. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please call
James Wisker at 952-641-4509.
Cc: Manager Laurie Ahrens
Mayor Kelli Slavik
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, MN 55391.Ofhce: (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 0 www.niien�Riatriek.org
NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
6900 Winnetka Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
763-536-8355
it;l, 3: ?1)12'
Laurie Ahrens
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
L..IVIED
JUL 31 2012
Enclosed you will find a check for the quarterly payment of the 2012 Cable Capital Grant in the
amount of $13.497.72.
The NorthweSt Suburbs Cable Communications Commission has increased its capitai flat ;rant to
cities by 5°•4't The giant, to be paid quarterly, is comprised of a flat grant to each city plus a
proportional grant determined by the number of subscribers within each city. The schedule fOr these
payments will be January 31" , April 30`', July 31`x' and October 31=x'. Il'thc 3O'l' lands on a wec:l.end
Ll e payment will be sent prior to the 30`x'.
'1'01.11 payment breaks down as follows:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
1012 Flat Grant $24,321.88
2012 Proportional Giant 533,669.00
Annual Total : i53.9iJt)_8S
Total diN ided by 4 ==
$13,497.72 per quarter
Please note that the actual dollar amounts of these grants change each year depending on the number
of cable subscribers.
If you 11dVC 8.9ty CIuesticns, please call me at 763-533-8196.
Sincerely,
Grego re, Executive Director
1,'40I t Suburbs Cable Corninunications Commission
cc: Helen LaFaye
Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Golden Valley • Maple Grove • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth PM15ale
t
T •
i�[G� � y±lr r �-_' lam• -
Water Governance Evaluation'L
How is water managed in Minnesota, and is our system a sustainable one?
The Water Governance Evaluation project is an effort by the MPCA to
evaluate Minnesota's water -related laws, rules and programs in order
to.streamline, strengthen, and improve sustainable wafter management.
How and why should we streamline water management?
Minnesota's water governance structure includes at least six state
agencies that are charged with distinct but overlapping water
management roles.
In recent years, the Legacy Amendment and the Clean Water
Fund have served as powerful incentives for state agencies to
collaborate and improve the integration of their programs.
However, at the local level, the complexity of programs and
permit requirements often frustrates landowners and local
governments.
This study represents an effort by the state water management
agencies to turn the spotlight on ourselves and seek opportu-
nities to improve our policies, processes and requirements.
The study is still in the information -gathering and issue identifica-
tion phase, and we are actively seeking input, opinions and ideas.
Minnesota's four major river basins
Red River of
the North Basin
R Great Lakes
Basin
ti
Mississippi
River Basin
Missouri River Basin
Minnesota, uniquely located at the headwaters of four continental -scale river
basins has historically been known as a "water -rich state,' but one where growing
water demands and localized or seasonal shortages create challenges for a
sustainable water supply.
Who's involved?
The study is being conducted through the MPCA
Commissioner's Office, directed by Commissioner
John Linc Stine and Assistant Commissioner
Rebecca Flood. Suzanne Rhees is project
coordinator. Advisors include the Clean Water
Council, Board of Soil and Water Resources, and
the Clean Water Fund Interagency Team. The
University of Minnesota's Water Resources Center
is assisting with research and evaluation.
What is"sustainable water
management"?
Sustainable water use has been defined by the leg-
islature as that which "does not harm ecosystems,
degrade water quality, or compromise the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs."
We can look at the concept of sustainable water
management through the three-part lens of en-
vironment, economy, and community. Sustainable
water management would therefore:
► Ensure sufficient supplies of clean surface and
groundwater
► Protect and restore healthy water and land -
related ecosystems
► Enhance economic opportunity through the
availability of water for multiple uses
P. Enhance community well-being, including the
use of water for recreation and to sustain and
enhance quality of life.
Laws 2011, c 91.10 Sec. 33. EVALUATION REQUIRED
(a) The Pollution Control Agency, in conjunction with
other water agencies and the University of Minnesota,
shall evaluate water -related statutes, rules, and
governing structures to streamline, strengthen, and
improve sustainable water management.
(b) The Pollution Control Agency most submit the study
results and make recommendations to agencies listed
under paragraph (a) and to the chairs and ranking
minority party members of the senate and house of
representatives committees having primaryjurisdiction
o ver environment an d natural resources policy and
finance no later than January 15, 2013.
Water Governance Evaluation factV)eet • ]Lily 2012
► Minnesota's position at the headwaters of major river
basins means that over 99% of the state's water comes
from rainfall on our own lands. It is our responsibility to
protect these waters.
► Water management in Minnesota is highly effective in
many respects, but also complex. Different state, local
and federal agencies play significant roles in:
Water use and appropriation
Pollution prevention and control
Water quality monitoring
Shoreland management for lakes and rivers
Groundwater protection
Wetland conservation
Public waters regulation
Drinking water safety and supply
Public health risk assessment
Water well construction
Drainage for agriculture
Flood control and flood damage reduction
► Many inconsistencies exist among goals and authori-
ties for water management. Programs came into being
at different times, under differing mandates, so it isn't
surprising that they are not always consistent.
Example: wetlands regulation and drainage law. Wetland
permitting requirements differ among state and federal
agencies, and frequent amendments to the Wetlands
Conservation Act add to the confusion. The laws governing
drainage for agriculture, dating back to the 19th century,
have also been updated repeatedly, but still make it difficult
to incorporate conservation drainage or wetland restoration
into drainage systems.
► The patchwork of local government units, including soil
and water conservation districts, watershed districts
and other local entities can be confusing. Although
the system makes sense to those who operate from
"inside" state agencies and local government units, it is
often confusing for landowners. This complexity at the
ground level can breed mistrust among those who must
navigate the system.
► Substantial progress has been made in coordination and
collaboration among state agencies, through structures
such as the Clean Water Council, Clean Water Fund
Continued on next page
Water Governance Evaluation factsheet • July 2012
Water in an agricultural landscape
a: Metropolitan Design Center
Southwest Minnesota. The First and Second Fulda Lakes in Murray County
exemplify some of the challenges of improving water quality and fisheries in an
intensively managed agricultural region. A multi-year effort by many partners
has resulted in watershed improvements and restoration efforts. The lake has
been restocked with walleye and other sport fish. The project received a 2012
Environmental Initiative Award.
Development around a suburban lake
.V Metropolitan Design Center
Metro Area: Upper Prior Lake in Scott County shows extensive shoreland de-
velopment, which is regulated by local governments in compliance with DNR
guidelines. High levels of phosphorus in the lake resulted in its placement on
Minnesota's list of impaired waters. This designation requires a Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) plan for improving water quality.
Interagency Teams, and integration of water data among
agencies and data users.
► Local governments, watershed districts, and watershed
management organizations are asked carry the load of
water planning. However, because water management
authority is so fragmented, it is difficult to take a "sys-
tems" view of water; one that crosses political boundar-
ies to focus on the health of the watershed.
Share your Ideas
The water governance evaluation is being conducted pri-
marily within state water management agencies. It includes
a broad literature review, interviews of key informants
within and outside state government, and a series of focus
groups with agency and university policy analysts.
If you have experience with and/or opinions on the state
of water governance in Minnesota, we invite you to take a
short on-line survey: http://tinyurl.com/7cmse29.
Contact,the project coordinator to be added to a mailing list
for occasional e-mail updates: suzanne.rhees@state.mn.us
Minnesota River valley
Southern Minnesota: This segment of the Minnesota River upstream
from St. Peter shows sandbar deposition and nearby sand and gravel
mining. Streambank and bluherosion are major sources of sediment in
the Minnesota River basin, surpassing field erosion. The main channel
of the Minnesota River has widened in the past 70 years by about 50%,
contributing 100,000s of tons of gross sediment per year.
U5. GeologkA Survey
Drainage ditches in Northwest Minnesota: There are about 1,200 miles of county and state drainage ditches within the Thief River watershed and approxi-
mately 50%oft he original wetlands have been drained. Judicial Ditch 11 discharges large quantities of sediment into the pools of the Agassiz National Wildlife
Refuge, causing loss of water depth and degradation of high quality waterfowl habitat. The Marshall County Soil and Water Conservation District is working
with area landowners to establish Filter strips, side -water inlets and other conservation techniques along the ditch.
To learn more about the water governance
evaluation project, visit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
www.pca,state.mn.us/water-gov
Water Governance Evaluation facisheet ® July 2012
Plymouth defends closing shooting range
Article by: KELLY SMITH , Star Tribune
Updated: July 31, 2012 - 3:57 PM
A firearms safety instructor had planned a class for teenagers later this month.
After abruptly closing its police gun range in mid-July, the Plymouth City Council
recently addressed complaints from a firearms safety instructor who had planned to use
the range Aug. 18 to train teenagers.
The range was closed two weeks after a new state law went into effect July 1 requiring
publicly funded ranges to be open to youth gun training -- a law resident Dave Larson
had pushed for and Plymouth city leaders had opposed. City leaders reiterated at a July
24 meeting that the shooting range, in use since 1989, had ongoing mold and water
leaking issues, and is no longer safe for officers, let alone youth.
"We didn't want to put any additional taxpayer dollars into this facility when not only
does it have the ongoing water and mold issues, but we have better training
opportunities for our police officers elsewhere," Mayor Kelli Slavik said.
The department's officers will rent an Edina facility this fall and next year, and will
explore leasing another facility, such as a newly renovated Maple Grove range.
Larson, a volunteer firearms safety instructor with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, accused the city of breaking an agreement to hold the Aug. 18 training for
30 teens and asked if he could use the facility in the future.
But Slavik said the city didn't have any lease agreement with Larson for the training
course and closed the shooting range for safety reasons. Public Works Director Doran
Cote showed photos of last year's mold growth on equipment and in the gun range,
located in a basement of a fire station, saying it's still an issue today.
