HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-28-2009 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 28) 2009) 5:30 p.m.
MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DISCUSSION TOPICS
A. 2010/2011 Budget
3. SET FUTURE STUDY SESSIONS
4. ADJOURN
Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 July 28, 2009
rp)City of
Plymouth
Addi,g Qq.ffly tc Life
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING
July 28, 2009
Agenda 2ANumber:
To: Mayor and City Council
Prepared by: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager, and Cal Portner, Administrative
Services Director
Item: Proposed 2010/11 Budget and Tax Levy
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide direction on the proposed 2010/11 Budget and Tax Levy.
2. BACKGROUND:
The proposed budget is typically provided to the Council in mid-August. We started the budget
process a bit earlier this year due to the challenging economic conditions, the change in our financial
system (which required transition to a new chart of accounts and a change in our pay/benefit
processes), and the beginning of the new biennial term. Last week, departments completed budget
entry and this week added payrol"enefits, allocations and transfers. We are very close to having
detailed budgets for your review.
There are a number of budget issues for your review and feedback. The attachments correspond to
the numbered items below:
1. Proposed 2010/11 budget. Attached is a high-level report with projected revenue and
expenditures for 2010 and 2011. The report includes the actual amounts for 2007 and 2008, the
amended budget amounts for 2009, the change amounts from '09 to '10 and from '10 to 'I I and
the 20 10 change percentage.
Please keep in mind the information is very preliminary and we are still checking the data to
ensure reliable information. The infori 7a_t_ion you have is not in balance at this time. We are
testing the calculations to ensure they are correct, in particular the salary and benefit numbers.
You will notice a number of large swings from some line items due to the set up of the new
financial software as well as some budget coding changes.
The proposed budget includes several service and personnel reductions. The items listed below
are in addition to the 9.5 positions eliminated in the 2009 budget. The budget currently would
eliminate or reduce:
Assessing temporary salaries 30,000
Accountant 89,555
Tuition reimbursement 10,000
Reforestation 37,000
Park cleanup 5,000
Sealcoating - parks 23,000
Page I
Park concessions 10,000
PCC aquarium 4,800
PCCjanitorial 3,520
Seasonal park employee 15,000
Seasonal forestry employee 15,000
Park supplies 14,000
Adaptive recreation services 7,000
Recreation brochure 14,000
Neighborhood park spraying 16,000
Winter warming houses 9,600
Recreation tax subsidy 50,000 (use reserves)
Puppet wagon 6,530
Office Support Specialist - Parks 71,051
Maintenance Worker - Ice Center 62,927
Sealcoating - streets 400,000
Streets Leadperson 67,430
Consulting engineer 20,000
Sr. Eng. Tech. 92,972
Sr. Eng. Tech. - 1/2yr. 46,486
Office Support Rep. - Eng. 65,390
Office Support Rep. - Eng. 65,390
Fire public education materials 3,000
Fire - noncapital equipment 4,000
Police - temporary clerical 23,849
Deer survey 1,600
Animal licensing 1,000
Best Practices Program 5,400
Police recruitment 3,000
Bike Patrol 1,000
Police Officer - DARE dedicated 89,616
Community Service Officer 58,871
Office Support Rep. - Comm. Dev. 65,390
Associate Planner 84,095
Code Enforcement Inspector 67,246
Building Inspector 94,124
Conferences/Training - All mandatory and core training is retained; most discretionary training
is eliminated for 2010/11 across all divisions.
Recognition Events - All events are significantly reduced.
Additional positions and services may need to be reduced if additional savings are needed later
in the budget process.
New DrODOsed cost recovery revenue:
Field Maintenance $100,000
Street Lighting/Signals $145,000
Traffic Signals $ 70,000
PCC Groups fee $ 5,000
PCC Sr. admin. fee $ 10,000
MSA Maintenance funds $300,000
Page 2
2. Proposed Levy. The state -mandated levy limit utilizes the implicit price deflator to calculate the
annual levy increase. When we last provided a levy projection, the implicit price deflator was at
2.2%. It has since decreased to less than one percent at 0.083%. The Governor un -allotted the
Market Value Homestead Credit Aid (MVHC) budgeted for the last half of 2008 and 2009, but
the legislature did provide for a new Special Levy to recover MVHC outside of the levy limit, if
desired. In recent years, MVHC receipts were placed in the Street Reconstruction Fund. Also,
the 2003C Street Reconstruction Bonds will be paid off in 2009 ($424,000).
A worksheet is attached with the levy computation for 2010 as are several alternative tax levy
scenarios, which show the estimated tax impact on various valued properties. It will be several
weeks until we receive reliable fiscal disparity numbers, which will affect the levy.
3. Street Reconstruction. There are several major budget and levy impacts relating to street
reconstruction. The attached report provides a brief update on our "Mix of Fixes" approach,
which began in 2005, and outlines several funding options, which impact the budget and levy.
4. Street Lighting/Traffic Signals. Rising energy prices resulted in a review of street lighting and
traffic signal energy costs. An inventory of all street lights was completed and further analysis
was completed that showed the General Fund is subsidizing lights and signals throughout the
city. The attached report outlines the issue and potential remedies.
5. Social Service Payments. The General Fund budget contains $112,000 for social service
payments identical to previous years, divided as follows:
PRISM 14,000
Interfaith Outreach 20,613
Interfaith Outreach — CONECT 10,100
HomeFree 33,000
NW Hennepin Human Serv. —
Senior leadership program 1,500
Teens Alone 2,000
Communities in Collaboration Council 5,887
Senior Community Services 14,500
Senior Community Services HOME 6,300
Community Mediation 4,100
In addition, Community Development Block Grant funds were allocated in the following
amounts in 2009 and likely would be recommended by the HRA in 20 10:
Community Action Partnership
Suburban Hennepin 15,000
PRISM Elder Express 3,500
YMCA Youth Counseling 7,500
HOME Line, Tenant hotline 8,000
Family Hope Services 6,000
Jewish Voc. Svcs., career counseling 2,000
6. Allocations. A description of the major allocations and budget impact is attached. As you may
know, we have done analysis on a number of internal service funds and propose to correct
allocation imbalances over the next few years.
Page 3
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
Account
Number Description 2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount
2009 Amended
Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change
2010 Change
2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
Revenue
4000.100 Taxes Property 20,273,516 21,177,722 22,188,764 22,585,602 396,838 2% 23,037,314 451,712
4000.200 Taxes Abatements 20,000) 150,000) 130,000) 650% 150,000) -
4100 Licenses 14,565 12,865 18,000 18,000) 100%
4100.100 Licenses Gasoline 2,400 2,400 2,470 70 3% 2,470
Service Station
4100.200 Licenses Tobacco 9,416 150 10,000 9,675 325) 3% 9,675
4100.300 Licenses Pet 3,194 3,640 3,500 3,500) 100%
4100.400 Licenses Garbage Hauler 4,150 4,850 3,700 4,250 550 15% 4,250
4100.500 Licenses 3.2 Malt Liquor 11,967 1,917 3,700 9,600 5,900 159% 9,600
4100.510 Licenses Off -Sale Liquor 2,733 4,781 3,000 5320 2,320 77% 5,320
4100.520 Licenses On -Sale Liquor 139,952 142,925 143,000 168,800 25,800 18% 168,800
4100.530 Licenses Wine 19,300 22,717 20,000 20,000 0% 20,000
4100.540 Licenses Consumption & 300 300 300
Display
4100.600 Licenses Liquor 10,850 15,250 5,000 2,000 3,000) 60% 2,000
Investigation Fee
4100.700 Licenses Rental Dwelling 72,055 9,177 70,000 70,000 0% 70,000
4100.750 Licenses Fireworks 2,300 2,300 2,300
4100.800 Licenses Amusement 450 450 450
4100.850 Licenses Peddler 3,750 3,750 3,750
4100.900 Licenses Massage 8,050 8,050 8,050
4100.950 Licenses Fertilizer 900 900 900
Total Licenses 290,582 218,271 282,300 307,865 25,565 9% 307,865
user: Deb Potz Pages 1 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
4150 Permits 20,247 23,056) 15,000 15,000 0% 15,000
4150.100 Permits Building 1,743,394 2,236,936 1,000,000 1,000,000 0% 1,000,000
4150.200 Permits Plumbing 105,773 98,251 100,000 100,000 0% 100,000
4150.300 Permits Mechanical 324,306 385,947 200,000 200,000 0% 200,000
Permits
4150.350 Permits Electrical 255,240 276,488 120,000 120,000 0% 120,000
4150.500 Permits Fire Protection 108,085 67,242 72,000 72,000 0% 72,000
4150.550 Permits Alarm
4150.600 Permits Plan Checking 633,242 555,209 450,000 450,000 0% 450,000
4150.700 Permits Sign and 11,474 12,468 10,000 10,000 0% 10,000
Billboard
4150.800 Permits Conditional Use 400
Total Permits 3,201,760 3,609,885 1,967,000 1,967,000 0% 1,967,000
4200 Intergovern- Federal - 84,406 108,820 10,000 131,033 121,033 1209% 44,333 (86,700)
Operating
4200.500 Intergovern- Federal - 8,276
Operating Pass-through
4230 Intergovernmental -State- 32,421 28,236 25,000 2,500 22,500) 90% 2,500
Operatng
4230.101 Intergovernmental -State- 46,993 46,993 46,993 46,993) -100%
Operatng PERA
4230.102 Intergovernmental -State- 78,000 69,500 69,500 300,000 230,500 332% 300,000 -
Operatng MSA
Maintenance
4230.103 Intergovernmental -State- 487,296 465,161 413,000 425,390 12,390 3% 438,152 12,762
Operatng Police State
Aid
4230.104 Intergovernmental -State- 9,842 10,770 20,000 23,000 3,000 15% 23,000 -
Operatng Disabled
Officer Reimbursement
4230.105 Intergovernmental -State- 421,827 364,197 350,000 350,000 350,000
Operatng Fire State Aid
4230.106 Intergovernmental -State- 25,000 25,000 25,000
Operatng Police Training
Reimbursement
user: Deb Potz Pages 2 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
4230.200 Intergovernmental -State- 57,568 61,740 65,775 67,590 1,815 3% 69,490 1,900
Operatng Haz Mat Grant
RAD)
4230.202 Intergovernmental -State- 154 1,300
Operatng DARE Program
4250 Intergovernmental- 95
County-Opertng
4270.100 Intergovernmental -Local- 268,427 341,585 327,195 409,290 82,095 25% 409,291 1
Operatng School Liason
Total Intergovernmental 1,486,934 1,506,673 977,463 1,733,803 756,340 77% 1,661,766 72,037)
4310 Program Fees 10,000 10,000 10,000
4320 Rental Fees 144,963 163,866 160,000 100,000 60,000) 37% 100,000
4320.100 Rental Fees Recreation 4,500 4,500) 100%
4320.104 Rental Fees Millenium 10,347 12,825 13,000 13,000 0% 13,650 650
Garden
4320.200 Rental Fees Meeting 165,000 165,000 169,000 4,000
Rooms
Total Program and 155,310 176,691 177,500 288,000 110,500 62% 292,650 4,650
Rental Fees
4330.500 Utility Charges Street 514,567 517,601 480,000 695,000 215,000 45% 695,000
Lighting
4330.800 Utility Charges Penalties 5,975 6,289 5,300 6,000 700 13% 6,000
Total Utility Charges 520,543 523,890 485,300 701,000 215,700 44% 701,000
4350 General Services 1,117 100 100) 90%
4350.101 General Services Maps & 40 540 750 750) 100%
Ordinances
4350.102 General Services Alarm 66,090 48,625 55,000 58,000 3,000 5% 58,000
Fees
4350.103 General Services 1,076 1,419 1,000 1,000) 100%
Accident Reports
4350.104 General Services Police 107,092 232,438 11,000 18,500 7,500 68% 18,500
Services
4350.105 General Services Towing 6,940 4,955 7,000 7,000) 100%
4350.106 General Services Weeds 3,293 13,407) 1,500 4,000 2,500 167% 4,000
user: Deb Potz Pages 3 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
4350.107 General Services Tree 19,915 15,807 1,500 17,500 16,000 1066% 17,500
Removal
4350.109 General Services 59,676 28,030 80,000 80,000) 100%
Engineering Services
4350.114 General Services Garden 2,465 2,662 2,660 3,045 385 14% 3,045
Plots
4350.119 General Services 75,619 88,405 90,000 90,000) 100%
Antennae Charges
4350.122 General Services Police 4,855 1,100 1,100 1,100