Judy Johnson, the only other council member to address Larson's concerns at the
meeting, said she was sorry for those who were disappointed in the city's decision and
while "there's a lot of passion around it, to me this is a facility management issue."
"I'm hopeful that there can be new partnerships that come out of this," she said.
Larson has relocated the firearms safety field day training to Corcoran about 15 minutes
away, but will still use Plymouth's City Hall for classroom training.
"I feel absolutely shunned," Larson said. "The city has taken an entire activity... and
basically slammed every door. And I'm going to continue to ask."
Page 20
Kelly Smith • 612-673-4141
Page 21
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
D:N1 L: July 27. 2012
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: Steve Juett fi, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section S )
One of the 2012 goals for the Community Development Department is to prepare an
analysis of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The intent of the report is to
provide a history of the program and to provide a snap shot of where the program is
financially and to present options for the future. The attached report is a
comprehensive analysis of the program.
Over the years the program has been changed, overhauled and tweaked on a frequent
basis by HUD. Although many of the changes that have come are relatively easy to
make and administer, some cause concerns. The program still provides funding to
assist lo\\ income residents and assists the city in accomplishing housing goals. With
recent changes to administrative fee funding levels from RUIN, we have had to dip
into reserves to coves- somc administrative expenses. Although we continue to have
sufficient reserves to operate the program without the need for any HRr'\ General
Fund assistance, at some point. if HUD does not change the level of adininistrative
funding, changes and/or assistance will be needed.
The attached report covers the history of the report and presents financial information
to allow the HRA to discuss the program. The concluding section of the report
presents a few options available to the HRA.
The HRA reviewed the report and discussed the options an the Jul- 26, 2012 regular
meeting and determined to continue to operate the program with the use of reserves if
needed and has directed staff to bring back financial updates annually (Option 1
outlined on page 16 of the report).
Page 22
July 2012
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Housing Choice Voucher Program
(Commonly referred to as Section 8)
rip Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
Prepared By:
Community Development Department
Page 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTROUCTION
3
El
PLYMOUTH HRA PROGRAM HISTORY -A TIMELINE 5
ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICANT PROCESS 7
VOUCHER FUNDING 10
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FUNDING 11
RESERVE ACCOUNTS 12
POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF THE HRA OPERATING THE 14
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM
THE FUTURE (WHAT'S NEXT?) 15
Housing Choice Voucher Program Page 2
July, 2012
Page 24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report was prepared in the summer of 2012 to provide an overview of the
housing choice voucher program (formerly known as the Section 8 program) and outline future
program options. The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has operated the
housing choice voucher program since October 1976 when it received its first 47 certificates to
assist families with housing costs. Through program changes and growth, on a monthly basis
the HRA currently administers 225 allocated vouchers and over 150 port -in vouchers. Funding
for the program, to cover both the housing vouchers and the cost to administer the program,
comes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Department.
On average, the HRA administers vouchers that amount to approximately 5236,000 per month
in housing assistance to individuals and families living in Plymouth. The HRA also receives
approximately $270,000 per year for administrative expenses (staff, overhead, and allocations).
Until 2010, the administrative funding received from HUD covered the HRA's program
administrative expenses. Starting in 2050, due to HUD's reduced administrative fee funding
changes, some of the I -IRA's administrative expenses have to be covered by program reserves..
It is estimated that in 2012, $33,200 will need to come from reserves to cover administrative
costs.
There are both positives and negatives with the HRA operating this program.
Positives:
• Vouchers help meet the affordable housing goals in the city's comprehensive plan;
• The ability to convert some of our vouchers to project -based vouchers assists
developers in receiving funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to build
affordable units in Plymouth;
• A local HRA has the ability to implement its own administrative plan that addresses local
concerns;
• With annual inspections, staff is able to require improvements necessary to maintain a
number of Plymouth units;
• Local control over the program provides better oversight over fraud; and
• Having the program in-house provides an opportunity for cross-departrnental housing
discussions and solutions.
Negatives:
• A concern with costs and the inability to pay fcr the program without use of local tax
payer dollars are becoming more of a concern as the HRA continues to need program
reserves to balance the budget; and
Housing Choice Voucher Program
Jury, 2012
Page 25
With increasing demand for rental properties, rents are likewise increasing, in turn
making it harder to find building operators willing to accept vouchers.
Three options moving forward are available to the HRA:
1) Operate the program in house using the program reserves when necessary until the
reserves are expended and then opt out and turn it over to another HRA/PHA;
2) Opt out of the housing choice voucher program and turn it over to another- HRA/Public
Housing Authority (PHA) as soon as passible;
3) Operate the program in house using program reserves when necessary and then using
HRA reserves and/or HRA levy to cover any shortfalls; or
4) Some combination of the above three options.
INTRODUCTION
The housing choice voucher program (commonly referred to as Section 8), is the federal
government's major program for assisting low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to
afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is
provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing,
including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant is free to choose
any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in
subsidized housing projects.
The housing choice vouchers are administered locally by housing authorities that receive
federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Eleven
government agencies in the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area operate Section 8
programs (map attached):
• The largest, Metro, which includes Carver County, Anoka County, and most of Hennepin
and Ramsey Counties (those portions of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties that do not
have individual city HRA prograrns);
• The two central cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul);
• Three county HRA's (Dakota, Washington and Scott); and
• Five suburban communities (Plymouth, Bloomington, South St, Paul, St. Louis Park, and
Richfield).
The regulations governing, the housing choice voucher program are found in 21 CFR Part 982.
There are two policy and planning documents regulating the housing choice voucher program
that each housing authority is required to develop and maintain: the housing choice voucher
program administrative plan and the public housing authority plan (PHA Plan).
Housing Choice Voucher Program
July, 201'
Page 26
The administrative plan is a document that establishes local policies for program
administration. The plan must conform with f -IUD regulations and state the housing authority's
policy in those areas when the housing authority has discretion to establish local policy. The
administrative plan must be kept up to date, and staff must operate under the policies spelled
out in the plan The administrative plan is updated at least annually. However, it should be
noted that HUD amends its program regulations on a very irregular basis.
The PHA plan must articulate the housing authority's mission statement and spell out the
agency's long-term and short-term plans consistent with the mission statement. The PHA pian
consists of two documents:
A five-year plan that describes the mission of the housing authority, its long term goals.
and quantifiable objectives for achieving the mission, and
An annual plan that provides details about the housing authority's participants,
programs and services, and its strategy for addressing operational concerns, residents'
needs programs, and services for the upcoming year.
PLYMOUTH HRA PROGRAM HISTORY -A TIMELINE
In 1975, the City of Plymouth established the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota (HRA) with the following findings:
• There exists substandard and deteriorated areas in the city that cannot be redeveloped
without the assistance of government;
9 Adequate housing accommodations are not available to veterans and service men and
their families; and,
a There is a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations available to
persons of low income and their families.
On May 21, 1975, the HRA directed staff to proceed with setting up a Section 3 application with
the intent that the HRA would be its own sponsor for the Section 8 program to meet its 1975-76
horsing assistance goals.
In June 1976, the HRA send a letter prepared by Herbert Lefler, attorney for the Plymouth HRA,
to HUD stating that the HRA was qualified to participate in the Section 8 Housing Assistance
Payments Program for existing housing,
In October 1975, HUD awarded the HRA 47 certificates. Applications and funding were
originally based on how many certificates a housing authority needed for certain bedroom
sizes. When a certificate turned over, a housing authority had to reissue to the next family on
the wait list that matched the bedroom size that just turned over.
Housing Choice Voucher Program
July, 2012
Page 27
In 1983, Congress accepted HUD's proposal for more flexibility in tenant -based assistance and
created a second program, the voucher demonstration in the Housing and Urban -Rural
Recovery Act of 1983. in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, Congress
replaced the voucher demonstration with a permanent voucher program. Two important
features of the voucher program responded to the desire to provide families with more
flexibility:
• Vouchers were to make up the difference between a payment standard based on the
fair market rent (FMR) and 30 percent of a family's adjusted income. However, a family
with a voucher could choose to rent a more expensive unit, thus widening their housing
choice. While the subsidy was capped by the payment standard, a family could decide
to pay the additional costs.
e Portability was introduced, which allows a family to use the voucher in a jurisdiction
other than where the issuing housing authority operates.
During the late 1980's, although two programs were available, the HRA continued to administer
only the certificate program. Over time, HUD extended portability to the certificate program as
well, thereby allowing its use in Plymouth. HUD also expanded it to allow a family to use its
voucher to live in any jurisdiction in the country that operates a Section 8 tenant -based
program, Portability has proved to be an important tool in helping families move to
neighborhoods offering better services, better environments, and better cpportunities for
moving to self-sufficiency.
in 1993, Congress reached agreement that an important element in the reinvention of HUD ar.J
its programs was the streamlining of the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs into a
single program with a single set of regulations. The merged program continued the voucher
program policy of permitting a family to rent above the payment standard, but added a
limitation that the family cannot pay more than 40 percent of their income for rent. The
merger also helped streamline program rules by eliminating:
f The so-called "take one, take all" (if an apartment complex accepted one Section 8
client, they had to accept every qualified Section 8 client);
• The "endless lease" (could only be terminated for serious or repeated lease violations);
and,
The 90 -day notification for lease termination provisions contained in the previous law
In addition, while maintaining the policy for tenant screening and the selection of
prospective tenants, the new rules also required that leases contain language providing
that tenancy may be terminated for criminal activity.
Heusdng Choice Voucher Program
July. 2012
Page 28
By October 1999, all Plymouth certificates had transitioned into vouchers. When the
certificates became vouchers, clients were then able to use the portability feature. The table
below indicates the history of Plymouth's certificates/vouchers awards from HUD and the types
of vouchers.
Plymouth HRA Voucher History and Descriptions
Date Awarded
Certificates/Vouchers
Type
October, 1976
47
Regular
October, 1978
25
Regular
September, 1985
15
Regular
December, 1998
15
Mainstream
January, 2000
15
Mainstream (separate fundings
September, 2000
25
Regular
August, 2001
35
Regular
January, 2005
24
Enhanced (Willow Creek N)
January, 2005
24
Enhanced (Willow Creek S)
Total
225
Voucher Descriptions
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
6/1/12
Mainstream
30
30
30
30
30
30
(Non -elderly, handicapped/disabled)
Tenant Protection — Enhanced
33
24
18
15
10
9
(Type of protection voucher that resulted
from owner opt -out at Willow Creek which
was formerly subsidized buildings)
Port -Out
(Voucher being used outside Plymouth and
4
10
23
16
20
6
administered by another authority)_
Housing Choice
(Tenant -based vouchers and 18 project -
based vouchers) A housing authority can
designate up to 20 percent of their
vouchers to specific housing units that are
constructed for project -based vouchers.
Plymouth currently has project -based units
172
166
157
164
165
182
at Stone Creek, Vicksburg Commons and
West View Estates, (Two more project -
based vouchers are scheduled for
occupancy in July, 2012 for West View
Estates).
Housing Choice Voucher Program Dcge 7
July, 2012
Page 29
Port -in
1 Person $29,400
(Voucher issued by another authority 185 184 179 157 159
164
leased up in and administered by Plymouth)
$37,800
Total Vouchers 424 417mbl 407 11 382 384
391
ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICANT PROCESS
When the HRA opens the wait list (typically opens up every three to four years) the first action
taken is to advertise. The HRA advertises in a variety of ways that they are accepting
applications for the housing choice voucher program through notifying Housing Link, Interfaith
Outreach and PRISM. HRA staff selects pre -applications through a lottery method. Once
selected, staff reviews them and if the applicants meet the minimum program requirem�2nts
and eligibility, they are placed on a waiting list. When a voucher is available for issuance, staff
contacts the next person on the waiting list to come in for a briefing.
The HRA determines eligibility for a voucher based on the total annual gross income and family
size and is limited to US citizens and specified categories of non -citizens who have eligible
immigration status. in general, a family's income may not exceed 50 percent of the median
income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. Median income
levels are published by HUD and vary by location (current income levels are listed below). In
addition to income and citizenship eligibility requirements, the HRA has two categories of local
preferences. Category 1 preferences include a family that has been involuntarily displaced
through no fault of their own, such as a disaster (fire, flood, earthquake), government action or
owner action such as sale or foreclosure of unit (excluding eviction for nonpayment of rent). It
also includes victims of domestic violence, homeless and families living in a shelter or
transitional housing; or families currently paying more than 50 percent of their gross household
income for rent and utilities for at least 90 days. Category 2 preferences include a head of
household who lives or works in the city of Plymouth; or a head of household who is unable to
work due to a disability,
Current income levels
Household Size Income Limits (Gross Income)
1 Person $29,400
2 Person
$33,600
3 Person
$37,800
4 Person
$41,950
5 Person
$45,350
6 Person
$48,700
Mousing Choice Voucher Program ?, e g
July, 201-3
Page 30
During the initial briefing, the applicant is informed of the program rules and requirements for
compliance. At that time, the applicant completes a full application and signs various
verification forms that will confirm their local preference.
Once HRA staff verifies the preferences and the applicant passes a criminal background check,
the applicant is issued a voucher and begins the search for a unit in Plymouth. HRA staff
advises voucher- holders of the unit size they are eligible for, based on family size and
composition. The HRA requires the family to live in Plymouth for at least one year once they
receive a voucher. After that time, the family can move to another jurisdiction (Port -Out) if
they so choose.
The housing unit selected by the family must meet an acceptable Revel of health and safety
before the HRA can approve the unit. When the voucher holder finds a unit that they wish to
occupy and reaches an agreement with the landlord over the lease terms, they return the
request for tenancy approval (RTA) is returned to the HRA. At this point, HRA staff inspects the
unit for code compliance and determines that the rent requested is reasonable.
The housing authority determines a payment standard that is the amount generally needed to
rent a moderately -priced dwelling unit in the local housing market and that is used to calculate
the amount of housing assistance a family will receive, However, the payment standard does
not limit and does not affect the amount of rent a landlord may charge or the family may pay.
A family that receives a voucher can select a unit with a rent that is below or above the
payment standard.
Current Plymouth Payment Standards
Size
Payment Standard
1 Bedroom
$820
2 Bedroom
$994
3 Bedroom
$1,301
4 Bedroom
51,454
A family must pay at least 30 percent of its monthly adjusted gross income for rent and utilities,
and if the unit rent is greater than the payment standard, the family is required to pay the
additional amount. As noted earlier, by law, whenever a family moves to a new unit where the
rent exceeds the payment standard, the family may not pay more than 40 percent of its
adjusted monthly income for rent.
A family must come in at least once a year for recertification appointment. At that time, the
housing authority updates family information, income, and expenses. lender certain criteria
listed in the administrative plan, a family's income and expenses may be recalculated more
Housing Choice Voucher Program Pr. ^e 9
My. 2012
Page 31
than once a year. If the family decides to stay at their current unit, HRA staff performs a
housing inspection. Housing inspections are performer! annually.
A family's housing needs may change over time (e.g. family size and job locations). The housing
choice voucher program is designed to allow families to move without the loss of mousing
assistance. Moves are permissible, as long as the family notifies the housing authority ahead of
time, terminates its existing lease within the lease provisions, and finds acceptable alternative
housing,
As participants in the housing choice voucher program, families must comply with all
regulations, administrative plan policies, and statement of family responsibilities. If a family
violates any of the aforementioned, the HRA sends the family a letter terminating their
assistance. The family has a right to an informal hearing. The informal hearing cor,7mittee
consists of a three member panel that includes the HRA executive director, community
development support services manager and one other city staff person. A housing staff
member presents the HRA's case for termination and the family presents their case for non -
termination. The family and housing staff member are dismissed and the informal hearing
committee discusses all evidence submitted (both written and oral) and renders their decision.
The committee communicates the findings are sent to the housing staff member who then
forwards the information to the family.
VOUCHER FUNDING
To cover the cost of the program, HUD provides funds to allow housing authorities to make
housing assistance payments ('HAP) on behalf of families. HUD also pays housing authorities a
fee for the costs of administering the program.
The funding process that HUD uses has changed over time. Prior to 2005, staff prepared an
annual estimate of required annual contributions (ACC) and an operating budget to ensure that
costs did not exceed the annual contributions HUD provided. HUD approved the budget
through a notification letter and supporting funding exhibit to the ACC establishing the amount
of the annual contributions available for leasing over the term of the award. HUD did not
indicate to a housing authority a fixed number Of units or a specific mix of units by bedroom
size. If a housing authority did not spend all of their HAP funding in a given year, unspent funds
would go back to HUD. If a housing authority overspent NAP, HUD would allocate additional
funds to the housing authority the next year
Effective in 2005, HUD changed its policies and started to distribute 1/12 of the total funding
allocation per month, with incremental funds distributed based on contract terms. A housing
authority determined the number and type of units that would be leased and managed their
Mousing Choice Vaacher Program pada IG
July, 1012
Page 32
program to ensure that: 1) annual HAP contributions were fully utilized and (2) costs did not
exceed annual contributions. If a housing authority did not spend all of their HAP funding in a
given year, the excess went into net restricted assets (NRA) and could only be used for HAP
expenditures in future years. If a housing authority's HAP expenses exceeded the budget
authority, funds in the NRA (assuming a positive balance) could be used to cover the deficit.
In 2008, HUD changed the funding formula to a "benchmarking" methodology. HUD
established a HAP funding baseline for a housing authority, based on 1) validated leasing and 2)
HAP cost data from a specific period, typically nine to 12 months of previous HAP expenses.
Effective January 2012, HUD introduced cash management. This method controls the
disbursement of federal funds in such a way that housing authorities do not receive federal
funds before they are needed. The intent of cash management is to mitigate housing authority
accumulation of NRA funds; reduce treasury outlays by timing disbursements based on actual
need; and facilitate a more efficient and timely method by which to account for housing
authority program reserves. Components of the cash management system include:
• Each month's HAP disbursement is based on the most recent quarter's validated
monthly average HAP costs;
Disbursements are reconciled to actual HAP expenses at the end of each quarter once
actual costs are validated in the Voucher Management System (VMS);
Subsequent disbursements are adjusted to recoup any excess provided;
• Additional disbursement is made to cover any shortage in funds provided; and
= The process is repeated quarterly with final reconciliation to be completed at year-end.
Also beginning in 2012, HUD implemented a mandatory spend -down of a portion of the net
restricted assets (NRA) by offsetting the housing authority's HAP payments. In the case of
Plymouth, the funding for 2612 was offset by $184,829, which will reduce the NRA account to
approximately $113,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FUNDING
Administrative fees cover salaries, benefits, office supplies, conferences, training, mdeaffe, dues
and subscriptions, fee accountant; professional services, printing and publishing, legal, postage,
allocations (photocopying, information technology, facilities management, risk management,
and telephone), and port -out administrative fees. Currently administrative fee funding covers
40 percent of the cornrmunity development support services manager, 100 percent of the
housing specialist, 100 percent of the housing technician and 20 percent of the housing
inspector. The chart below depicts the administrative fee expenses for the last five years along
Housing Choice Voucher'ragrarn Pace 11
July. 2012
Page 33
with the administrative fee revenue (funds from HUD and other housing agencies for
administering port -in vouchers):
Year Administrative Expenses
Administrative Revenue
7 Net
2007 $266,175
$266,460
$285
2008
$256,642
$278,131
$21,489
2009
$281,256
$282,236
$980
2010
$273,597
$273,220
($777)
2011 $267,067
$265,733
($1,334)
In the past, administrative fees have typically been sufficient to cover expenses. However,
starting in 2010, the administrative fee rate percentage has changed annually and housing
authorities currently are receiving less than 100 percent of the administrative fee rate. The
following chart depicts how the administrative fee rates have changed and the percentage rate
that Plymouth has received.