Training
4350.123 General Services 19,570 16,230 29,000 29,000 0% 29,000
Application Fees
Total General Services 361,776 431,676 279,510 131,145 148,365) 53% 131,145
4380.300 Allocation Charges 14,350 131,103 15,000 15,000 0% 15,000
Administrative
4380.301 Allocation Charges 138,900 80,000 80,000 0% 80,000
Engineering
Total Allocations 153,250 131,103 95,000 95,000 0% 95,000
4410 Court Fines 910,931 878,441 883,500 883,500 0% 883,500
4420 Impound Fees 5,708 6,935 5,000 5,000 0% 5,000
4430 Liquor/Tobacco 13,350 11,500 12,000 24,000 12,000 100% 24,000
Violations
4500 Special Assessments 14,048 3,267
4600 Contributions - Operating 15,379
4620 Contributions - Capital 21,800 78,141 1,000 700 300) 30% 700
4700 Interest Income 3,888 11,131
4700.100 Interest Income 517,854 367,160 303,000 307,545 4,545 1% 307,545
Investments
4700.200 Interest Income Special 1,075 327 5,000 5,075 75 2% 5,075
Assessments
4800 Other Revenues 58,479 116,710 40,000 1,200 38,800) 97% 1,200
4801 Administrative Fee 10,600 17,990 1,500 1,500 1,500
4807 Refunds & 150
Reimbursements
user: Deb Potz Pages 4 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
4900.220 Transfers In Transit 16,883 17,911 18,269 358 2% 18,635 366
System
4900.403 Transfers In Bldg and 7,500 312,539 44,957 44,957) -100%
Equip Revolving
4900.407 Transfers In Project 232,976
Administration
4900.412 Transfers In Utility Trunk 40,000 35,000
Replacement
4900.500 Transfers In Water 75,000 75,000 79,567 82,567 3,000 4% 82,567
4900.510 Transfers In Water 16,390 17,388 17,388 0% 17,388
Resources
4900.520 Transfers In Sewer 53,391 54,000 56,643 58,643 2,000 4% 58,643
4900.530 Transfers In Solid Waste 16,900 17,929 17,929 0% 17,929
Management
4900.540 Transfers In Ice Center 11,254 11,939 11,939 0% 11,939
4900.550 Transfers In Field House 3,605 3,824 3,824 0% 3,824
4900.600 Transfers In Central 25,000
Equipment
4900.660 Transfers In Resource 51,000 51,000 3,000 48,000)
Planning
Total Transfers In 498,899 496,377 250,158 261,559 11,401 5% 213,925 47,634)
Revenue Totals 28,515,682 29,764,039 27,932,495 29,149,494 1,216,999 4% 29,486,185 336,691
user: Deb Potz Pages 5 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
Account 2009 Amended 2010 Change
Number Description 2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
Expenses
6000.100 Salaries Regular 10,983,261 11,600,122 12,110,368 11,534,339 576,029) 5% 11,906,730 372,391
6000.200 Salaries Temporary 902,068 1,038,459 1,114,519 1,107,434 7,085) 11% 1,073,550 33,884)
6000.300 Salaries Court Time 108
6010 Salary Vacancies 345,787) 345,787 100%
6020.100 Overtime Regular 371,423 274,732 253,900 219,150 34,750) 14% 185,750 33,400)
6020.200 Overtime Court Time 342 29,578 29,578 29,877 300
6020.300 Overtime Holiday 4,693 6,686 6,686 6,754 68
6020.400 Overtime Contractual 52,900 96,605
Total Salaries 12,309,652 13,015,060 13,133,000 12,897,187 235,813) 2% 13,202,661 305,474
6050 Benefits
6050.100 Benefits Social Security 429,618 452,851 503,521 420,151 83,370) 17% 432,756 12,605
6050.101 Benefits Medicare 172,290 183,653 185,217 183,270 1,947) 1% 188,577 5,306
6050.200 Benefits PERA 1,016,712 1,190,261 1,239,007 1,190,898 48,109) 4% 1,230,322 39,424
6050.201 Benefits Deferred 141,565 133,518 157,726 95,954 61,772) 39% 99,239 3,285
Compensation
6050.300 Benefits Life 27,818 32,156 38,460 38,460) 100%
6050.302 Benefits Unemployment 27,929 41,840 43,500 43,500) 100%
6050.303 Benefits Workers 19,691 19,691 37 19,654)
Compensation
6050.400 Benefits Dept'l Insurance 1,393,155 1,589,185 1,734,504 1,734,504) 100%
Allocation
6050.500 Benefits Clothing 56,427 91,398 56,944 64,081 7,137 13% 54,563 9,519)
Allowance
6050.700 Benefits Disabled Officer 20,000 20,000) 100%
6060 Medical Insurance 93,753 383,831 383,831 383,831)
6060.100 Medical Insurance 1,181,543 1,181,543 1,615,630 434,087
Employer Contribution
6070 Dental Insurance 4,828
6070.100 Dental Insurance 86,848 86,848 82,561 4,287)
Employer Contribution
6080 Group Life Insurance 1,554 28,335 28,335 29,377 1,041
Total Benefits 3,265,513 3,814,998 3,978,879 3,654,603 324,276) 8% 3,733,060 78,458
6100 Office Supplies 89,050 52,460 78,430 72,610 5,820) 7% 71,200 1,410)
6100.100 Office Supplies Coffee 300 3,526 3,000 3,800 800 27% 3,800
and Cups
6120 Operating Supplies 122,899 149,374 142,800 131,700 11,100) 8% 131,700
user: Deb Potz Pages 6 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
6120.100 Operating Supplies 1,651 1,380 2,620 2,320 300) 11% 2,020 (300)
Photography
6120.101 Operating Supplies 12,816 62,348 9,600 6,600 3,000) 31% 6,600 -
Public Education &
Outreach Prj
6120.103 Operating Supplies 20,885 16,366 19,250 19,250 0% 18,950 (300)
Janitorial
6120.104 Operating Supplies 938 3,983 4,550 4,550 0% 4,550 -
Shooting Range
6120.105 Operating Supplies Fire 10,511 17,421 16,000 19,090 3,090 19% 19,090
Fighting
6120.106 Operating Supplies 19,813 13,739 15,500 17,500 2,000 13% 17,500
Ammunition
6120.107 Operating Supplies 2,671 6,000 6,000 0% 6,000
Animal Control
6120.108 Operating Supplies Twin 12,235 13,500 8,500 8,500 0% 8,500
City Tree Trust
6120.109 Operating Supplies 7,048 14,751 15,000 14,000 1,000) 7% 14,000
Community Education
6120.110 Operating Supplies 11,907 13,142 14,000 14,000 0% 14,000
DARE Program
6120.114 Operating Supplies 35,440 96 37,000 37,000) 100%
Reforestation
6120.115 Operating Supplies 4,891 5,451 5,400 5,400 0% 5,400
Nursery
6120.116 Operating Supplies Tree 4,401 5,858 5,100 5,100 0% 5,100
Fertilizer
6120.117 Operating Supplies 1,043 587 3,370 2,000 1,370) 41% 2,000
CFMH Program
6120.118 Operating Supplies 700
Tobacco Compliance
6120.119 Operating Supplies 2,205
Alcohol Compliance
6120.120 Operating Supplies 1,634 811 1,000 1,000 0% 1,000
McGruff Truck Program
6120.121 Operating Supplies 15,807 16,476 17,000 16,500 500) 3% 16,500
SWAT Team
6120.122 Operating Supplies 1,145 3,775 4,600 2,600 2,000) 43% 2,600
Reserve Program
6120.123 Operating Supplies 3,115 5,698 7,000 7,000 0% 7,000
Explorer Program
6120.124 Operating Supplies 80 554 600 600 0% 600
Volunteer Program
6120.126 Operating Supplies K9 3,167 7,950 6,250 1,700) 21% 6,250
Unit
user: Deb Potz Pages 7 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
6130 Repair & Maintenance 1,537
Supplies
6130.100 Repair & Maintenance 9,775 9,407 14,300 14,500 200 1% 14,500
Supplies Equipment
Parts
6130.101 Repair & Maintenance 56,831 67,421 65,362 66,262 900 1% 66,262
Supplies Horticulture
6130.102 Repair & Maintenance 26,932 30,577 33,200 32,200 1,000) 3% 32,200
Supplies Traffic and Park
Signs
6130.104 Repair & Maintenance 27,903 38,917 52,500 51,500 1,000) 2% 48,500 3,000)
Supplies Sand and
Gravel
6130.105 Repair & Maintenance 607 2,318 1,175 2,400 1,225 104% 2,400
Supplies Paint
6130.106 Repair & Maintenance 584 19 400 400 0% 400
Supplies Lumber
6130.107 Repair & Maintenance 462,059 407,323 517,750 517,750 0% 517,750
Supplies Concrete and
Asphalt
6130.108 Repair & Maintenance 931 1,000 1,000 0% 1,000
Supplies Concrete
Disposal
6130.111 Repair & Maintenance 232,617 222,184 278,400 253,400 25,000) 9% 253,400
Supplies Chemicals
6130.118 Repair & Maintenance 11,406 10,291 8,000 8,000 0% 8,000
Supplies Playstructure
Repair Parts
6130.119 Repair & Maintenance 782 736 1,100 900 200) 18% 900
Supplies Recharges
6130.120 Repair & Maintenance 3,687 2,736 3,100 3,000 100) 3% 3,000
Supplies Mailbox Repairs
6130.121 Repair & Maintenance 180 630 2,500 2,500 0% 2,500
Supplies Sprinkler Head
Repairs
6140 Miscellaneous Supplies 7,579 6,380 7,800 7,800) -100%
6140.100 Miscellaneous Supplies 3,252 2,833 3,600 3,500 100) 3% 3,500
Medical
6140.101 Miscellaneous Supplies 13,527 9,465 16,350 15,200 1,150) 7% 15,200
Uniforms
6140.102 Miscellaneous Supplies 44,193 35,152 68,502 73,400 4,898 7% 77,400 4,000
Safety Equipment
Total Supplies 1,286,030 1,252,389 1,499,309 1,412,282 87,027) 6% 1,411,272 1,010)
user: Deb Potz Pages 8 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
6500 Employee Development 4,000 4,000 4,000
6500.100 Employee Development 86,389 76,624 116,504 95,876 20,628) 18% 92,079 3,797)
Employee Training
6500.101 Employee Development 12,528 7,250 18,000 15,000 3,000) 17% 15,000
City wide Training
6500.102 Employee Development 14,987 16,625 20,000 10,000 10,000) 50% 10,000
Tuition Reimbursement
6500.103 Employee Development 15,207 16,853 19,300 9,800 9,500) 49% 9,800
Employee Recognition
6500.104 Employee Development 33,742 34,959 63,691 38,887 24,804) 39% 42,216 3,329
Conferences & Seminars
Total Employee 162,852 152,311 237,495 173,563 63,932) 27% 173,095 468)
Development
6550 Mileage & Parking 2,806 3,598 7,168 4,900 2,268) 32% 4,940 40
Reimbursement
6600 Meetings 7,165 5,059 6,250 4,750 1,500) 24% 4,750
6700 Dues and Subscriptions 26,351 27,448 32,409 30,983 1,426) 4% 31,384 401
6700.100 Dues and Subscriptions 25,810 26,825 28,000 28,200 200 1% 30,000 1,800
MN League of Cities
6700.101 Dues and Subscriptions 13,472 12,748 14,292 13,097 1,195) 8% 13,752 655
Metro Municipalities
6700.102 Dues and Subscriptions 10,500 10,500 11,330 10,500 830) 7% 11,025 525
Municipal Legislative
Comm
6700.103 Dues and Subscriptions 5,600 6,000 6,200 6,400 200 3% 6,600 200
Suburban Rate Authority
user: Deb Potz Pages 9 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
Account
Number Description 2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount
2009 Amended
Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change
2010 Change
2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
7000 Professional Services 181,670 212,530 230,996 143,280 87,716) 38% 143,590 310
7000.100 Professional Services 364
Citizen's Accademy
7001 Consulting Engineer 41,405 35,826 40,000 10,500 29,500) 74% 22,500 12,000
7002 Internal Engineer 594
7003 Legal 99,193 93,699 120,000 100,000 20,000) 17% 103,000 3,000
7003.100 Legal Retainer
7003.101 Legal Criminal 265,258 286,876 275,000 285,000 10,000 4% 293,550 8,550
Prosecution
7004 Audit Fees 15,775 34,132 28,825 28,991 166 1% 28,991
7006 Medical Fees 14,312 19,187 21,670 28,950 7,280 34% 28,950
7007 Drug and Alcohol Testing 1,425 1,220 2,000 6,000 4,000 200% 6,000
7008 Veterinary Fees 2,780 693 1,000 1,000 0% 1,000
7010 Contractual Plan
Checking
7012 Comprehensive Plan 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0% 20,000
Review
7013 Record Retention 10,000 2,875 12,000 3,900 8,100) 68% 3,900
7014 City Survey
7016 Animal Control 16,862 25,030 22,100 22,100 0% 22,100
7017 Laundry Services 12,848 12,201 15,380 15,280 100) 1% 15,280
7018 Compensation 1,920 1,080 1,700 1,200 500) 29% 1,200
Classification Stdy
7019 Street Evaluation 12,000 12,360 12,360 12,360 12,360
7030 Boards and Commissions 6,618 4,611 6,000 6,000) 100%
7100 Communications 293
7100.100 Communications Postage 73,040 88,914 103,870 88,772 15,098) 15% 84,599 4,173)
7100.103 Communications 11,518
Telephone
7100.104 Communications Mobile 1,306 18,163 18,100 63) 0% 18,400 300
Telephone
7100.105 Communications 2,959 1,309 3,000 3,000 0% 3,000
Community Identity
7200 Printing and Publishing 79,468 69,360 91,770 57,900 33,870) 37% 54,150 3,750)
7200.100 Printing and Publishing 37,749 29,011 37,300 34,000 3,300) 9% 35,000 1,000
Plymouth News
7200.102 Printing and Publishing 5,061 5,303 9,000 5,400 3,600) 40% 5,400
Truth In Taxation Notices
user: Deb Potz Pages 10 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
7400.100 Utilities Street Lights 578,242 595,258 595,589 620,000 24,411 4% 620,000
7400.101 Utilities Traffic Lights 65,093 71,441 67,046 75,000 7,954 12% 75,000
7400.102 Utilities Natural Gas 71,310 76,972 120,515 112,714 7,801) 6% 115,714 3,000
7400.103 Utilities Water and Sewer 60,393 66,190 64,070 66,453 2,383 4% 67,153 700
7400.104 Utilities Solid Waste 13,660 17,363 22,105 21,230 875) 4% 21,295 65
7400.108 Utilities Electric 176,862 176,046 182,167 187,254 5,087 3% 190,610 3,356
7500 Repair and Maintenance 55,653 64,031 49,200 47,000 2,200) 4% 47,000
Services
7500.100 Repair and Maintenance 106,885 131,004 128,500 112,500 16,000) 12% 112,500