Year
Efate
Percentage Received
2007
$56.71
100%
2008
$68.82
100%
2009
$71.05
100%
2010
$73.71
93%
2011
$76.00
84.9%
2012
$76.62
80%
Based on the approved budget and currently estimated revenue, the HRA expects the following
administrative fee revenue in 2012:
Administrative Fee
Revenue Source
2012 Revenue Budget
(approved)
Estimated Revenue
to Receive*
Difference
21.0 Vouchers
$158,750
$154,466
($4,284)
15 Mainstream
$13,680
$13,792
$112
Port — Ins (150 est.)
$95,000
$79,562
($15,438)
Fraud Recovery
$2,500
$3,266
$766
Interest
$800
$5,304
$4,504
Total
$270,730
$256,390
($14,340)
*At the time of budgeting, HUD had not determined the funding rate.
Year
Administrative
Updated
Net
Expenses (Budget)
Administrative
Revenue (Estimate)
2012
C $2,81,015
1 $256,390
($24,625)
Housing Choice Voucher Progrom page 12
July, 2011
Page 34
Unrestricted net assets (UNA) is the amount by which program administrative trees paid by HUD
for a fiscal year exceeds the housing authority's administrative expenses for the fiscal year plus
any interest earned. Administrative fees funded from FA=Y 2004 and subsequent appropriations
require that administrative fee reserves only be used for activities related to the housing choice
voucher program, including related development activities and ongoing administrative fen
deficits.
RESERVE ACCOUNTS
HUD created the financial data schedule (FDS) was created in order to standardize the financial
information reported by housing authorities to the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC).
REAC uses the FDS to analyze a housing authority's data in conjunction with other performance
measurements to help ensure the success cf the programs_ All housing authorities are required
to electronically submit their year-end financial data to the HUD REAC in the financial
assessment subsystem (FASS).
In 2005, housing authorities reported the net restricted assets and unrestricted assets for their
pre -2005 balances and updated them on a yearly basis. In May 2010, HUD began a
reconciliaticn process to assure the accuracy of the net restricted asset balance as of December
31, 2000. As a part of the reconciliation process, HUD added four neve reporting fields in the
voucher management system (VMS) for tracking of:
• Net restricted assets (NRA) as of the last day of the month;
• Unrestricted net assets (UNA) as of the last day of the mcnth;
• Cash/Investments as of the last day of the month; and
• Vouchers issued but not under HAP contract as of the last day of the month.
In January, 2011, HUD began the reserve account reconciliation process for small housing
authorities such as Plymouth, The objectives of the reconciliation were to -
Determine materially correct balances as a housing authority's fiscal year end. The
balances were determined based on five year reconciliation (2005 through 2009) of
voucher management system and FASS data;
• Correct the balances in the FASS submission, following joint agreement on a correct
balance;
• Correct reporting deficiencies in voucher management system were corrected as a
result of the reconciliation effort; and,
• Review for financial non-compliance.
Housing Choice Voucher Program e :
July, 2012
Page 3 5
Based on the reconciliation process for Plymouth's 2009 fiscal year end which was sent to HUD
on February 4, 2011, the following NRA and UNA balances were determined.
FIscal Year End {12/31]
NRA Balance
UNA Balance
2009
$117,630
$588,324
2010
$215,982
$580,883
2011
$294,150
$582,695
Staff never knows ahead of time if HUD is going to fund administrative fees at the 100 percent
level or at a reduced level until a new funding year begins. Based on the trend over the last
several years, it is safe to assume that housing authorities will not see an increase in funding.
The unrestricted net assets balance is adequate to cover the shortfall of administrative
expenses for the foreseeable future.
Using the information on the previous page, assumptions made to inflation and HUD's
commitment to paying administrative fees, the following table shows when the unrestricted
net asset reserve balance will be exhausted.
E
Net Revenue
over
Expenses
2012*
2013**
2014 2015
j 2016
5256,390
$256,018
$256,018 $256,018
1
$256,018
$281.015
$283,075
$290,151.98 $297,405.67
$304,840.81
$(24,625)
$(27,057)
$(34,133.88)
$141,387,67)
$(48,822.81)
112/31111112/31/12 f 1.2/31/13 1 12/31/1.4 1 12/11/1 12/71/,
Est. UNA
Balance
$582,695 $558,070 $531,013
$496,879.13
$455,491.45
$406,668.64
Est. Admin.
Revenue***
Est. Admin.
Expenses*"**
Net Revenue
over
Expenses
Est. UNA
Balance
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
$256,018
$256,018
I $256,018
$256,018
$256,018
$312,461.83
$320,273,38
$328,280.21
$336,487.22
$344,899.40
$(56,443.83)
$(64,255.38)
$(72,26221)
$(80,469.22)
$(88,881.40)
12/31/27
12/31/1$
12/31/19
12/31/20
1.2/31/21
$350,224.$1
$85,969.43
$213,707.21
$133,237.99
$44,356.59
2012 revenue based on current estimate and expenses based on approved budget
" 2013 revenue and expenses based on current 2013 projections
"`assumption that HUD will not !ower administrative fee below 30Y.
`-Expense [nflation estimated at 2.S%
Housing Choice Voucher Program Fug` 11
July, 2012
Page 36
POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF THE HRA OPERATING THE HOUSING
CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM
HRA and city staff met several times recently to discuss the housing choice voucher program.
The primary purpose of the discussions was to identify the positives and negatives of operating
the program in-house.
On the positive side, staff identified the ability to use the issued vouchers to help meet the
affordable housing goals stated in the city's comprehensive plan. Further, as recently noted,
the ability to convert some of the HRA vouchers to project -based vouchers assists developers in
receiving funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to build affordable units in
Plymouth. A local HRA has the ability to implement its own administrative plan that addresses
many local concerns. Because each client that is assisted with a voucher is required to have
their unit inspected annually, staff is able to require improvements necessary to maintain a
number of Plymouth units. Having local control over the program also provides better
oversight over fraud. Lastly, having the program in-house provides a great opportunity for
cross -departmental housing discussions and solutions.
On the negative side, program costs and the inability to pay for the program without use of
local tax payer dollars are becoming more of a concern as the HRA continues to need
unrestricted asset reserves to balance the budget. Further, with increasing demand for rental
properties, rents are likewise increasing, in turn making it harder to find building operators
wiling to accept vouchers. Although voucher holders continue to be able to find building
operators that will accept vouchers, the options are becoming more limited and concentrated.
THE FUTURE (WHAT'S NEXT?)
Staff has identified three possible options for the future of the housing choice voucher
program:
1) Operate the program in house using program reserves when necessary until the
reserves are expended and then opt out and turn it over to another HRA/PHA;
2) Opt out of the housing choice voucher program and turn it over to another HRA/Public
Housing Authority (PHA) as soon as possible;
3) Operate the program in house using program reserves when necessary and then using
HRA reserves and/or HRA levy to cover any shortfalls; or
4) Some combination of the above three options.
Housing Choice Voucher Program Page 15
July, 012
Page 37
Option 1
With the current unrestricted net asset reserves sufficient to cover estimated administrative
shortfalls until 7021%2022, one option could be to continue to operate the program as currently
done until the reserves are not sufficient to cover deficits. Staff and the HRA Board would
continue to monitor budgets, both revenues and expenditures on a regular basis (at a minimum
annually), until it becomes more certain that the reserves will not cover project administrative
fee deficits {currently estimated to be six to seven years out). Once it becomes more apparent
the year that reserves will be exhausted, Option 2 would be followed.
This option would allow the HRA to continue to operate the program in house. Although the
current federal practice is to not increase administrative fees, by extending the termination
date, the opportunity does exist that HUD will increase Administrative Fees back to the 1.00
percent level, or close to it. With that said, it may be easier to find another authority (HRA or
PHA) to take over the HRA's program while the unrestricted net asset reserves are healthy.
Option 2
A second option could be to opt out of the housing choice voucher program now, With this
option, the HRA would need to find another PHA who would be willing to absorb Plymouth
housing choice vouchers, project -based vouchers, five-year mainstream vouchers, enhanced
vouchers, and our port -in vouchers (the most likely options would be Metro HRA and St. Louis
Park HRA.)
If the HRA found an agreeable housing authority, the governing boards of both would need to
approve resolutions acknowledging the transfer and then send those resolutions and
accompanying letters to the local HUD office at least 90 days prior to the requested effective
date of the transfer. Generally, transfers must have an effective date of January 1 or July 1 of a
given year. HUD will take up to 30 days to review a request and make a determination to
approve or deny the request. it should be noted that Minnesota has no history of transfer
requests.
At this point, HUD does not allow an involuntary transfer; the HRA cannot just stop operating
the program without finding another authority to take over the Plymouth HRA's program.
C otion 3
If the reasons to operate the housing choice voucher program in-house sufficiently out weigh
the reason to transfer the program to another willing authority, the HRA could use the reserves
as stated in Option 1 until all reserves are exhausted and then use general HRA reserves and/or
Housing Chane Voucher Program
104 2012
Page 38
HRA levy to cover any deficit that may exist. Based on the information on reserve balance
needs outlined on page 14, all unrestricted net asset reserves would be expended by 202'1
Option 4
A final option could be to continue to operate the program as currently done with any budget
deficits being covered by the reserves and continually monitor the administrative fee funding.
On an annual basis, the HRA could review the reserve balances and projected shortfalls and
decide to negotiate an opt out with another authority when reserve balances are lower but still
sufficient to cover shortfalls for a few additional years.