Services Landscape
7500.102 Repair and Maintenance 27,847 27,277 31,500 31,500 0% 31,500
Services Weed Control
7500.103 Repair and Maintenance 7,278 7,026 7,000 7,000 0% 7,000
Services Irrigation
7500.104 Repair and Maintenance 44,880 30,145 50,000 50,000 0% 50,000
Services Electrical
7500.105 Repair and Maintenance 1,794 5,862 2,100 2,100 0% 2,100
Services Plumbing
7500.106 Repair and Maintenance 851 2,800 2,800 2,800 0% 2,800
Services Bulldozer Work
7500.107 Repair and Maintenance 18,373 17,688 11,000 11,000 0% 11,000
Services Tennis Court
7500.108 Repair and Maintenance 288,682 113,287 209,400 240,000 30,600 15% 240,000
Services Snow Plowing
7500.109 Repair and Maintenance 357,030 364,108 433,000 10,000 423,000) 98% 10,000
Services Seal Coating
7500.110 Repair and Maintenance 68,051 65,885 75,000 80,000 5,000 7% 80,000
Services Street Striping
7500.113 Repair and Maintenance 2,128
Services Curb Raising
user: Deb Potz Pages 11 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
7500.114 Repair and Maintenance 1,145 5,200 5,000 200) 4% 5,000
Services Retaining Walls
7500.118 Repair and Maintenance 7,956 7,924 8,800 5,280 3,520) 40% 5,280
Services Janitorial
Services
7500.124 Repair and Maintenance 600 1,200 1,800 1,800 0% 1,800
Services Hauling
7500.126 Repair and Maintenance 23 2,286 10,500 10,000 500) 5% 10,000
Services Guard
Rail/Fencing
7500.128 Repair and Maintenance 791 1,761 1,300 1,300 0% 1,300
Services Painting
7500.129 Repair and Maintenance 6,915 4,363 6,900 6,900 0% 6,900
Services Static Testing
7500.130 Repair and Maintenance 24,279 13,314 26,700 19,900 6,800) 25% 19,900
Services Building
Maintenance
7500.133 Repair and Maintenance 707 3,639
Services Millennium
Garden Expenses
7500.134 Repair and Maintenance 97,626 124,344 136,000 130,000 6,000) 4% 130,000
Services Crack Sealing
7500.135 Repair and Maintenance 205
Services Building
Security
7500.137 Repair and Maintenance 96 2,200 2,200 2,200
Services Chemical
Control
7500.201 Repair and Maintenance 2,000 2,000) -100%
Services End User
Software Maint
7500.202 Repair and Maintenance 201,858 204,234 275,370 221,120 54,250) 20% 221,620 500
Services Equipment
Maintenance
user: Deb Potz Pages 12 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
7500.300 Repair and Maintenance 36,290 35,145 40,500 40,500 0% 40,500
Services Street Tree
Maintenance
7500.301 Repair and Maintenance 167,562 110,934 98,000 98,000 0% 98,000
Services Tree Contract
Removal
7500.302 Repair and Maintenance 18,213 19,402 5,800 17,500 11,700 202% 17,500
Services Forced Tree
Removal
7500.303 Repair and Maintenance 198 45 200 200 0% 200
Services Oak Wilt Tree
Testing
Total Repair and 1,543,614 1,358,005 1,618,570 1,153,600 464,970) 29% 1,154,100 500
Maintenance
7600 Rentals 2,690) 33,940 57,300 57,300 54,200 3,100)
7600.100 Rentals Portable Toilets 27,871 27,089 40,000 40,000 0% 40,000
8000 Non -Cap Equip 5K) 35,506 55,984 63,365 36,955 26,410) 42% 35,955 1,000)
8000.100 Non -Cap Equip 5K) 186
CERT
8100 Capital Outlay (> 5K) 8,476 8,476
8100.100 Capital Outlay (> 5K)
Land
8100.200 Capital Outlay (> 5K) 21,645
Infrastructure
8100.400 Capital Outlay (> 5K) 47,988
Improv Other Than
Buildings
8100.500 Capital Outlay (> 5K) 64,125 287,412 29,500 57,000 27,500 93% 57,000)
Machinery and
Equipment
8100.600 Capital Outlay (> 5K) 1,864
Software
8100.800 Capital Outlay (> 5K) 90,488 82,000 82,000) -100%
Construction Projects
8930 Special Assessments 255
user: Deb Potz Pages 13 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
Account
Number Description
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
2009 Amended 2010 Change
2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
9000.100 Allocations Photocopying 87,630 90,259 92,968 126,374 33,406 36% 126,888 514
9000.101 Allocations Information 1,220,929 1,031,732 1,058,423 1,050,870 7,553) 1% 1,050,750 120)
Technology
9000.102 Allocations Facilities 811,778 852,367 894,987 983,422 88,435 10% 1,079,793 96,371
Management
9000.104 Allocations Mobile Phone 52,990 80,445 82,861 54,427 28,434) 34% 54,427
9000.105 Allocations Security 51,011 26,346 58,525 58,525 0% 58,525
9000.106 Allocations Telephone 59,009 108,018 110,235 110,235 0% 110,235
9000.107 Allocations Central 1,645,375 1,645,375 1,824,683 179,308
Equipment
9000.108 Allocations Internal 1,472,136 1,404,197 1,582,470 1,582,470) 100%
Rental Charges
9000.109 Allocations 800 MHz 185,666 185,666 189,380 3,714
Radios
Total Allocations 3,755,483 3,593,364 3,880,469 4,214,894 334,425 9% 4,494,681 279,787
9500 Transfers Out
9500.100 Transfers Out General
9500.403 Transfers Out Bldg and 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000) 100%
Equip Revolving
9500.405 Transfers Out Park 373,032 211,393 77,480 77,480 0% 77,480
Replacement
9500.406 Transfers Out Street 1,600,000 2,200,000
Reconstruction
9500.413 Transfers Out 11,225
Improvement Project
Construction
9500.600 Transfers Out Central 43,982 43,981 43,981 43,981) 100%
Equipment
9500.610 Transfers Out Public 300,000
Facilities
9500.620 Transfers Out Information 3,995
Technology
9500.630 Transfers Out Risk 217,424 447,703 461,133 461,133 0% 461,133
Management
9500.640 Transfers Out Employee 114,053 244,817 53,045 54,660 1,615 3% 54,660
Benefits
9500.660 Transfers Out Resource 107,000 107,000 144,000 37,000
Planning
Total Transfers Out 2,703,711 3,187,894 675,639 700,273 24,634 4% 737,273 37,000
user: Deb Potz Pages 14 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
Account 2009 Amended 2010 Change
Number Description 2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change % 2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
user: Deb Potz Pages 15 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
2010 - 2011 Preliminary Budget Report - General Fund
Account
Number Description 2007 Actual Amount 2008 Actual Amount
2009 Amended
Budget 2010 Budget Team 2010 Change
2010 Change
2011 Budget Team 2011 Change
9900 Miscellaneous 30,220 509 120,400 120,400 120,400
9901 Care of Prisoners 54,131 35,744 50,000 50,000 0% 5,000 45,000)
9902 Booking of Prisoners 43,206 47,750 45,000 45,000 0% 45,000
9903 Scholarships
9904 Real Estate Taxes 1,555 1,508 1,900 1,900 0% 1,900
9905 Easements
9906 Donations & 421,827 364,197 350,000 350,000 350,000
Contributions
9906.101 Donations & 112,000 115,360 112,000 112,000 0% 112,000
Contributions Social
Services
9907 Historical Society 4,000 3,251 4,000 4,000) 100%
9913 Licenses & Permits 490 734 600 950 350 58% 950
9914 Youth Special Events
9917 Bad Debt 51
9918 Contingency 250,000 250,000 0% 250,000
9919 Administration Fees
9920 Bank Fees 1,387 8,174 13,354 3,790 9,564) 72% 3,790
9950.100 Grant and Award Pass- 8,276
through Federal
Expense Totals 27,841,409 29,528,847 27,931,995 27,398,910 533,085) 2% 28,029,006 630,096
Net Grand Totals: 674,274 235,193 500 1,750,584 1,750,084 1,457,179 (293,405)
user: Deb Potz Pages 16 of 16 Friday, July 24, 2009
2010 TAX LEVY LIMITS
1. 2009 Certified Net Tax Capacity Levy
no market value levy)
2. Less:
Special Levies
2004 Public Safety Bonds
2004 Street Reconstruction Bonds
2003 Street Reconstruction Bonds
2007A Open Space
Police & Fire
PERA
3. Add:
LGA
Taconite Aid
Wind energy production tax
LEVY AID BASE
4. Multiply by 1.0083
5. Household increase - percentage
Households 2008
Households 2007
Mulitiply by 1 + 1/2 of percentage of
household increase
6. Commercial and Industrial new construction percentage
New C/I Construction Market Value - Pay 2009
Taxable Market Value - Pay 2008
Multiply by 1 + 1/2 percentage of new construction market value
ADJUSTED LEVY LIMIT BASE
7. less:
LGA
Taconite Aid
Wind Energy production tax
8. 2010 LEVY LIMIT:
Market Value Credit Aid
Street Reconstruction
Recreation Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
1.1086%
28,272
27,962
0.75%
74,918,600
9,994,019,900
Remaining for General Fund
Add back PERA
Add back Police
Total General Fund
27,648,296
596,354
424,531
178,356
255,486
9,231,614
101,012
0
0
0
16,860,9431
1.0083
1 $17,
1.0055
1 $17,095,129
1.0037
1 $17,159,204
0
0
0
17,159,204
510,000
2,531,835
628,497
368,962
13,119,910
111,525
9,354,167
22,585,602
LOSS
Page I
Tax Impact on Average Home & Commercial Business
Without Special Levy for Market Value HS Credit
2009/2010 Budget
lResidential Property
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Average Home Sale Value 250,000 250,000
6.94)
Tax Capacity at 1 % 2,500 2,500
962.51
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate 24.351% 26.029%
Total City & Market Value Property Tax 608.76 650.73 41.96
HRA Tax Capacity Rate 0.483% 0.514%
HRA Property Tax 12.09 12.86 0.76
Total Property Tax 42.73620.85 663.58
Market Value Credit 0.00
Total Net Property Tax 582.16 624.89 42.74 7.34%
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
HRA Tax Capacity Rate
HRA Property Tax
Total Property Tax
Market Value Credit
Total Net Property Tax
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
HRA Tax Capacity Rate
HRA Property Tax
Total Property Tax
Market Value Credit
Total Net Property Tax
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
384,400 366,800 17,600 -4.8% (2009 LBRE pg2)
3,844 3,668
24.351% 26.029%
936.04 $954.75 $18.71
0.483% 0.514%
18.58 $18.86 $0.27
954.62 973.61 18.99
6.94) 11.10) 4.16)
947.68 962.51 14.84 1.57%
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
500,000 500,000
5,000 5,000
24.351% 26.029%
1,217.53 1,301.45 $83.92
0.483% 0.514%
24.17 $25.71 $1.53
1,241.70 $1,327.17 $85.46
0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1,241.70 $1,327.17 $85.47 6.88%
lCommercial Property
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Combined City & Market Value Tax Rate
On a $1,000,000 Property
Tax Capacity
less: Fiscal Disparity contribution rate
Net Tax Capacity
Total Property Tax
24.351% 26.029%
1,000,000 1,000,000
19,250 19,250
0.371552 0.371552
12,098 12,098
2,946 $3,149 $203.06 6.89%
Page I
Tax Impact on Average Home & Commercial Business
With Special Levy for MV HS Credit at Former Levy Rate
2009/2010 Budget
lResidential Property
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Average Home Sale Value 250,000 250,000
26.456%
Tax Capacity at 1 % 2,500 2,500
0.514%
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate 24.351% 26.456%
Total City & Market Value Property Tax 608.76 661.39 52.62
HRA Tax Capacity Rate 0.483% 0.514%
HRA Property Tax 12.09 12.86 0.76
Total Property Tax 53.39620.85 674.25
Market Value Credit 38.69) 38.69) 0.00
Total Net Property Tax 582.16 635.55 53.40 9.17%
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
HRA Tax Capacity Rate
HRA Property Tax
Total Property Tax
Market Value Credit
Total Net Property Tax
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
HRA Tax Capacity Rate
HRA Property Tax
Total Property Tax
Market Value Credit
Total Net Property Tax
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
384,400 366,800 17,600 -4.8% (2009 LBRE pg2)
3,844 3,668
24.351% 26.456%
936.04 $970.39 $34.35
0.483% 0.514%
18.58 $18.86 $0.27
954.62 $989.25 $34.63
6.94) ($11.10) ($4.16)
947.68 $978.15 $30.48 3.22%
2009
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2010 Increase Increase
500,000 500,000
5,000 5,000
24.351% 26.456%
1,217.53 1,322.78
0.483% 0.514%
105.25
24.17 25.71 1.53
1,241.70
0.00
1,348.49
0.00
106.79
0.00
1,241.70 $1,348.49 $106.80 8.60%
lCommercial Property
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Combined City & Market Value Tax Rate
On a $1,000,000 Property
Tax Capacity
less: Fiscal Disparity contribution rate
Net Tax Capacity
24.351% 26.456%
1,000,000 1,000,000
19,250 19,250
0.371552 0.371552
12,098 12,098
Total Property Tax $2,946 $3,200 $254.65 8.64%
Page 2
Tax Impact on Average Home & Commercial Business
With Special Levy for MV HS Credit and Maximum Unallotment
200912010 Budget
lResidential Property
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
250,000
2,500
24.351%
250,000
2,500
27.298%
608.76 $682.46 $73.69
HRA Tax Capacity Rate 0.483% 0.514%
HRA Property Tax $12.09 $12.86 $0.76
Total Property Tax $620.85 $695.31 $74.46
Market Value Credit ($38.69) ($38.69) $0.00
Total Net Property Tax $582.16 $656.62 $74.47 12.79%
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
HRA Tax Capacity Rate
HRA Property Tax
Total Property Tax
Market Value Credit
Total Net Property Tax
Average Home Sale Value
Tax Capacity at 1 %
Combined City Tax & Market Value Tax Rate
Total City & Market Value Property Tax
HRA Tax Capacity Rate
HRA Property Tax
Total Property Tax
Market Value Credit
Total Net Property Tax
384,400
3,844
24.351%
366,800 17,600
3,668
27.298%
936.04 $1,001.30
0.483% 0.514%
18.58 $18.86
65.26
0.27
954.62 $1,020.16 $65.54
6.94) ($11.10) ($4.16)
947.68 $1,009.06 $61.39
4.8%
6.48%
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
500,000
5,000
24.351%
500,000
5,000
27.298%
1,217.53 $1,364.91
0.483%
24.17
0.514%
25.71
147.38
1.53
1,241.70 $1,390.63 $148.92
0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1,241.70 $1,390.63 $148.93 11.99%
lCommercial Property I
Estimated Estimated Percentage
2009 2010 Increase Increase
Combined City & Market Value Tax Rate
On a $1,000,000 Property
Tax Capacity
less: Fiscal Disparity contribution rate
Net Tax Capacity
Total Property Tax
24.351% 27.298%
1,000,000 1,000,000
19,250 19,250
0.371552 0.371552
12,098 12,098
2,946 $3,302 $356.60 12.11%
Page 3L-
rp)City of Agenda 2A.3PlymouthNumber:
Addi,q Qqdily to Life
To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
July 28, 2009 Reviewed by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
Item: 2010 and 2011 Budget - Street Reconstruction
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff direction for 2010 AND 2011 budget preparation.
2. BACKGROUND:
On January 14, 2005, staff presented a comprehensive report to the City Council outlining
alternatives to address declining street conditions. A copy of the Proposed "Mix -of -Fixes"
report is attached. On May 17, 2005, staff followed up with a report seeking City Council
direction on long term funding and assessment rates. This report is attached as well. hi
November, 2007, the City Council adopted the current assessment rate of 40% for street
reconstruction and added assessments for mill and overlay projects.
The City Council gave staff direction to fund street improvements to a level that would
maintain the current street condition index of 66 (identified as Option 4 on the second report).
Staff has been proceeding with our street improvement efforts based on this direction. The
level of funding directed towards the various "mix -of -fixes" since the City Council provided
this direction is shown on the attached table. The result of these efforts is a current pavement
condition of 63. Had all of the 2009 programmed street improvements been completed, the
pavement condition index would be 66.
City Council members have inquired about means by which assessments could be reduced
without compromising the 40% assessment rate and other means to prolong the sustainability
of the Street Reconstruction Fund. The following are some opportunities the City Council may
wish to consider:
Finance the installation of curb and gutter and/or storm sewer with Surface Water Fee
revenue rather than assess 40% or 100% depending upon the adequacy of the existing
infrastructure. This approach is used in other communities such as Bloomington,
Golden Valley, Wayzata and Edina who also have a storm. water utility.
0 Waive or defer interest rates on assessments. While this is a potential short term
solution, it has little long term benefit to the City or the residents.
Page I
Change the assessment rate or to charge a flat assessment rate that would be adjusted
with inflation.
Change the term of the assessment to reflect a terin associated with a fixed rate loan of
the same value or some other financing mechanism.
Other street maintenance opportunities that the City Council may wish to consider that have
budget implications include:
Seal coating is funded through the Street Maintenance operating and is not directly
associated with the Street Reconstruction Fund. Eliminating seal coating, at least for
the short term, would negligible impact on the overall pavement condition index but
would reduce the burden on the General Fund.
In the future require developers pay for the first seal coat on a street through their
development contract as is done in some communities like Elk River and Brooklyn
Park.
The City receives over $500,000 annually from the State for Municipal State Aid
MSA) street maintenance activities. In the past, only $69,500 of that revenue was used
to offset costs incurred in the General Fund for MSA street maintenance. The
remainder was added to the Street Reconstruction Fund. It costs approximately
14,000 per mile annually to maintain our streets. There are nearly 55 miles of MSA
streets in the City. That means that nearly $800,000 is spent maintaining our MSA
streets ($200,000 for snow plowing alone) excluding traffic signal energy and
maintenance costs ($130,000). The City Council could direct some or all of the MSA
maintenance allotment to offset costs incurred in the General Fund.
The Street Maintenance operating budget typically includes asphalt for in-house
paving. The proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) also includes
temporary overlays which are funded by the Street Reconstruction Fund. The
temporary overlays have had a positive impact in our overall pavement condition index
and we have experienced better than anticipated performance from this element of the
mix -of -fixes. The City Council may wish to eliminate paving from the operating
budget and all in-house paving could be done utilizing the funding programmed in the
CIP for temporary overlays.
3. BUDGET IMPACT:
The Street Reconstruction Fund has a balance of $6,312,641.72 as of December 31, 2008. The
table on the following page outlines the historical contribution to the fund from the General
Fund Levy
Page 2
Fund 406 — Street Reconstruction Fund Revenue 2003 to Present
YEAR LEVY MARKET VALUE TRANSFERS
2003 1,483,460.60 542,658.54
2004 47,007.82 686,534.91
2005 701,108.24 493,239.28
2006 1,547,007.21 1,352,074.60
2007 2,074,040.11 540,015.87 1,600,000.00
2008 2,300,574.92 257,381.38 2,200,000.00
2009 2,458,092.00 510,000.00
TOTAL: 10,611,290.90 1,307,397.25 6,874,507.33
18,793,195.48
Note: 2009 are based on the approved budget.
Since the 2009 Street Reconstruction Project did not proceed, bonding in 2010 will not be
required as was anticipated. Additional financial analysis could be required depending upon City
Council direction.
Staff is seeking direction on the amount of General Fund levy to contribute to the Street
Reconstruction Fund for the 2010 and 2011 budgets.
The proposed 2010 and 2011 Street Maintenance budgets reflect the elimination of
400,000 per year for seal coating (Repair and Maintenance Services Seal Coating —
7500.109).
The proposed 2010 and 2011 Street Maintenance budgets reflect $300,000 for asphalt for
in-house paving. The proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) also has
420,000 for temporary overlays in 2010 and $450,000 in 2011 funded by the Street
Reconstruction Fund.
The proposed 2010 and 2011 Street Maintenance budgets reflect $300,000 of new revenue
from the City's MSA maintenance allocation.
4. ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed "Mix -of -Fixes" Approach to Address Street Condition Deficiencies
May 17, 2005 Street Reconstruction and Special Assessment Staff Report
2005-2009 Street Improvement Funding History
2005-2009 Street Projects Map
Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy History
Surface water Utility Fee History
Page 3
Proposed "Mix -of -Fixes"
Approach to Address Street
Condition Deficiencies
Submitted to
Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
January 14,2005
Written by
Mike Kohn, Financial Analyst
Contributing St
nnfp. I-TAn Finance D;r,-Ct()r
Anne Hurlburt Community Development Director
Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
Dan Faulkner ' City Engineer
Ron Quanbeck, City Engineer
Ross Beckwith, Assistant City Engineer
Dan Campbell, Sr. Engineering Technician
Steve Koskela, Sr. Engineering Technician
Jim Renneberg, Civil Engineer
Brian Young, Sewer and Water Supervisor
Tom Vetsch, Public Works Superintendent
Gary Smith, Street Supervisor
Scott Newberger, Street Supervisor
Page 4
Executive Summary
Over the last several months a group of staff has met to examine the issue of preserving
and improving the condition of the City's street system. The approach taken was to
receive input from all the involved parties including street maintenance, engineering,
sewer and water, and finance to develop a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to a
very significant problem. This has been a challenging and complex exercise that has
served to point out the importance of coordination and cooperation between all divisions
that work on streets or infrastructure within the street right-of-way. The result of this
examination is a series of proposed changes to our current practices that will allow the
City to improve the condition of its street system in a realistic and cost-effective manner.
Staff is recommending an integrated "mix -of -fixes" program to resolve the City's street
condition problem. It emphasizes increased preventive maintenance activities, greater
use of temporary overlays on streets due for reconstruction, and the phase-in of more
Street improvement (reconstruction and mill- and -overlay) projects. The following is a list
of the more significant changes in practice that staff recommends:
Establish a staff committee to plan and coordinate maintenance and street
improvement activities on an annual basis. This committee would provide a
report to the City Council and submit recommendations for projects to be
included in the CIP.
Establish and fund a more aggressive and higher quality scalcoat application and
pre-sealcoat repair program. This will cost-effectively preserve the quality of the
City's good streets and extend street life.
Implement and fund a catch-up program of temporary overlays to increase the
condition of failing streets while the City phases -in an increased street
improvement program. I
Implement and fund an expanded street improvement program. The expanded
program, along with additional maintenance efforts, is anticipated to result in the
increase of the average street rating from 66 to 70.
Change the City's assessment policy to allow for the assessment of street
reconstruction and mill -and -overlay or full -depth mill -and -overlay projects. Both
types of projects benefit adjoining properties. This would be a more equitable
approach.
Change the City's assessment policy to increase the assessment amount to 40% of
project cost. This amount conservatively estimates the increased value enjoyed
by adjoining property, and compares well with other communities in the metro
area.
Change engineering specifications for street reconstruction from a fairly rigid
standard that is significantly higher than that required for new road installed by
developers, to a more flexible standard based on soil and drainage conditions for
each street, This would save money wl-dle maintaining a comparable and
reasonable life.
Page 5
Change engineering specifications to allow the use of PVC or HDPE water m ain.
This would provide a better product, more resistant to damage by the City's poor
soils, at a lower cost.
Consider the replacement of water main, and replacement or relining of sewer
main, in street projects as applicable. This will reduce the need to dig -up a new
street to repair or replace decaying underground infrastructure.
The financial impact of these changes is as follows:
600,000 will be required to finance the catch-up temporary overlay program.
Financing could come from the Strect.Reconstruction Fund, supported by the
transfer of General Fund surplus.