Housing Choice Voucher Program Pace t'
July. 2012
Page 39
SL
Twin oies .Matmpolitcn Avec
-
am r. L OIL 1711m
I
IA" Hetrop)litan Cafinr.H
SECTION 8 PROGRAMS �, 1 " KA
i SSS tai✓
iS� �I pity ' r� IF:u 91aa fsi:yn -.
! s TAS iGTO
Illi\T C.2, ( I 4 v r
j ;4_.
F t
� ra
TKxama -
�
Y"rp rsa r a : I
nom ---j
I t
,yqa
r � D kko-T'.R �#cs f x �amriLa f. - it
FT
Yccq.4i T.g Daaan r'P - r.Y.a� S*� - F d t ?Y�¢-ryip
4. C�kv
. TpT'p- �.. . S*cY-µ
I F
a✓a 3.'L ?'�T If [ids ,Y,�: £a:r�Y.¢ .war Wda[_%r_ Ex�:.p. CaSO 1*4 r.q•
f
a s fc is _ 20 2-
r'4- T.9
Aa*11!
Wes metmpOIftan Are- ficusl AIi hi6rW":
Page 40
! e#ro HRA_
(631) 602-1428
St. ftuf PHA
165i) 298-515
Minneopalis FHA
0j) 342.1480
Bloamngton HRA
(952) 563-8937
South St...Paaf HRA
(651 St...Paul
Pfp= HRiA
.5 9-3 410
St Eoti&-4'a , HRA
j412) 841-9770
Dakota Courilj CDA
(b 1j 675-4406
Washingl'a i touMy HRA
(551} 458-0936
Scot3 County N3LA
) 402-902::
Page 40
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
DATE: Jule 2G, 2012
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
-501
FROM: Steve Juetten/Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Update on Credit Card Acceptance and On -Line Permits
Over the past 12 months staff has implemented a new program (credit cards), changed a
process (permit payments processed at the CD counter) and started work on a new service
(on-line permitting) all to improve our customer service to the building community and
residents.
Credit Cards
Attached is a spreadsheet outlining credit card payment information since its inception.
The number of permits that have been paid for with a credit card ranges from 10.54% to
2'.07% (not including either JuIN 201 1 or July 2012 because that information isn't for a
full month) and the percent of dollars collected from credit cards ranges from 4.10% to
8.91% per month. Looking at the trends, more permits are being paid with a credit card
in 2012 then were paid with a credit card in 2011.
Along with the change to accepting credit cards, payments for permits are now being
processed at the Community Development Department counter. In the past, an applicant
would need to subunit applications and plans at the Community Development counter
downstairs at City Hall, pay for the permits at the cashier Nvindojv on the first floor and
then come back down stairs to schedule an inspection once the permit is paid.
The two changes, credit card acceptance and `-one stop shopping". have been well
received by the building community and residents.
On -Line Permiti
Staff first started looking at on-line permiting last fall with the hopes of having some
permits on-line in 2012. Although hurdles have presented themselves. staff is now back
on track and working with Govern to provide the necessary upgrades to our Govern
system that will allow us to process permits on-line. The goal is still to have on-line
permiting for the "simple" permits, i.e. water heaters, by the end of 7_.012.
Page 41
PERMITS PAID BY CREDIT CARD
(July 18, 2011 - July 9, 2012)
No. of No. of Permits % Paid Total Revenue Total Charged %° Revenue Credit Card
Permits Paid w1C_C I wlCC I Collected I per Month w1CC Received wIGC Fees/ Month
July 2011 (July 18-31)
790
17
2.15%
$ 329,982.67
$
3,847.52
1.17%
$
310.69 Partial Month & Includes start up costs.
August 2011
883
131
14.84%
$ 331,243.00
$
28,922.45
8.73%
$
600.92
September 2011
949
108
11.38%
$ 546,189.96
$
22,394.84
4.10%
$
496.34
October 2011
924
127
13.74%°
$ 464,133.49
$
26,842.50
5.78%°
$
616.75
November 2011
1171
104
8.88%
$ 573,627.04
$
28,128.82
4.90%
$
537.94
December 2011
686
81
11.81%1
$ 296,674.77
$
14,760.27
4.98%
$
358.34
Total for 2011
5403 1
568
10.51%1
$ 2,541,854.93
$
124,896.44
4.91%
$
2,920.98
No. of I No. of Permits % Paid Total Revenue Total Charged % Revenue Credit Card
Permits Paid w/CC w1CC Collected per Month wICC Received w/CC Fees I Month
January 2012
503
53
10.54%
$ 192,761.30
$
13,021.00
6.75%
$
342.90
February 2012
545
74
13.58%
$ 273,921.68
$
15,010.66
5.48%
$
374.53
March 2012
638
96
15.05%
$ 495,965.95
$
26,138.39
5.27%
$
573.95
April 2012
738
112
15.18%
$ 472,953.67
$
22,634.08
4.79%
$
512.87
May 2012
876
159
16.15%
$ 454,990.06
$
31,166.31
6.85%
$
602.07
June 2012
938
207
22.07%
$ 403,994.23
$
36,008.00
8.91%
$
Will be receiving bill around 7/13112
July 2012 (July 1-9)
191
30
15.71%
$ 78,919.42
$
6,486.60
8.22%
$
Partial Month & Will be receiving bill around 8/13112
Total for 2012
4429
731
16.50"/0
$ 2,373,506.31
$
150,465.04
6.340/4)
$
2,406.32
Page 42
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth MN 55447
DATE: July 26, 2012
TO: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
FROM: Jim Renneberg, P.E., Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: Traffic Concerns on Shenandoah Lane and 61St Avenue
At the June 26, 2012 City Council meeting, Diane Stueven of 6100 Shenandoah Lane spoke at
the open forum. Ms. Stueven spoke of a recent incident where her dog was hit by a vehicle.
Two of her concerns related to traffic speeds and cut through traffic on Shenandoah Lane and
61St Avenue between Vicksburg Lane and C.R. 47. She is also concerned about the safety of
pedestrians crossing Shenandoah Lane to go to Walgreens and the bus stop located at the
Walgreens entrance. Finally, she stated the posted speed limit of 50 mph on C.R. 47 is too fast
for the area. Below is a location of the area.
Page 43
Engineering staff placed traffic counters on Shenandoah Lane the week of July 16, 2012. The
data showed there were approximately 450 vehicles per day (vpd) and the 85th percentile was
27.5 mph. While 450 vpd may seem high for this short stretch of roadway, it is reasonable to
expect these volumes based on the local trip generators which include 47 townhome units, a drug
store and a Montessori school. The 85th percentile is below the 30 mph speed limit for this road.
The cut through traffic is difficult to gauge in this area without doing a larger scale,
origin/destination study or license plate survey. The only irregularity in the traffic volume data
is between 7 and 8 am where there are approximately 30-40 more vpd travelling from Vicksburg
Lane to C.R. 47, which may be motorists using 61St Avenue/Shenandoah Lane as a cut through
or they could be drop offs for the Montessori school.
Another concern raised by Ms. Stueven was pedestrians crossing the road to the Walgreens
entrance. This entrance is on a curve 150' feet north of C.R. 47 and there are sidewalks on both
sides of Shenandoah Lane and 61St Avenue. While there is no landscaping in the boulevard, the
curve poses a sight distance concern for pedestrians crossing at this location. Careful
consideration should be given to all new crosswalk installations because installing a marked
crosswalk at a location can increase the potential for an accident. Taking into account the
entrance located at a curve, sidewalks on both sides of the street and close proximity to a
partially controlled intersection, a crosswalk is not recommended at the Walgreens entrance.
The last concern raised by Ms. Stueven was the posted speed limit of 50 mph on C.R. 47. Mayor
Slavik responded that MnDOT sets all speed limits and they would need to conduct a speed
study to consider changing the speed limit. The main factor that MnDOT reviews in the speed
study is the 85 percentile speeds for the area and the speed limit would be reflected based on the
results of a speed study. However, a speed study may result in an increase in the speed limit if
the speed study supports it. In 2009, staff contacted Hennepin County, who performed an
informal speed study on C.R. 47 to determine if the speed limit would be reduced if MnDOT
were asked to perform a formal speed study. The results showed the 85 percentile speeds of 51
mph westbound and 53 mph eastbound, which indicates that the speed limit would not likely be
reduced. There has been some development in this area since 2009, with more planned in the
upcoming years that will affect the results of a future speed study. It is staffs recommendation to
wait until most of the development is completed to review the posted speed limits again.
On July 25, 2012, I spoke with Ms. Stueven about her concerns and provided her the information
above. I informed her that we can review this area again if Ms. Stueven notices a change in
traffic volumes or speeds in the future. I did recommend to her that if she or her neighbors are
concerned with crossing at the Walgreens entrance to cross at the intersection of Shenandoah
Lane and C.R. 47 as it is a much safer location and only 150 feet away. She appreciated hearing
the results of the study and will let staff know if there are any changes or if she has any
additional questions.
Page 44
APPROVED MINUTES
PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
May 24, 2012
PRESENT: Chairman Jeff Kulaszewicz, Vice Chair Paul Caryotakis, Commissioners Bob
Stein, Carl Runck and Jim Willis (Chairman Kulaszewicz arrived at 7:12 p.m.)
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Housing Program Manager Jim Barnes, Executive HRA Executive
Director Steve Juetten, Support Services Manager Denise Whalen, HRA Specialist Kip Berglund
and Office Support Representative Janice Bergstrom
OTHERS PRESENT: Grace Management Representative Jody Boedigheimer
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Caryotakis called the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to
order at 7:01 p.m.
Housing Program Manager Barnes stated an e-mail was received from Chris Campbell, 5754
Trenton Lane, and has been added to the public record.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve HRA Meeting Minutes from April 26, 2012.
B. Plymouth Towne Square. Accept Monthly Housing Report.
C. Vicksburg Crossing. Accept Monthly Housing/Marketing Report.
MOTION by Commissioner Willis seconded by Commissioner Stein, to approve the consent
agenda. Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION approved.
3. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Section 8 Program. Proposed Changes to the Housing Choice Voucher
Administrative Program
Support Services Manager Whalen gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Stein asked about the language pertaining to guests, and asked how staff verifies
the permanent address of a guest.
Page 45
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 2
Support Services Manager Whalen said a Section 8 client is to advise staff before they have a
guest. If a complaint is received, the client must then provide a copy of the guest's lease or
driver's license to prove that guest resides elsewhere. She said if the guest exceeds the time
limit, they must be added to the household.
Commissioner Willis asked if a voucher size stipulates it is for one, two, three or four people.
Support Services Manager Whalen stated the voucher is issued based on family size. She said at
the annual recertification any increase or decrease in family composition is reviewed to
determine that the voucher is adequate.
Commissioner Willis asked what action is taken if a client has more people than are authorized.
Support Services Manager Whalen said people can be added to a household, but it does not
automatically increase the voucher size. She said for example, four people in a one bedroom is
allowed by HUD guidelines. Support Services Manager Whalen said income from anyone added
to the family gets added to the household income, which typically increases the tenant's rent
portion.
Commissioner Stein asked if the landlord determines how many people can be in an apartment.
Support Services Manager Whalen said the property maintenance guide dictates how many
people are allowed in a multifamily dwelling. She added we have never had the issue come up
of more people than what is allowed.
Commissioner Stein questioned if a voucher can be for any size apartment.
Support Services Manager Whalen explained that previously we received an allocation of
vouchers by size, but now we receive a pot of money to be used to serve as many as possible
within that given amount.
Commissioner Stein asked how the distribution of vouchers is determined when working with
the waiting list and the money you have available.
Support Services Manager Whalen said we have to balance the pot of money to the actual
number of vouchers we have. She explained if there is a voucher turn over, and the next family
on the wait list is a family of six, we would calculate the average cost of a three-bedroom
voucher. Support Services Manager Whalen said if we don't have enough money we do not skip
to the next person on the waitlist that has a smaller household size, but rather wait until we have
enough funding on hand to issue the three-bedroom voucher.
Vice Chair Caryotakis opened and closed the public hearing, as there was no one present to
speak on the item.
Page 46
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 3
MOTION by Commissioner Stein, seconded by Commissioner Willis, to approve the proposed
changes to the housing choice voucher administrative program. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION
approved.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Consider advertising for four project -based voucher units.
Housing Manager Barnes gave an overview of the staff report. Housing Manager Barnes
introduced Jeff Huggett, representing Dominium Development.
Vice Chair Caryotakis asked if people at the top of the list are passed over if they choose not to
take a project based voucher. Housing Manager Barnes said yes that we would go down the list
in order until someone accepted the project based voucher.
Commissioner Willis questioned that someone with a project -based voucher has first right to a
housing choice voucher over the whole Section 8 waiting list.
Support Services Manager Whalen answered affirmatively and said with the project -based
voucher they are stuck in the project, but remain on the current waiting list and are offered the
next voucher that is available.
Commissioner Stein asked how often this happens and how many people are currently on the
waiting list. He also asked about the progress for filling the project -based units at Westview
Estates.
Support Services Manager Whalen explained there is continual turnover. She said after letters
and phone calls to the 50+ on the waiting list for the Westview Estates' units, the waiting list was
opened as no one was interested. Support Services Manager Whalen said we still have two units
to fill and don't anticipate any problem, but it is a lengthy process with criminal background
checks, rental history, etc.
Commissioner Stein asked if it is the same process as a regular voucher.
Support Services Manager Whalen said with a regular voucher, tenants look for their own
housing and the landlord does the processing.
Vice Chair Caryotakis said the project -based vouchers are not portable.
Support Services Manager Whalen answered affirmatively and added that after one year they are
eligible for a regular voucher. She added that there are some tenants who have had project -
based vouchers four to five years and do like it.
Page 47
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 4
Commissioner Stein questioned why someone with no voucher would turn down an opportunity
to have a project -based voucher.
Housing Manager Barnes said we don't know the reason people say no, but it may be that the
location of the project doesn't work for their situation. Support Services Manager Whalen added
some people on the waiting list are currently in subsidized buildings so it does not make a lot of
sense for them to move to another subsidized building while they wait for their name to come up
on our waitlist.
Commissioner Stein asked if there are qualifications for the project -based wait list.
Support Services Manager Whalen explained these are income qualified, and preferences include
paying more than 50% of income toward rent, living in a shelter or transitional housing, or live
or work in Plymouth.
Chairman Kulaszewicz asked if this adds four vouchers or takes away from our current vouchers.
He questioned how this affects our goals to get more affordable units.
Support Services Manager Whalen said this takes away from our current number of vouchers.
Housing Program Manager Barnes said this 33 -unit development will give the City more points
for the annual housing survey conducted by the Metropolitan Council.
Commissioner Stein asked if Jim Waters requested any vouchers. Housing Manager Barnes said
they did not. Housing Manager Barnes also informed the Board that Mr. Waters has asked the
Metropolitan Council to reduce the number of affordable units in that project (former Brown's
Market site) from 64 to 32 after unsuccessfully searching for funding sources for the project. He
said Mr. Waters will also request the reduction in affordable units from the City Council in the
near future.
Commissioner Willis asked how critical these four project -based vouchers are to the success of
Dominium's application.
Mr. Huggett stated very critical. Mr. Huggett said this is worth five points and this could provide
the necessary overall points to be awarded the funding from the State.
Commissioner Willis asked if four is the threshold or would Dominium get five points for adding
one unit.
Mr. Huggett stated four is the threshold.
Commissioner Willis said he is hearing from staff it takes more staff time to administer the
project -based vouchers. He said it starts to increase the opportunity for "churning" - people not
Page 48
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 5
staying in a project but using it to get a regular voucher after one year. He asked about this
occurrence in other projects.
Support Services Manager Whalen said while we do have some turnover, Dominium's Stone
Creek has some clients that have had project -based vouchers since the building opened. She said
at Vicksburg Commons two received a regular voucher after their first year, and one has been
asking for a regular voucher for two to three years.
Commissioner Willis asked if these requests are based on where they are living, a job issue, or
they don't like where they are living.
Support Services Manager Whalen said Vicksburg Commons is a more remote area and many
people don't have their own transportation, so they find it extremely difficult for mobility,
whereas Stone Creek is easily accessed.
Chairman Kulaszewicz asked how accessible the proposed project would be.
Support Services Manager Whalen said there is Metro Mobility near Cub Foods. Housing
Manager Barnes said this area is fully developed and not as remote as northwest Plymouth.
Housing Program Manager Barnes introduced Kim Vohs, representing Interfaith Outreach and
Community Partners (IOCP). Mr. Vohs said IOCP is the services provider for four units at
Vicksburg Commons and said two people moved out after achieving success in their program.
Commissioner Stein asked how difficult it is to fill a project -based voucher when someone
moves out. He asked if there is an administrative fee for this process.
Housing Manager Barnes said it could be the first name on the waiting list or staff may have to
go through 20-30 names. Support Services Manager Whalen said we do get an administrative
fee for the 210 vouchers, whether project -based or regular vouchers, but nothing extra.
Commissioner Stein stated the project -based vouchers do give a benefit to the community, and
we get more affordable housing and get points with the Met Council. Commissioner Stein asked
staff's perspective whether this extra work is worthwhile.
Executive Director Juetten said staff can administer our 210 plus 15 vouchers without going
through the same amount of work. Executive Director Juetten cited the recent opening of the
wait list because of the project -based units at Westview Estates and experiencing 2,300 phone
calls in one day after advertising to call in and request a mailed application. He said many staff
members in the department answered phones and the phone system for the City shut down for
awhile.
Vice Chair Caryotakis asked how that impacted the people on the original wait list, and asked if
there is enough turnover so some of those people get vouchers.
Page 49
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 6
Support Services Manager Whalen said the voucher still goes by preferences. If people coming
on the wait list in 2012 have more preferences than those people on the original wait list from
2008, they would be served first. Support Services Manager Whalen said while this is a lengthy
process, she and Executive HRA Executive Director Juetten have discussed having more
difficulty with landlords accepting housing vouchers. She said project -based vouchers are a
good alternative to provide housing for people.
Commissioner Stein asked if staff tries to convince landlords to accept vouchers.
Support Services Manager Whalen said we know which apartment complexes accept vouchers.
She said private landlords have to come in and get information on the program. She said for
both project -based and regular vouchers there are inspections, meetings, and criminal
background checks. Support Services Manager Whalen said the problem is filling a unit with
tenants from the wait list, and there is more turnover resulting in dealing with people off the wait
list again.
Chairman Kulaszewicz said in the case of project -based vouchers you know the landlord would
accept a voucher which is the upside.
Commissioner Stein asked Mr. Huggett if someone with a housing choice voucher would be
accepted at their building.
Mr. Huggett answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Stein asked how may apartment complexes currently accept Section 8 vouchers.
Support Services Manager Whalen explained we are down to ten complexes who accept
vouchers as the rents are increasing and apartment complexes are pricing themselves out of what
we allow for a voucher.
Mr. Vohs said IOCP and People Responding In Social Ministry (PRISM) would have clients to
take these project -based units if a new list is being established.
Support Services Manager Whalen stated our Administrative Plan would have to be changed to
work with another social service agency to refer clients.
Commissioner Stein said if the Administrative Plan were changed to accept referrals from IOCP
and PRISM we would serve people in close proximity, rather than the entire metro area.
Commissioners Willis and Kulaszewicz concurred.
Support Services Manager Whalen said this change could be made with the next Administrative
Plan update. She said we currently have 300 names on the wait list and persons recently placed
on that list had to be willing to take a project -based voucher. Support Services Manager Whalen
Page 50
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 7
said anyone declining the offer of a regular housing voucher three times is removed from the
regular voucher wait list.