If alternative 5 is selected, which seems like a reasonable alternative, phase-in of
the expanded street improvement program would begin with the amounts
currently budgeted in the CJP for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Expenditures for street
improvements woul d then increas c b y 10 % per year until the amount reaches
10,000,000. According to projections, this level of expenditures should be
sufficient to stabiliZe and eventually lead to an increase in street condition.
Funding is proposed to come from the expansion and increase ' in the amount of
special assessments for street improvements, and a phased -in increase in the
property tax levy for street reconstruction, if le vy limits are removed. The levy
would increase from $1,288,700 in 2005, to about $5,850,000 by 2015. Bondmig
would be the second choice if levy limits remain in place. This would not
eliminate the need for tax levy increases, only defer them.
Funding for replacement of water and sewer main will have to come from the
individual utilities. Tt is estimated that it -%A411 cost an average of about $650,000
per year to replace water main over the next 5 years. This amount will likely have
to increase in the future as the water system ages. A program for sewer main
replacement/relining is not as closely tied to street improvenie'rits but needs to be
developed soon. Assessments are not possible for water and sewer main because
replacement does not increase the value of the adjoining property. To increase
revenue by $650,000 per year, to cover water main replacement, water rates
would have to increase by M on a one-time basis. The IS% could also be
phased in over time. Even with this increase, Plymouth's water rates would
compare favorably with other municipalities.
Page 6
Back2round
Maintaining the condition of the City's street system is an issue that affects all residents
and businesses. In the 2004 City Survey, the number one complaint mentioned by
persons who viewed City services negatively was potholes. In the 1999 City Survey
potholes were not even mentioned. As the City's street system expands, its maintenance
and reconstruction efforts need to expand as well. If the City continues to fall behind, it
will eventually be faced with a large liability that will be difficult to overcome,
Currently, the City's street system consists of about 270 miles of roadway with a current
replacement cost in excess of $300,000,000. Each year, City staff conducts an inspection
of 1/3 of the streets and rates their condition. The City's average street condition rating is
currently 66. The ratings are based on a condition index (CI) rating, which ranges from 0
to 100, with 100 representing a brand new street. The 1995 street condition rating report
indicated an average condition rating in the low 80's. Since City residents have begun to
express concern regarding the condition of the City's streets, and condition ratings are in
decline, it seems reasonable to assume that efforts should be made to stem the decline and
increase this rating to a higher level.
On September 28, 2004, the City Council had a study session to discuss long-term road
reconstruction and financing. At that time- staff presented a report that outlined the
current condition of the City's street system and provided an option for improving the
condition of the City's streets through a greatly expanded program of street
reconstruction and m ill -and -overlays. This option called for an increase in funding for
street reconstruction and mill -and -overlays from a historical level of about $2,500,000
per year, to approximately $7,400,000. Due to the financial impact of this option, staff
continued to look at other alternatives. As a result of this request, staff assembled a
group of individuals that represent the street maintenance division, water and sewer
division, engineering division, and finance department to more broadly examine the
City's street condition issues.
Approach
The traditional approach to declining street condition has been to replace the failing
streets with new ones. Over the last ten to fifteen years however, public works
practitioners have gone to a "mix -of -fixes" approach which includes reconstruction,
rehabilitation (overlays and mill -and -overlays), and preventive maintenance to preserve
street condition and extend street life. A considerable amount of research has recently
been generated that substantiates the cost-effectiveness and benefits of preventive
maintenance and the "mix -of -fixes" approach to pavement management. Three articles
have been attached as Appendix items 1, 11, and Ill foy your review. These articles
explain some of the preventive maintenance practices available, and describe and
document some of the benefits. The most significant highlight of the research is the
discovery that for every dollar spent on preventive maintenance, $4 to $ 10 dollars are
saved on rehabilitation and reconstruction. This is largely due to the life extension
benefit of properly timed preventive maintenance treatments. The approach taken by
Page 7
staff in developing a new option for enhancing and maintaining street condition is based
on this "mix -of -fixes" philosophy.
Analysis
The tool utilized for examining the City's current practices and developing alternatives
was the preparation of a written policy establishing guidelines for street maintenance and
street rehabilitation/reconstruction activities.. In preparing this policy, current practices
and alternatives to enhance street condition and save money in the long -run were
evaluated item by item froin a number of different perspectives. The result of this
exercise is the draft "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy" which is
included as "Attachment V to this report.
The second portion of the analysis involved modeling the street system on the City's
ICON pavement management software. These models were utilized to determine the cost
impact of various street improvement options.
Findinas/Reconinien-dations
The following summarizes the findings/recommendations illuminated by the policy
preparation exercise:
I - The City needs to establish a measurable goal for street condition. Staff
recommends a goal of an average street condition index of 70, or better, as
determined by the ICON Pavement Management System.
2. Greater coordination and enhanced planning of street maintenance, street
improvement, and water/sewer utility activities needs to take place. We intend to
establish a staff committee to review and establish maintenance plans and
recommend projects for inclusion in the CIP.
3. Underground utilities such as water and sewer infrastructure are beginning to fail
and will have a significant impact on the scope and timing of street improvement
activities. For example, it does not pay to put in a new street without replacing
the underlying water main if it has a history of main breaks and/or is near the end
of its expected life. In addition, streets with many water main breaks may have a
higher priority for reconstruction than those that do not.
4. It is becoming apparent that water main will not last as long as previously
expected. Older cast iron water main is brittle, is subject to shearing, and was
installed with non -stainless steel bolts that are being dissolved by the acidic soils.
New ductile iron water main was also not installed with stainless steel bolts until
recently, and is subject to corrosionjust like the bolts. An average of about 50 to
60 years of life can be expected from existing water main depending on
installation and surrounding soils. PVC pipe may be a better alternative for
smaller pipe sizes since it is flexible and resists corrosion.
Page 8
5. Street maintenance activities do not provide any substantial benefit to the property
values of adjoining properties and therefore should be funded by property tax
dollars. This is not a change from our current practices.
Due to the declining condition of the City's streets, the amount of reactive
maintenance continues to increase. It is more cost-effective to try to prevent the
occurrence of reactive maintenance items, such as pothole patching and curb and
gutter repairs, than to focus on trying to catch-up.
7. More attention needs to be paid to crack sealing sealcoat areas the year prior to
sealcoat application, and greater supervision needs to be done on crack seal
contractors to make sure they are sealing appropriate cracks. Crack sealing
should generally be done on streets in good condition. The State of Michigan has
determined that crack sealing can add up to 3 years of additional life to an asphalt
street (see Appendix 3).
More scalcoating needs to be done. Currently, most streets are being sealcoated
in year 6 or 7 and then in year 16 to 18 when they are almost due for mill -and -
overlay or reconstruction, and damage has already been done. The life of a
sealcoat application is typically 5 to 7 years. Ideally sealcoat is applied every 6
years to prevent oxidation and drying out of the pavement. The State of Michigan
has detennined that a proper sealcoat program can add 3 to 6 years of additional
life to an asphalt street (see Appendix 3). Scalcoating should generally be done
on streets in good condition. Attachments 2 and 3 describe the benefits and return
on investment of a proper scalcoat program.
9. More pre-sealcoat preparation work needs to be done. Pre-scalcoat work such as
crack sealing, pavement patching and leveling, manhole and catchbasin repairs,
and isolated dig -outs of sections of deteriorated pavement should ideally be done
the year prior to scalcoat application. Currently, only crack sealing and some'
spray -patching is being done prior to sealcoat application. Performance of the
correct pre-sealcoat preparations, on the right schedule, will result in a street with
an enhanced life and better ride quality.
10. Temporary overlays are a cost-effective means of increasing street condition and
extending the life of streets that are in need of reconstruction. It is generally
suitable for streets with a rating of less than 50 that are not scheduled for
reconstruction for more than 2 years. Currently, there is a backlog of streets in
this condition. Temporary overlays cost about $115,000 per mile, versus about
850,000 per mile for a complete reconstruction. The life of a temporary overlay
is typically 5 to 7 years.
11. Street rehabilitation (mill -and-overlay or full -depth mill- and -o verlay) and
reconstruction activities do provide benefit to adjoining properties that is reflected
in higher property values. Consequently, street reconstruction and rehabilitation
activities should be assessed.
Page 9
12. The current street assessment policy should be revised to more accurately reflect
the special benefit each property derives. It is recommended that the assessment
be increased to 40% of project cost. Assessments for new curb and gutter and
new storm sewer would remain at 100%.
13. Criteria needs to be established for selection of street projects by the staff
committee assigned that responsibility. Selection of projects should be based
objectively on relative condition of street and subsurface infrastructure, and the
need.to coordinate with other activities. All proposed projects will be forwarded
to the City Council for possible inclusion in the CIP.
14. Mill- and -overlays will generally be done on collector or arterial streets rated
between 50 and 75 if they have a good base, as determined by soil borings, and
adequate drainage. Money is better spent to mill -and -overlay a street on schedule
rather than to have it decline in condition until it needs a complete reconstruction,
which costs about 3.26 times as much. It costs about $260,000 per mile to mill -
and overlay a street. A mill -and -overlay will typically last 10 to 15 years.
15. Full -depth mill -and -overlays will generally be done on local streets rated between
75 and 50 if they have a good base, as determined by soil borings, and adequate
drainage. Money is better spent to full-depfh mill -and -overlay a street on
schedule rather than to have it decline in condition until it needs a complete
reconstruction, which costs about 2.42 times as much. It costs about $350,000 per
mile to full -depth mill -and-overlay a street. A full -depth mill -and -overlay will
typically last 20 — 25 years,
16. Street reconstruction will generally be done to streets with a rating below 50. A
newly reconstructed street can be expected to have an initial pavement life of 20
to 25 years, and the base should be good for I or 2 mill -and -overlays before
another reconstruction is needed. It costs about $850,000 per mile to reconstruct
a street. C-urb and gutter and storm sewer are additional costs.
17. The standard specification for a reconstructed street was established in 1989, and
is fairly rigid. In addition, the City's reconstruction specifications are
significantly higher than those implemented in 1995 for a new street being
constructed by a developer. The City should consider adopting a more flexible
standard of a "7 -ton design with adequate sub -grade drainage". This would allow
the City to design and build streets based on local soil and drainage conditions. It
is expected that this could result in savings in excess of $50,000 per mile with no
discernable reduction in street life.
Page 10
Financial Impact
Maintenance Activities
The street maintenance operating budget for 2005 is $1,401,65 1. This budget funds all
street maintenance activities outlined in the "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement
Policy" such as pothole patching, curb and gutter replacement, crack scaling, sealcoating,
and temporary overlays. The policy recommends several changes to the status quo that
will require additional financial resources. The following is an evaluation of each type of
maintenance and any associated budget impacts.
Pothole Patching — Pothole patching is mostly done by City crews. Over the last several
years a contractor was hired with a spray-patcher to supplement the efforts of the City. In
2004, the City acquired its own spray-patcher. In 2005, the use of the contractor will be
eliminated and the City will begin to use its own spray-patcher over two shifts to get
more work out of the machine. This will result in a savings to the City of around $16,000
26,000 in contractor savings offset by $ 10,000 increase in cost for additional spray-
patcher materials). The street maintenance staff believe that they can perform pothole
patching activities as outlined in the "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement
Policy" with the funding provided in'the 2005 Operating Budget.
Curb and Gutter Replacement — Curb and Gutter replacement is done in part iiLy_C_iity I
crews and also by private contractors. Contractors typically are involved when the curb
and gutter replacement is part of a driveway replacement being done by a homeowner or
business. Other curb and gutter replacement is typically done by City crews. The street
maintenance staff believe that they can perform the curb and gutter activities as outlined
in the "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy" with the funding provided in
the 2005 Operating Budget.
Crack Scaling — Crack scaling is done by a private contractor and funded out of the line
item labeled "Sealcoatinq"_ Thi.q accounts Lor about $45,000 of the $278,000 budgeted
for that line item. Street maintenance and engineering staff feel that this amount is
sufficient to fund crack sealing as outlined in the "Street Maintenance and Street
Improvement Policy". A separate line item should be created in the budget to track this
item. It should increase as the street system increases in size.
Sealcoating - Sealcoating work is done by a private contractor and is funded out of the
line item labeled "Seal Coating". There are three distinct sub -categories of the
expenditure that are as follows. 1) patching/rep airs prior to sealcoating ($40,000), 2)
sealcoating ($180,000), and 3) restriping after sealcoating ($15,000). The City's current
sealcoating effort is not sufficient to cover streets on a 6-yeaTcycle as outlined in the
Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy". Based on quantities of streets that
are of sufficient condition to receive sealcoating, the amount of funding for sealcoating
and restriping needs to increase by about $35,500 per year.
Page I I
The amount of work done on patching/repair prior to sealcoating would also have to
increase by about $ 10,000 just to keep pace with the increase in the amount of
sealcoating that will be done. However, this is only part of the issue. Currently, the
40,000 allocated for patching/repair prior to sealcoating goes to hire a private contractor
to spray patch streets that are to be sealcoated. No work is currently being done to
correct rideability or drainage issues. More work should be done to fill dips, feather out
high spots, repair catchbasins, replace sunken curbing, and dig out and replace isolated
sections of deteriorated pavement. All of these activities will make the sealcoat a better
and more accepted product, and will also serve to increase pavement life. Currently, time
and materials are not available to do this work.
If the contractual spray -patching were eliminated, about $30,000 could be freed up to put
toward materials for repair and patching prior to sealcoating ($ 10,000 would have to be
kept for supplies for our spray-patcher). This is not enough money to accomplish the
work that needs to be done, nor does it free up time, but it is a start.
Temporary Overlays - Over the past several years, City crews have done temporary
overlays on streets that are in poor condition, but not yet scheduled for a complete
reconstruction. In 2004, a list of about 40 potential streets segments were identified as
candidates for temporary overlay, but only 10 were done. The amount of work was
limited by lack of staff time available and funding for additional asphalt material.
Temporary overlays are one activity that makes some sense to contract out. Most
temporary overlay projects are better done by private paving contractors because they
have larger equipment and greater expertise in this type of work. This type of work is
also more cyclical in nature which is typically difficult to accomplish in-house. Right
now, the City has a large backlog of streets that could benefit from a temporary overlay.
The City does not have the staff or equipment to do it all at once, but a contractor
certainly could.
In 2004, the City spent about $90,000 on materials to overlay 10 street segments. in
addition, about 2,000 hours of labor were utilized, which is about 12% of the total time
allon +_J -r-- +,__+ TX'- ___ __ - __ - - I
XWX OLL k,%,L rnLa111U,11a11L.0 CIL, Ll VIUCS. 11 WIlipurary overlays were contracted out in
2005, the labor could be freed up for other things. However, additional funding would be
required to pay for the contractual services. Engineering and street maintenance staff
have compiled a list of streets eligible for temporary overlay that are not scheduled for
reconstruction through 2007. This list includes 33 separate street segments totaling 5.15
miles of street (see Attachment 4). It is estimated that it would cost approxii-nately
590,000 to have a contractor overlay these streets. If these streets could be overlayed
within the next year or two it would provide an immediate and significant increase to the
condition of some of the City's poorer streets and assist in the effort to phase into an
expanded prograrn of street improvements more slowly. If all 5.15 miles of street were
overlaid in 2005, it would raise the overall average condition from 66 to 67. If the
590,000 could be funded from a source other than the General Fund, $90,000 would be
freed up for additional street maintenance activities. -
Page 12
Funding For Proposed Maintenance Activities - In order to carry out an expanded
sealcoat program the City would have to come up with an additional $35,500 per year for
sealcoat and restriping in the General Fund. A good share, $30,000, could be freed up by
the elimination of the spray-patcher contract for pre-sealcoat patching. However, the
City would not have the time or materials budget to perform any pre-sealcoat repairs or
patching. If, however, temporary overlays were contracted out, and a separate funding
source was found for this activity, the freed up dollars and time would be sufficient to
fund the expanded scalcoat, and pre-sealcoat patching/repair program, outlined in the
Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy". Street maintenance staff believe
that they may also be able to make iriroads in repairing other rideability issues throughout
the City such as filling settlements, edge patching along curb lines, more catch basin
repairs, more curb and gutter replacements, and isolated dig -outs and replacements of
deteriorated pavement, if the 2,000 hours and $90,000 were available for their use instead
of for temporary overlays.
Since the use of temporary overlays would provide an immediate impact on street
condition in some areas, and delay the need for street reconstruction, it does make sense
to utilize the Street Reconstruction Fund to finance this work. In addition, because the
work is largely a one-time catch-up, it may also make sense to finance the work with a
one-time revenue such as General Fund surplus that could be transferred to the Street
Reconstruction Fund. This would enable the City to expand its sealcoat and pre-scalcoat
efforts to preserve the long-term quality and life of its existing streets, and also provide a
short-term impact by increasing the condition of some of the City's poorer streets. Any
ongoing temporary overlay activities (estimated at under $100,000 per year) should be
funded by the Street Reconstruction Fund.
Street Improvements
While the City has devoted significant resources to street improvement activities, it is
clearly not enough. This is evidenced by the fact that on average our streets are in a
poorer condition than most people would like despite that fact that brand new street is
being added each year to serve new development. In addition, a simplistic mathematical
analysis confirms the conclusion that we are not do -Ing enough. Given that the City has
270 miles of street, and each street needs to have something done to it (reconstruction,
fWl-depth mill -and -overlay, or mill -and -overlay) at least once every 25 years, the City
should be improving 10.8 miles of street per year. This contrasts with the 2 to 3 miles of
street that has been done in the past.
In an effort to act a more detailed picture of what should be done the Engineering
Department has enlisted the assistance.of a pavement management software package
called ICON. This software is the repository for all street rating information obtained
during the inspections that are conducted every three years. This software also has
analytical and reporting capabilities that enable the user to run different scenarios to
determine how different budget and street improvement project mixes will affect street
condition. With this system, the City's Design Engineer Jim Renneberg, has evaluated
many alternatives. The following are a few of the alternatives evaluated:
10 Page 13
The first alternative (see Attachment 5) projects forward continuation of the City's past
practice of spending about $2,500,000 per year on street improvements. The projection
based on this alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will continue to
decline. The average Cl rating will go from 66 to 51 over the next 10 years. In addition,
while the amount of street in good condition (CI greater than 75) will hold at about 42%,
the amount of street in poor condition (CI under 50) will increase from 28% to 50%.
Eventually, the amount of street in good condition will decline as well. This alternative
is based on the assumption that about 75% of funds would go to complete reconstruction,
and 25% would go toward mill -and -overlay as has happened in the past.
A second alternative (see Attachment 6) projects forward the level of street
improvements anticipated in the 2005-2009 CIP. This amount, which varies by year,
averages about $4,000,000, or roughly 60% more than we have done in the past. The
projection based on this alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will
continue to decline. The average CI rating will go from 66 to 60 over the next 10 years.
In addition, while the amount of streets in good condition (CI greater than 75) will
increase from 42% to 5 1 %, the amount of streets in poor condition (0 under 50) will
increase from 27% to 41%. Eventually, the amount of street in good condition will
reverse course and decline as well. This alternative is based on the assumption that about
85 % of funds would go to complete reconstruction, 10% would go to mill -and -overlay,
and 5% would go to maintenance, as is projected in the current CIP. If assessments stay
at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -and -overlay, this
alternative would require a 19% levy increase for street reconstruction from 2006 to
2010. This wouldraise taxes by $69 on the average home by 2010. If assessments were
increased to 40% for all street improvements, the required levy increase would be 7%
from 2006 to 2010. This would raise taxes by $20 on the average -home by 2010.
A third alternative (see Attachment 7) projects forward the first three years of the 2005-
2009 CIP and then increases total expenditures by 20% each year from 2008 through
2011. Expenditures then stay at $8,500,000 per year thereafter. The projection based on
this alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will decline to a 64 and then
increasse I -n anA OT I
g.
T+ 1 1a701 %-.L ratin X L w oull d t ake I I ye ars I'L)l S-U r-,F-Z'L C; U- -1-1
UJ
It1011
reach the 70 Cl goal. The amount of streets in good condition (CI greater than 75) will
increase from 43% to 63%, and the amount of streets in poor condition (CI under 50) will
increase slightly from 28% to 29%. In order to raise condition as soon as possible, it is
assumed that about 50% of funds will go to complete reconstruction, and 50% will go to
mill -and -overlay for years 2008 to 2011. Thereafter, the City runs out of streets to mill -
and -overlay and the split becomes 90% reconstruction and 10% mill -and -overlay. If
assessments stay at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -and -
overlay, this alternative would require a 36% levy increase for street reconstruction from
2006to2010. This would increase taxes by $182 on the average home for the year 2010.
If assessments were increased to 40% for all street improvements, the required levy
increase would be 22% from 2006 to 2008, 20% from 2009-2010, 15% in 2011, and 10%
in 2012. Thiswould increase taxes by $115 on the average home by 2012.
Page 14
A fourth alternative (see Attachment 8) projects forward the level of street improvements
currently in the CIP for 2005, a $ 10,000,000 program funded by debt in 2006, a 20%
increase per year (based on 2005) for years 2007 to 2010, $7,500,000 for 2011 and 2012,
and $8,000,000 from 2013 to 2020. The mix of projects is projected at 85% recon and
15% mill -and -overlay for the first two years, 50% recon and 50% mill -and -overlay for
the next five years, and 90% recon and 10% mill -and -overlay for the remainder. This
option is designed to increase condition quickly based on the large program in 2006 and
use of 50% of funding for mill -and-overlays from 2007 to 2011. The average Cl rating
would increase to 69, decline to 67, and then increase to and maintain a 70 rating by
2012. The amount of streets in good condition (CI greater than 75) will increase from
43 % to 62%, and the amount of street in poor condition (CI under 5 0) will remain at
28%. If assessments stay at the current level of 30% for reconstruction, and 0% for mill -
and -overlay, this alternative would require a 3 8% levy increase for street reconstruction
from 2006 to 2009, and a 30% increase in 2010. This would increase taxes by $186 on
the average home by 2010. If assessments were increased to 40% for all street
improvements, the required levy increase would be 22% from 2006 to 2009, 20% from
2010-2011, and 12% in 2012. This would increase taxes by $129 on the average home
by 2012.
A fifth alternative (see Attachment 9) projects forward the first three years of the 2005-
2009 CIP and then increases total expenditures by 10% each year from 2008 to 2016.
Expenditures then stay at $10,000,000 per year thereafter. The projections based on this
alternative shows that the condition of the City's streets will decline to a 63 and then
increase to and maintain a 70 Cl rating. It would take 15 years for street condition to
reach the 70 CI goal. The amount of streets in good condition (Cl greater than 75) will
increase from 43% to 62%, and the amount of streets in poor condition (CI under 50) will
increase slightly from 28% to 29%. In order to raise condition as soon as possible, it is
assumed that about 50% of funds will go to completeTeconstruction, and 50% will go to
mill -and -overlay for years 2008 to 2011. Thereafter, the City runs out of streets to mill -
and -overlay and the split becomes 90% reconstruction and 10% mill- and-overl ay. If
assessments stay at the current level of 3 ) 6% for reconstruction, and 0 % for mill -and -
overlay, this alternative would require a 30% levy increase for street reconstruction from
2006 to 2019, 20% increase in 20 10, and 10% increase in 2011. This would increase
taxes by $190 on the average home for the year 2011. If assessments were increased to
40% for all street improvements, the required levy increase would be 14% from 2006 to
2012, 12% in 2013, and 10% from 2014 to 2015. This would increase taxes by $119 on
the average home by 2015.
To evaluate the various alternatives, a table of key information has been developed to aid
in comparison. This table is attached as Attachment 10. It quickly becomes apparent that
alternatives I and 2 do nothing to improve average street condition. ffi fa:ct they lead to
declines of 16 and 7 CI points respectively within 10 years. Alternatives 3 ), 4, and 5 all
lead to increased street conditions, although some take longer than others. Alternative 3
takes I I years, Altern- ative 4 takes 8 years, and Alternative 5 takes 15 years. An
interesting point to note when comparing Alternatives 3, 4,and 5 is that they all spend
about the same amount of money between 2005 and 2020. This is because it will take
12 Page 15
about the same amount of work to raise the condition of the City streets whether it is
done quickly or slowly. The final piece of relevant information is the levy impact of each
alternative. Options 3 and 4 require quicker levy increases of about 6 to 8 percent per
year, since they do more work quicker. Alternative 3 would require a levy increase of
36% or 22% per year depending on whether the assessment policy is changed.
Alternative 4 would require a levy increase of 38% to 22% per year depending on
assessment. Alternative 5 would require a levy increase of 30% or 14% depending on
assessments. While Alternative 5 is slower at increasing street condition, it is the one
that seems most realistic in terms of affordability. Consequently, it seems to be the most
reasonable alternative.
Assessments
The City's current special assessment policy for existing streets states that the City will
assess 30% of the cost of street reconstruction and 0% for mill -and -overlay unless it is
part of a reconstruction project area. This policy seems in ' consistent and inequitable.
Since both reconstruction and mill -and -overlay result in new street surfaces with
substantial new life, properties adjacent to both kinds of street improvements receive
benefits that increase property value. It does not seem right to subsidize property values
for one type of improvement and not the other. Furthermore, it does not seem right to
assess or not assess for mill -and -overlay depending on whether it is part of a
reconstruction project or not. It would seem reasonable to assess for all street
improvements (reconstruction and mill -and -overlay) on the same basis. -
As stated above, the current assessment rate for reconstruction projects is 30%. Thisis
an improvement over the past when assessments varied from 15 to 20 percent. However,
assessment are still low. A survey of other cities (see Attachment 11) shows that not all
cities have assessments for street improvements. However, for those that do, assessment
rates vary between 20% and 100%. The average assessment for a local street adjacent to
low-density residential property is 52.87%.