Commissioner Stein asked Mr. Huggett about a request for a $200,000 loan from the HRA,
which has now been withdrawn.
Mr. Huggett said that is correct, as they found other funding for this project.
Commissioner Willis asked how long it would take to find tenants after advertising the
availability of four project -based units.
Housing Manager Barnes said that entire process could take between four to twelve months. He
explained Dominium is requesting the four units now because their application for the low
income tax credits is due mid-June and they would like to be able to say the HRA Board has
agreed to advertise for four project -based vouchers. MHFA does not make their selection for the
tax credits until end of November.
Commissioner Willis said if we set this process in motion, Dominium will use that action in their
application to indicate they are on track to get approved by the HRA. He asked Mr. Huggett if
the project is hanging on this financing.
Mr. Huggett stated if we don't get tax credits we won't proceed.
Commissioner Stein asked if we award four project -based vouchers to Dominium and their
project does not go through, would these four project -based units stay in the "pool".
Community Development Executive Director Juetten said once we open and close the
application, we have ten days to award the project -based units.
Commissioner Stein asked how the process works to keep the four project -based units at a
project. Support Services Manager Whalen explained when someone gives up a voucher through
attrition, that voucher may be offered to a project -based client. Once the client moves out of the
project -based unit, staff goes to the wait list to start the process all over again.
Commissioner Stein asked if administration fees from HUD cover our administrative costs.
Community Development Executive Director Juetten said we do have a $500,000 reserve
account, but it looks like this year's budget will be $25 - $30,000 short. He said a report about
this program will be brought to the HRA and City Council in the budget process. Community
Development Executive Director Juetten added in 2012 we are getting only 80% of the funding.
Commissioner Stein asked if administrative costs could be shared if we partnered with PRISM
and IOCP.
Page 51
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 8
Housing Manager Barnes said we looked at this with Westview Estates as administrative fees
were going down but we were unable to find authority to go to the owner or developer to help
cover additional costs of administrative case work.
Vice Chair Caryotakis said by pursuing this we are opening up another building in Plymouth that
will accept vouchers.
Mr. Vohs shared foreclosure statistics and said there were 882 foreclosures in Plymouth in the
last five years. He said all of those people are now renters.
Chairman Kulaszewicz said part of the HRA Board's mandate is to provide as much affordable
housing as possible and said he supports advertising for four project -based units.
MOTION by Chairman Kulaszewicz, seconded by Commissioner Stein, to advertise for four
project -based units for the Dominium project at 10315 Bass Lake Road. Vote. 5 Ayes. Motion
passed unanimously.
Housing Manager Barnes asked that Item 5.A be moved ahead of Item 4.B.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Potential Redevelopment. Ryerson site (1605 State Highway 169) and adjacent
properties
Housing Program Manager Barnes gave an overview of the staff report.
Community Development Executive Director Juetten noted that he had received a call from a
broker who represented a property owner in this area to see if the city had any financing
mechanism to assist them in doing some improvements to their building.
Commissioner Runck said he met two months ago with two people whom he thought might be
interested in developing this site: Frank Dunbar, who has completed numerous market rate
housing developments in the Twin Cities, and Kraus Anderson, who does retail and multifamily
housing development. Commissioner Runck said both groups thought there is a not a lot of
promise here with the current market, and at this time these are not willing sellers. He said Frank
Dunbar would be willing to speak with the Board regarding his approach of "one bite at a time"
rather than a master plan. He said Mr. Dunbar suggested a small HRA project on the eastern side
and grow from there. Commissioner Runck said Kraus Anderson said they did not have interest
in the site until more information could be supplied. Commissioner Runck said as they are the
builder of the Trillium Woods project, they felt there might be a conflict there. He said these are
overviews of two developers and that doesn't mean that's what every developer thinks.
Commissioner Runck said in his opinion, everyone is busy pursuing market rate deals with
interest rates so low and don't want to wait three years. He said they want to build today as
vacancies are low metro -wide.
Page 52
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 9
Vice Chair Caryotakis introduced Kirk J. Kubousek, 1915 Kilmer Lane. Mr. Kubousek shared
his and some of his neighbors' concerns. Mr. Kubousek asked if the traffic study was done
during the heavy traffic time of 7:00 a.m. — 8:30 a.m. as there is Highway 169 traffic overflow
congestion. He said if an additional 600 housing units were added there would have to be a
change to the existing road infrastructure. Mr. Kubousek said 600 units seems dense for that
area and there is concern that affordable housing might go in. He said he realizes it is a goal for
Plymouth to have a balance but to consider the allocation of rental housing on the east side of
Plymouth as there are a lot of apartments in the Highway 169/E. Medicine Lake area. Mr.
Kubousek said other residents would be in favor of residential but were concerned over the
number of housing units.
Commissioner Stein explained this area has been identified in the ten-year Comprehensive Plan
as a potential redevelopment site to see if anything feasible might occur. Commissioner Stein
said both Maple Grove and St. Louis Park have put together fabulous developments. He said the
property is not for sale and assured Mr. Kubousek that the City doesn't go in and condemn
properties to develop on a whim. Commissioner Stein said in his opinion nothing is going to
happen in the near future.
Chairman Kulaszewicz questioned if industrial use of that property on the lake is the best use,
and suggested residential might be a better use. He also stated the businesses there appear to be
doing well and to our knowledge are not interested in selling.
Community Development Executive Director Juetten said we now have some direction and
better information on the area than we had a few months ago. He said if one of those businesses
came forward wanting to move, we can react quicker now that we have this information.
4.13. HRA — Discuss Down Payment/Foreclosure Program
HRA Specialist Berglund gave an overview of the staff report to discuss the opportunity to
initiate a pilot loan program geared toward a higher first time homebuyer income category and/or
foreclosed homes.
Commissioner Stein asked if there is a problem with foreclosed houses not being bought up.
Community Development Executive Director Juetten said Plymouth has not had a huge problem
with foreclosed homes sitting vacant for 3-5 years like some cities are experiencing. He said
periodically in wintertime burst water pipes in vacant homes create problems.
Chairman Kulaszewicz said it seems folks are participating in rehabbing foreclosed homes which
alludes to the fact that something happened to them while they were in foreclosure. He
questioned if we would be spending money to help banks.
Page 53
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 10
Housing Manager Barnes said some programs help a homeowner once they acquire the
foreclosed home from the bank, and our current rehab program can do that if the individual is
within income guidelines. He said a home improvement or rehab program could be designed
specifically for people in a specified income range and is available only for a foreclosed home
that qualified after our inspection and with our terms. Housing Program Manager Barnes said
some communities partner with a developer to acquire foreclosed homes, and then sell to a buyer
after the home improvements are completed.
Vice Chair Caryotakis said you would need to do this if there are a large number of blighted,
abandoned properties.
Housing Manager Barnes concurred, and cited Brooklyn Park as a community that has found that
it was more efficient to contract with a general contractor to get the process completed in one to
two months rather than providing a loan to the new homeowners. He said they ensure that
deferred maintenance items such as the roof, furnace, and energy efficiency items - not cosmetic
improvements are addressed. Housing Program Manager Barnes said Plymouth has a small
market of people who do not get served by our programs because CDBG income guidelines are
set at a maximum of 80% of the area median income, which is currently $64,500 for a family of
four. Housing Program Manager Barnes stated the City Council has asked for a report on how to
handle emergency type repairs, such as a water main breaks that occur.
Vice Chair Caryotakis said now there is an improvement in the market whereas a year or two
ago, we would have been throwing good money after bad. He said if we find a niche where there
is a need, the incremental contribution we make might help to float the market. Vice Chair
Caryotakis said one major problem now is declining home values and no willingness by lenders
to lend against these reduced home values. Vice Chair Caryotakis asked if we have residents
having problems refinancing at a reasonable rate because their home is no longer appraised for
the proper value. He suggested the Board could play a role in a few cases where the Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac loans are not covered by the National Settlement Program. Some residents
paying 6% interest are barely making ends meet, but can't refinance because they are at 90 -
100% of loan value. Commissioner Caryotakis said a small loan subordinated to refinance at
3.5% might be beneficial.
Chairman Kulaszewicz said it is a fine line to help folks stay in their home and prevent
foreclosure, but not throwing good money after bad. He concurred with Vice Chair Caryotakis'
comments regarding assisting a homeowner to get the loan value to the right spot to reduce the
interest rate from 6% to 3.5% with our participation. Chairman Kulaszewicz said he does not see
Plymouth having blighted houses because they are foreclosed.
Vice Chair Caryotakis said there might be a niche for rehabbing foreclosed properties for a buyer
who can afford the house, but because they are over our income limits cannot afford to do all the
rehab work. He said if we could offer funding to rehab the property, it would be more saleable,
thereby helping home values.
Page 54
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 11
HRA Specialist Berglund said the City of Bloomington has a program for individuals about to
purchase, or have purchased a foreclosed home in the past year, can get up to $20,000 for
improvements to that home.
Commissioner Runck said additional research about the percentage of homes in foreclosure as
well as foreclosure prevention programs would be helpful.
Housing Manager Barnes said foreclosure prevention programs are highly risky and we have to
understand we are potentially dealing with riskier credit with the owners.
Commissioner Stein asked if there have been calls from people that we can't serve.
Housing Manager Barnes said we have been unable to assist some individuals with CDBG funds
either because of income guidelines or the type of emergencies. He explained landscaping or
tree emergencies are not eligible improvements and our Emergency Grant program is for
individuals age 55 or older.
Commissioner Stein suggested setting up an emergency fund for water breaks or tree removal,
based on income guidelines.
Housing Manager Barnes said there is a cap of $5,000 on the current emergency repair program,
but there would be some additional risk with a new program because it would be a loan. He said
an assessment by the City might be better as it would stay with the property.