State law goven-ling assessments states that the amount of an assessment may not exceed
the increase in value to the adjacent property as a result of the improvement.
Assessments can be challenged in court and invalidated if they are determined to be too
high. Determining the appropriate amount for street reconstruction projects is very
difficult and is not an exact science. State law requires a minimum of a 20% assessment
on a project to sell GO special assessment improvement bonds. Consequently, 20%
should probably be viewed as a minimum assessment. On the other hand, the City does
not want to go to the other extreme and be one of the cities that assess an above average
amount due to the risk of court challenge. Staff has discussed this issue with the City
Attorney, Roger Knutson. Roger has stated that he is comfortable with an increase to
40%.
A change to a 40% assessment rate, and the expansion of assessments to all street
projects, would have a considerable impact on the need to levy property taxes for street
projects. As seen above in the section on street improvement alternatives, property tax
13
Page 16
increases could be about 15% lower per year if the assessment policy were changed to
40% on all street improvements, In addition, the overall levy increase could be reduced
by about $70 per year for the average valued home. Overall, a change in the assessment
policy would make assessments more equitable and make an expanded street
improvement program more affordable for the average City resident.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Another cost related to street improvements is water and sewer replacement. Much of the
City's water and seweTsystem is between '30 and 40 years old. Due to poor soils in the
City of Plymouth, much of the water main has deteriorated significantly as evidenced by
a large number of main breaks and dig -ups. The following table outlines the dig -upC>
history over the last 9 years for water main:
Year Number of Dig -ups
1996 56
1997 59
1998 65
1999 63
2000 76
2001 91
2002 72
2003 78
2004 85
It is the opinion of the water and sewer division that the expected life of existing cast iron
and ductile iron water main in the City of Plymouth is about 50 to 60 years on average. It
makes little sense to do a complete street reconstruction, with a new street surface with a
25 -year life and new base with a 50 -year life, over water main with only 10 to 20 years of
life left. As a result, street improvement projects may also require water or sewer main
replacement to avoid having to dig up the new street surface.
If a major sewer defect is observed that requires actual replacement it should be done
with a street improvement project. However, in many instances, sewer main can be
relined without actually digging up the street surface and sub -grade. This type of work
does not have to be done as part of a street reconstruction. The City has not done much
sewerTeplacement or relining in the past. However, future CIP's should include funding
to begin this type of work before the City is faced with the need to replace andTeline
sewer all at once.
The need to replace water main cannot be deferred as easily as sewer. There is no current
technology to replace or reline water main without dig ing up the street surface. A lookM,
at the projects contained in the current CIP calls for water main replacements as part of
street improvement projects in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009, The estimated costs per year
are as follows:
14 Page 17
Year Cost
2005 1,263,418 yet to be determined
2006 498,036
2007 420,584
2008 0
2009 1,011,282
Total $3,193,320
Average $638,664
Currently, there are no funds anticipated for water main replacement in the CIP or rate
projections for the Water Fund. Water main replacement should be funded by the Water
Fund and be recovered by adequate water rates. Very few municipalities attempt to
assess for water main replacement. The reason for this is that the replacement of an
existing main (which works), with another main (which also just works) provides no
additional benefit to an adjoining property's value. If the City plans on replacing about
650,000 per year (approximately the average from above) it would require a rate
increase of about 18% ($650,000 increase needed/$3,544,000 current rate based
revenues). This rate increase could be tapered in over a period of years. It should be,
pointed out that this is only the beginning. Water main costs about $440,000 per mile to
replace. $650,000 per year buys the City only about 1.5 miles of water main per year.
The City currently has 322 miles of water main in the ground. Assuming an average life
of 55 years, the City will at some point have to replace on average 5.85 miles per year.
Now is the time to start replacement and plan for the future.
Fortunately, the City of Plymouth's water rates are still among the lowest in the metro
area. This is likely due in part to the fact that the City has been under -investing in water
infrastructure. Based on information collected for the proposed 2005 water rate increase,
the ranking for the City of Plymouth and a few its neighbors would be as follows:
Ciiy (2004 Rates)
YTNewlJope
Golden Valley
Minnetonka
Brooklyn Park
Plymouth (18% increase + 3.85% for 2005)
Eden Prairie
Plymouth
Maple Grove
AveraLye Residential Cost
Total may be higher depending on usage within tiers.
0-),7,1 on
IDD /Z . 00
355.00
150.00 *
146.60 *
138.86
125.00
113.96
103.20
Even after the 2005 rate increase, and a potential 18% additional rate increase, the City of
Plymouth would only jump past one community. The issue of a rate increase, and
15
Page 18
additional water main replacement, should be reviewed and considered with the revision
of the CIP and review of any utility increases for 2006.
Actions
Implementation of the recon=endations made in this report will take City Council
action. Some actions are more time -critical than others. The following is a list of
possible actions and a potential time frame for approval.
Next 2 — 3 Weeks
I . Adopt revised street specification — needed for 2005 street recon project
2. Adopt revised water main specification allowing use of PVC pipe — needed for
2005 construction season and potentially 2005 recon project.
3
I Adopt revised special assessment policy (assessment rate and type of street
improvements covered) — may impact the 2005 reconstruction project
4. Approve inclusion of water main replacement in 2005 reconstruction project if
staff recommends that it should be done.
Next 4 — 8 Weeks
1. Approve proposed maintenance changes for 2005.
2. Approve proposal to implement and finance an expanded temporary overlay Itll
program for 2005.
Next 2 — 4 Months
I - Provide staff with direction regarding the scope of future street reconstruction
efforts for inclusion in 2006 — 2010 CIP.
2. Approve proposed "Street Maintenance and Street Improvement Policy"
3. Adopt revised special assessment policy (assessment allocation to different types
of affected property) — doe s not affect 2 0 05 re construction proj ect.
Council ReponGn Street Condition (Study Session I A5).doc
16
Page 19
Attachment I
City of Plymouth
Policy Guiding Street Maintenance and Street
Improvements
Purpose
This policy is intended to guide the City of Plymouth's street maintenance and street
improvement activities. The intent is to provi& a framework that will support the
fo.1lowing principals:
Protect the City's investment in street infrastructure.
Utilize financial and staff resources in the most cost-effective manner.
Maintain the City's street system in a safe and generally acceptable condition,
with a goal of maintaining an average street condition index of 70.
Provide maintenance and street improvement services to all City residents and
businesses in an objective and equitable manner.
Coordinate street maintenance and street improvement activities with other
infrastructure needs such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, parks, and trails.
Administration
A staff committee will be given responsibility for planning and coordination of the street
maintenance and street improvement activities and policies outlined in this document.
The committee will meet as needed to review and establish maintenance plans and select
projects for inclusion in the proposed Capital Improvement Program that will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council fhrnfjonflon T u-r_oMrnittee
will also be responsible for submitting a report to the City Council by May I" of each
year that will outline planned maintenance activities and street improvement projects for
the remainder of the year. The committee shall consist of 6 to 10 members representing
street maintenance, engineering, sewer and water, parks, finance and other City
departments as selected by the City Manager.
Maintenance Activities
Financing
Street maintenance activities are generally performed to fix damage to, or prolong the life
of street pavements, curb and gutter, and the underlying street base. These actions
attempt to maintain the pavement in its current condition rather than to upgrade the
surface to a "like -new" condition. Because the condition of the street is not being
significantly upgraded, other than perhaps aesthetically, no substantial benefit can be
Page 20
attached to the property values of adjoining proper -ties. Consequently, the funding
mechanism for maintenance should be the property tax levy rather than special
assessments.
Activities and General Guidelines
Activities and the general guidelines for their use are as follows:
Pothole Patching - While pothole patching is a year -around activity, it becomes a
primary activity in the spring and early summer months. Potholes need to be repaired to
eliminate dangerous and potentially damaging conditions, and to prevent further decay to
surrounding street surfaces. Pothole patching is accomplished by the placement of hot
spring, su=cr & fall) or cold (winter) asphalt material into the holes by a crew of
maintenance workers, followed by compaction. Alternatively, some potholes arc patched
by a spray -patching machine that sprays an oil and aggregate mixture into the hole under
pressure. The City's goals 'and practices relating to pothole patching are as follows:
Repair large (potentially damaging) potholes within 24 hours of notification or
discovery.
The City will address other (non -damaging) springtime potholes in a systematic
manner. Crews will begin pothole patching starting with major streets (high
speeds and large traffic volumes) and then proceed to streets with high
concentrations of potholes. Finally, a sweep will be made of all other areas of the
City, with all springtime pothole patching being completed by the end of June.
Pothole patching during the summer months will be done as potholes are reported
or discovered.
In early fall, streets will once again be actively reviewed and potholes will be
repaired with the objective of eliminating all substantial potholes by freeze-up.
During the winter months, potholes will be repaired as reported or discovered, and
as weather allows.
Curb and Cutter Repairs — Repairs are made to sections of curb and gutter that are
extensively cracked, sunken, or raised. Curb and gutter in this condition may represent a
safety hazard and/or contribute to drainage problems that will damage adjoining sections
of street and/or private property. Repairs typically involve the removal and replacement
of damaged curb sections and a portion of the adjoining street surface. The City's goals
and practices relating to curb and gutter repairs are as follows -
Curb and gutter repairs will be done on streets in the following order of priority:
I . Curb and gutter conditions that represent hazardous conditions.
2. Curb and gutter conditions that are resulting in damage to the street or
adjoining private property such as driveways.
3. Curb and gutter conditions that are considered a nuisance.
Curb and gutter repairs will not typically be made on streets that are scheduled for
street improvements in the CIP, unless they represent hazardous conditions or
would cause undue damage to public or private property. Curb and gutter repairs
and replacements will be done as part of a street improvement project.
2
Page 21
Crack Scaling — Streets are crack sealed with a rubberized asphalt compound to prevent
the penetration of water into the pavement structure. Water, which expands and contracts
with freeze and thaw cycles, is a primary cause of pavement deterioration. It is estimated
that crack sealing can add 2 to 4 years to pavement life. The City's goals and practices
relating to crack sealing are as follows:
Crack sealing will be done to streets in the following order of priority:
1 New and newly reconstructed streets should be crack sealed as needed in
their first 5 years of life. Most cracks tend to appear during this time
period.
2. Streets scheduled for sealcoating should be crack sealed I year prior to
seal coat application.
3. Other streets may be crack sealed on an as -needed basis if funds are
available.
Crack sealing will generally be done on streets with a condition index rating of 75
or higher. Streets with a rating less than 75 are due for some type of street
improvement and the crack sealing effort would typically not be cost-effective.
Sealcoating — Streets are sealcoated with an asphalt emulsion and aggregate to pre -vent
degradation of an asphalt pavement. Scalcoating reduces oxidation and drying out of
pavement materials, seals small cracks, improves surface traction, and generally
improves the aesthetics of a street. The life of a sealcoat application is typically 5 — 7
years. Consequently, sealcoat should be reapplied approximately every 6 years. It is
estimated that a good sealcoating program can postpone the need for resurfacing by 2 to 6
years. The City's goals and practices relating to sealcoating are as follows:
Streets should be sealcoated on a 6 -year cycle. It is expected that streets
constructed on the City's current standard - base will receive a sealcoat application
in years 6, 12, and IS, and will be resurfaced around year 24.
0 Sealcoating will generally be done on streets with a condition index rating of 75
or higher. Streets with a rating less than 75 are due for a street improvement and
the Seal + __+ 1, - Coat,-Ffn t xiy TiIA I LILIk, t. ` a rat - 1 1-- IJF.-J AAW e cost effective Str ets witil iur,
below 75 may possibly be considered for scalcoating if there would be some
benefit and they are not included in the City's Capital Improvement Program for a
street improvement such as mill & overlay, full -depth mill & overlay, or complete
reconstruction.
One year prior to sealcoat application, all surface defects and drainage issues
should be repaired. This includes pothole repair, crack sealing, filling of low
spots and large cracks, and adjustment of manholes, gate -valves, and catch basins.
Repairs that are allowed to cure hold sealcoat better.
The City standard sealcoat is a chip seal (1/8 to 3/8 inch rock chips embedded in
asphalt emulsion). However, other types of sealcoat such as slurry seals and
micro -surfacing may be utilized in special applications. Chip seal is the City's
standard sealcoat option due to its combination of performance and economical
cost.
Page 22
Temporary Overlays — Temporary overlays involve the application of a I to 2 inch
overlay of hot mix asphalt to a street with extensive surface defects that is in need of a
complete reconstruction. It is applied with the expectation that it will provide 5 to 7
years of life while waiting in queue for reconstruction funding to become available. A
temporary overlay is much less extensive than a standard mill & overlay or full -depth
mill & overlay. A temporary overlay would typically include only minor milling along
the curb line, minor curb and gutter improvements, and few if any surface or sub -surface
improvements. In addition, it has a reduced life expectation and a significantly lower
cost.
Temporary overlays will generally be applied to streets with a condition index
rating lower than 50.