Commissioner Stein asked if the HRA could administer and fund the program. Commissioner
Stein discussed two recent water main breaks in the City and the homeowners were unable to
pay the bill. He said the assessments were put on the taxes rather than shut the water off.
Commissioner Stein said he thought the HRA would be more capable assessing the needs of the
homeowner rather than the water department.
Community Development Executive Director Juetten said there would need to be guidelines and
a way for staff to determine fairly quickly if owners would qualify. Community Development
Executive Director Juetten said of the 130 water main breaks annually, approximately 40 are the
property owners' responsibility. He said if there is a leak there is an incentive for the city to
have it fixed as soon as possible as water is running into the ground.
Commissioner Stein said he could support an emergency program for an income -qualified
homeowner regardless of age.
Housing Manager Barnes said the source for this emergency fund could come from the HRA
general fund and could be for furnaces, water breaks etc. after verifying income and property
ownership.
Page 55
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 12
Commissioner Willis pointed out there could be many takers for such a program, but there is no
replenishable funding stream and we are going to be draining the HRA general fund.
Housing Manager Barnes recapped this could be a self-sustaining, low interest emergency loan
program for income qualified individuals and no age restriction. He said we need a definition of
"emergency" items, and determine terms of the loan regarding interest and establishing a
maximum household income.
Commissioner Stein said he likes the idea of assisting homeowners who are underwater, but
doesn't know how it would work or what the demand would be without putting city tax payers at
risk.
Vice Chair Caryotakis noted this would increase staff time to determine criteria so we don't lose
money and yet serve qualified individuals.
Commissioner Willis asked if the lending/banking community is trying to deal with the clients
who are at risk for foreclosure.
Commissioner Runck said he is aware of some banks that are doing interest write-downs and
said low interest mortgages without closing costs have been very helpful for people under water.
Commissioner Runck asked if there are any other needs the HRA should be aware of.
Housing Manager Barnes said staff will be analyzing the FTHB program and rehab program.
Housing Program Manager Barnes said the biggest concern is the emergency program for people
who don't fit in the CDBG income guidelines. He said the Board may want to create an
amortized, 3.5 — 4% fixed rate, 10 -year fixed rate rehab loan program for individuals who don't
meet rigid CDBG guidelines. He noted this would be an investment back into the community as
homes are fixed up.
Commissioner Stein said Plymouth does not have a point of sale inspection so we don't know the
condition of the housing stock. He asked how many more people would be reached if the
income limit were raised $5,000.
Housing Manager Barnes said there are no housing surveys and can only reference phone calls
and denied applications for data. He said even with 2010 census data it would be a tough
number to find those persons who are between 80 - 100% of median income.
HRA Specialist Berglund said a notice was put into the Plymouth News awhile back about
available rehab loan funding which did not contain income guideline information. He stated we
received a lot of calls which had to be directed to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
(MHFA) for their Fix up Fund which had an income cap of $96,500 (115% of median income).
Page 56
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 24, 2012
Page 13
Housing Manager Barnes said another idea would be an interest rate write-down program. He
said you partner with the lending institutions to set up a program where they offer their loan at
6%, and we buy down that rate from 6% to 4%. He said it results in a loss of approximately
$1,500, but the city receives the benefit of improved housing stock.
Commissioner Stein said that would be a good option to look into as we would make up the
$1,500 in the improvement to the housing stock. He added he would be interested in the point of
sale inspection because without it there is no way to determine the condition and value of the
houses in the city.
6. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Vice Chair Caryotakis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
MOTION approved.
Page 57
Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
July 18, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Dick Kobussen, Commissioners Nathan Robinson,
Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Jim Davis
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Shawn Drill and
Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the July
18, 2012 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 20, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the June
20, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
B. VIOLET -C, LLC (2012037)
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the request
by Violet -C, LLC for a site plan and three variances for a new medical office building for the
vacant parcel located at 15535 34th Avenue North. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CORNERSTONE AUTO RESCOURCE (2011037)
Vice Chair Kobussen introduced the request by Cornerstone Auto Resource for a planned unit
development amendment to allow installation of an electronic sign near the southwest corner of
County Road 9 and Vinewood Lane North for the property located at 3901 Vinewood Lane
North.
Page 58
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
July 18, 2012
Page 2
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Nelson stated the design size of the sign would be 32 square feet and asked if that
fits within the allowable square footage. Senior Planner Drill responded affirmatively and added
that they are not requesting to change the size of the sign that was originally approved, just its
location.
Commissioner Nelson asked if there is a difference between the monument sign that was
originally approved and the electronic sign requested. Senior Planner Drill replied that it would
be an electronic monument sign.
Commissioner Anderson asked what could be displayed on this electronic sign. Senior Planner
Drill responded that when a message is posted, that message has to be in place, without moving,
for 15 minutes minimum and then it can be changed to a different message. He said that the
message cannot be flashing, moving, scrolling, etc. Planning Manager Thomson added that the
colors of the background and the letters are also regulated.
Commissioner Oakley asked for a definition of temporary signage. Senior Planner Drill
responded that temporary signage would be banner signage or anything that would be placed on
the site for a short term event. He stated that when there is an electronic sign on a site,
temporary signage is not allowed.
Commissioner Oakley asked if window signage is considered temporary signage. Senior Planner
Drill replied negatively and added that window signage would be deducted from the allowable
wall signage.
Commissioner Petrash asked if the city regulates signs that are on car windows on the lot. Senior
Planner Drill responded that at this point, the city does not regulate that.
Vice Chair Kobussen introduced the applicant, Stephen Rohlf. Mr. Rohlf stated that it was
always their intent to have signage on the corner of County Road 9 and Vinewood Lane. He said
that they have been working closely with the residential neighbors to the south and would like to
get signage away from their houses. He said the reason for the electronic reader board is that
they improved the parking lot with the intent of attracting a new car franchise. He said that they
do not know which franchise it would be yet. He said the electronic changeable sign could
announce oil change specials and then name whatever franchise comes in the future. He said the
sign would be a great help to their business as car sales have been tough during construction.
Vice Chair Kobussen opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair Kobussen introduced Richard Cook, 13319 39th Avenue North. Mr. Cook stated that
he is the president of the homeowner's association for the townhomes to the south. He said that
it is the consensus of the board that they unanimously support the amendment to relocate the sign
along County Road 9. He said they are totally in favor of this amendment and they are in
support of Cornerstone Auto.
Page 59
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
July 18, 2012
Page 3
Vice Chair Kobussen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the
request by Cornerstone Auto Resource for a planned unit development amendment to allow
installation of an electronic sign near the southwest corner of County Road 9 and Vinewood
Lane North for the property located at 3901 Vinewood Lane North. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes.
MOTION approved unanimously.
B. HENNEPIN COUNTY (2012036)
Vice Chair Kobussen introduced the request by Hennepin County for a site plan, two conditional
use permits and two variances for a new 59,550 square foot 911 emergency communications
facility at the adult correctional facility site located at 1245 Shenandoah Lane North.
Senior Planner Drill gave an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the bioretention areas on the site plan would be natural areas.
Senior Planner Drill responded that they would be constructed areas and would be similar to a
rain garden with plantings. He said they are designed as a best management practice to provide
water quality treatment. Planning Manager Thomson added that they are designed to be more
attractive, too. She said they have gained a lot of popularity recently but they do the same job.
Vice Chair Kobussen asked if there would be diesel storage on the site for the generators. Senior
Planner Drill replied that there would be diesel storage and indicated the proposed locations for
the back-up generators.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the impervious surface calculation was based on the entire site.
Senior Planner Drill responded affirmatively. He noted that most of the existing and proposed
coverage is in the eastern portion of the site, as the golf driving range is in the western portion of
the site. He said the proposed 26.1 percent coverage includes the 911 Emergency
Communications Center requested at this time, as well as a small future expansion to the Men's
Detention Center planned for next year. He said that expansion would not add any beds but
would improve operations.
Commissioner Anderson asked why the coverage for a future expansion of the Men's Detention
Center would be approved now if they haven't applied for it yet. Senior Planner Drill responded
that staff thought it wise rather than have them come back next year for a variance for what
would be a small increase in impervious surface. Planning Manager Thomson added that staff
suggested this because they could size the best management practices to address everything at
once. She said the addition at the adult correctional facility would be quite small and staff met
with them recently and their plans are coming together. She said that application will probably
come before the Planning Commission this fall with construction the following year. She said
the timing is quite close and it seemed to make more sense to look at it holistically in this case.
Page 60
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
July 18, 2012
Page 4
Vice Chair Kobussen introduced the applicant, Rebekah Padilla. Ms. Padilla stated that they are
very excited about this application and they see this development as being very positive on this
campus, as well as being a good neighbor in the City of Plymouth. She introduced Joel Dunning
from Wold Architects and Engineers, project architect, to address diesel storage.
Mr. Dunning stated the underground diesel storage tank would be located at the back of the
proposed building, close to the paved area for service access to the drive and very close to the
boiler room. He said that diesel tank would be used as a back up fuel source for the boilers,
meeting the code requirement for redundant heating and cooling systems, as well as providing a
72 -hour run time for the generators. He said there would also be small belly tanks under the
generators located near the antenna tower so they would have an onboard source of power in
case the pumps from the 10,000 gallon underground tank would fail.
Commissioner Nelson asked if they would be doing auto repair on ambulances and squad cars at
this location. Ms. Padilla introduced Major Darrell Huggett, Hennepin County Sherriff's office
to answer that question.
Major Huggett stated that this facility would not be an auto repair center. He said that the north
portion of the building would be for radio installation and technical repair of radios and not for
auto repair.
Vice Chair Kobussen opened and closed the public hearing, as there was no one present to speak
on the item.
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the
request by Hennepin County for a site plan, two conditional use permits and two variances for a
new 59,550 square foot 911 emergency communications facility at the adult correctional facility
site located at 1245 Shenandoah Lane North. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved
unanimously.
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Vice Chair Kobussen, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Page 61