Temporary overlays will only be applied to streets that are not scheduled for
complete reconstruction for at least 2 years.
Streets eligible for a temporary overlay will be considered based on condition and
traffic volume compared to others.
Temporary overlays will generally be applied only once if the street is scheduled
for reconstruction.
Street Improvement Activities
Financing
Street improvements include mill & overlay, full -depth mill and overlay, and complete
reconstruction of streets. These activities are performed to upgrade the condition of a
street surface to a "like -new" condition, with a substantial new service life. Because the
condition of the street is being upgraded, the adjoining properties do receive substantial
benefit that is reflected in higher property values. Consequently, the use of special
assessments to fund a portion of the cost of the street improvements is reasonable. The
following summarizes key points ftom the City's Special Assessment Policy.
1. It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property (with
direct access to an applicable street) for street improvement costs, but not in
excess of the special benefit to the property. This policy applies to all streets that
are the responsibility of the City.
2. The assessment amount for the improvement of previously paved streets shall be
determined by the City Council for each project. The assessment amount shall be
40% of the actual project cost for the project area. Project cost includes both
direct construction costs and all indirect project costs such as engineering and
administration.
3. Assessments shall normally be levied for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
Longer assessment periods will be considered when other assessable public
improvements such as curb and gutter, and storm sewer are being constructed at
the same time.
4
Page 23
4. In areas where concrete curb and gutter did not previously exist, properties will be
assessed for 100% of the project cost to install curb and gutter.
5. In areas where storm sewer did not exist or is inadequate, properties will be
assessed for 100% of the project cost to install, or improve, the storm sewer
system. .
6. Assessments for street improvements on streets designed to a level higher than the
residential standard will be based on the project cost adjusted for the width and
depth of the standard residential street.
Project Selection
Since street improvement activities are very expensive and somewhat disruptive to the
people who live along the affected streets, advanced planning and notification are
desirable. The following general principals'will govern the selection of street
improvements.
Street improvement projects will be included in the City's 5 -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Only the first two years of street improvement projects will be specified in the
CIP. It is not possible to accurately prioritize street improvement projects out
more than 2 years since the condition of street surfaces.and utilities on some
streets may change more quickly than on others.
Funding needs for years 3, 4, and 5 will be earmarked in the CIP for projects not
yet prioritized.
The staff committee will meet as necessary to select projects for inclusion in the
proposed CIP.
Items considered by the staff committee should include data from the pavement
management system, input from the street division, input from the utilities
division, input from the parks department, and citizen concerns or comments.
Street improvement projects must be coordinated with other subsurface
infrastructure needs such as water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
Street improvement projects must also be coordinated with park, trail or street
maintenance activities.
Effort should be made to group projects by location to take advantage of reduced
contractor costs for mobilization.
Selection of projects must be based objectively on relative condition of street and
subsurface infrastructure, and the need to coordinate with other activities.
Activities and General Guidelines
Street improvement activities and general guidelines for their use are as follows:
Mill & Overlay — Collector or arterial streets with a CI rating ranging from 75 to 50,
with an adequate base verified by soil borings and adequate drainage, are candidates for
mill & overlay. A mill & overlay is accomplished by milling and removing a portion of
Page 24
the existing street surface, replacing any damaged curb and gutter, and repaving with a
1.5 to 2.5 inch layer of hot mix asphalt. The new street surface can be expected to last 10
to 15 years. The City's goals and practices relating to mill & overlays are as follows:
Mill & overlays will generally be done on collector or arterial streets with a Cl
rating between 75 and 50. Streets rated above 75 are still in very good condition
and cannot fully benefit from a new street surface. Streets rated below 50 are
usually too far gone and typically have serious deficiencies affecting their base
and/or drainage. This poor base or inadequate drainage would greatly reduce the
life of a mill & overlay and should be corrected through complete reconstruction.
Mill & overlays -will generally only be done on streets with existing curb and
gutter. Curb and gutter serves to hold the pavement edge together and promote
drainage that will help the mill & overlay to achieve its expected life. Streets
without curb and gutter will only be considered if adequate drainage exists.
The condition of subsurface infrastructure must be adequate to exceed the
expected life of the mill & overlay (10 to 15 years).
Emphasis should be placed on scheduling mill & overlays of streets be -fore they
deteriorate to such a condition that a complete reconstruction is necessary.
Full Depth Mill & Overlay - Residential streets with a Cl rating between 75 and 50,
with an adequate base verified by soil borings and adequate drainage, are candidates
of full -depth mill & overlay. A full -depth mill & overlay is accomplished by milling
and removing the entire street surface, regrading and recompacting the street base,
replacing any damaged curb and gutter, and repaving with 3.5 inches of asphalt
pavement material. The new street surface can be expected to last similar to a surface
on a newly reconstructed street at a reduced cost. The City's goals and practices
relating to full -depth mill & overlays are as follows:
Full -depth mill & overlays will generally be done on residential streets with a CI
rating between 75 and 50. Streets rated above 75 are still in very good condition
and cannot fully benefit from a new street surface. Streets rated below 50 are
11SU-ally LVV LdI rVIIr, WIU L.Y.P19-ally AaVe Sel—LOUS CICMICID.CiCS Z_ULrULII1g UICIt UaW
and/or drainage. This poor base or inadequate drainage would greatly reduce the
life of a mill & overlay and should be corrected through complete reconstruction.
Full depth mill & overlays will generally only be done on streets with existing
curb and gutter. Curb and gutter serves to hold the pavement edge together and
promote drainage that will help the mill & overlay to achieve its expected life.
Streets without curb and gutter will only be considered if adequate drainage
exists.
The condition of subsurface infrastructure must be adequate to exceed the
expected life of the full -depth mill & overlay (20 to 25 years).
Emphasis should be placed on scheduling fall -depth mill & overlays of streets
before they deteriorate to such a condition that a complete reconstruction is
necessary.
Page 25
Attachment 2
Benerits of An Adequate
Sealcoat Program
Application of sealcoat prevents oxidation and drying out of pavement
materials. This reduces erosion of the pavement surface and maintains
pavement strength and flexibility.
Application of scalcoat seals small cracks in pavement surfaces and prevents
water intrusion. This reduces the susceptibility to water damage of the
pavement surface and street base.
Application of sealcoat increases surface friction, which increases traction,
especially in wet and icy conditions. This makes the suirfacc safcr for vehicle
traffic and reduces the need to apply salt and other chemicals.
Application of scalcoat can improve the aesthetics of a street that has had
patching or crack scaling operatio- ns performed on it. The sealcoat covers
these items with a visually consistent and uniform surface.
Application of scalcoat can extend the life of a street surface. The State of
Michigan has documented life extension benefits of 3 to 6 years.
Page 26
Street Reconstruction — Streets with a CI rating below 50 will generally require a
complete street reconstruction. Residential streets will be reconstructed to a 7 -ton
design with adequate sub -grade drainage, based on local soil and drainage conditions.
The current City standard of a 7 -ton design, which developers are required to install,
is 12 inches of sand base, 8 inches of class -5 material, and two courses of asphalt
pavement material totaling 3.5 inches in depth. A complete reconstruction of a
typical residential street would likely include the following: removal of street surface
and base material, addition or repair/replacement of curb and gutter or storrh sewer,
installation of drain tile behind curb line, and installation of the appropriate sand,
gravel and bituminous sections as determined by the street design for each
reconstruction area, which will reflect the most cost-effective street section. The
street reconstruction could also include the replacement of underground infrastructure
if condition and life expectancy warrants. The street surface on a newly reconstructed
residential street can be expected to last 20 to 25 years with proper maintenance. In
addition, the base should be good for 1 or 2 mill & overlays before another
reconstruction is needed. The City's goals and practices relating to street
reconstructions are as follows:
Street Reconstruction will generally be done on streets with a CI rating below
50. Streets part of a reconstruction project are that are marginally over 50
may be reconstructed as instead of mill & overlaid if soil borings show a bad
base or underground utilities would require extensive repair or replacement.
Curb and gutter, and storm sewer (including sump pump drainage) will be
included in street reconstruction projects if none is currently present.
Curb and gutter and storm sewer will be tip graded or replaced as part of a
street reconstruction project if it is inadequate.
This policy supersedes all previous policies relating to street maintenance, street
improvements, and street assessments.
SLred Mainlenance and IMyfuvtmcnL Pulky.doc
Page 27
From: Scott Anderson [mailto:sanderson@cj.plymouth.mn.usI
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:23 AM
To: Amy Grothaus
Cc: Peter Simons
Subject: RE: Plymouth / Oracle Conversion and ICON Upgrade
Amy, I have uploaded a new copy of our database which will unzip to 184mb.
Let us know what we need to do next.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott Anderson IT Applications Manager
Phone: 763.509.5342 Fax: 763.509.5060
Page 28
Agenda Number:
TO: Laurie Ahrens, Oy Manager
h — FROM: Mike Kohn, 1 nc_-IAI-Analyst through Dale Hahn, Finance Director and
Doran Cote, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Street Reconstruction and Special Assessments
DATE: May 10, 2005 for City Council Study Session of May 17, 2005
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff with direction regarding a long-range plan for street
reconstruction/resurfacing and associated financing.
2. BACKGROUND: On January 14, 2005, staff presented a comprehensive report to the City
Council outlining alternatives to address declining street condition. Since that time several
actions have been taken to follow through with the report's recommendations. These actions
include the following:
A. The City Council revised the water main specification to allow the use of PVC
pipe.
B. Staff has modified the standard specification for reconstructed streets to be
more flexible and cost effective.
C. The City Council has authorized obtaining bids on an expanded sealcoat
program.
D. Staff has undertaken an expanded pre-sealcoat repair program.
E. The City Council has authorized obtaining bids on an expanded temporary
overlay program funded by the Street Reconstruction Fund.
While progress is being made in the City's attempt to raise street condition, two major items
still need to be addressed. These two items are: 1) adoption.of a long-range plan for street
reconstruction/resurfacing, and 2) modification of the City's current special assessment
policy relating to street reconstruction/resurfacing. Both of these items are part of the
Council's goal to develop a long-range street reconstruction/resurfacing and financing plan.
This report contains a number of alternatives regarding street reconstruction/resurfacing and
associated financing that differ somewhat from those proposed in January. One of the
differences is that Council asked for an option that kept streets at their current average street
condition level of 66. Another option requested by the Council was an evaluation of focusing
reconstruction/resurfacing efforts on the City's major streets. The final major difference is
that staff is no longer proposing pay-as-you-go financing of street reconstruction/resurfacing
Page 29
activities. The reason for this is that it is simply no longer realistic to assume that sufficient
levy authority will be consistently granted by the State of Minnesota to municipalities. The
only realistic alternative is to bond for the improvements and levying for the debt service.
Despite the fact that bonding will cost the City more in the long run, due to the fact that
interest must be paid, bonding does offer several benefits. First of all, bonding would allow
the City to taper in the levy impact of an expanded street reconstruction/resurfacing program.
If I 0 -year bonds were used, it would be 10 years before the overlapping debt reached its fully
implemented level. In addition, debt financing is generally a more economically acceptable
manner of financing capital expenditures (see attached excerpt from "Management Policies in
Local Government Finance", ICMA, 1987). The reason for this is that the street
improvement is paid for over its life by the people who use it, rather than the people who
were there when the street was reconstructed/resurfaced. The following are the alternatives
that were modeled.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
A. Option I (Historical Level of Expenditures) — Option I would retain the City's
average historical level of expenditures for street reconstruction/resurfacing at
approximately $2,500,000 per year. This would result in a decline in average street
condition from the current level of 66 to 45 by 2019. If the City's special assessment
policy for street reconstruction remains at 30% of street reconstruction costs, this
option would require a levy increase of $9 for the average home for street
reconstruction by 2019. If special assessments were increased to 40% for
reconstruction and resurfacing, the levy would decrease by M 0 for the average home
by 2019 (see Attachment 11).
B. Option 2 (Ex]2enditure Level per Current CIP) — Option 2 would retain the level of
expenditures proposed in the CIP for the next five years, and then about $4,000,000
per year thereafter ($4,000,000 is the average of the five years in the CIP). This
would result in a decline in average street condition from the current level of 66 to 59
by 2019. If the City's special assessment policy for street reconstruction remains at
30% of street reconstruction costs, this option would require a levy increase of$58 for
the average home for street reconstruction by 2019. If special assessments were
increased to 40% for reconstruction and resurfacing, the levy increase would be $33
for the average home by 2019 (see Attachment III).
C. Option 3 (ExRenditures Focused on Maior Streets) — Option 3 would focus street
reconstruction/resurfacing efforts on major streets in the City. In this scenario
funding would be as outlined in the CIP for the first 3 years and then increase by 10%
per year. This would result in a decline in average street condition from the current
level of 66 to 46 in 2019. If the City's special assessment policy for street
reconstruction remains at 30% of street reconstruction costs, this option would require
a levy increase of $148 for the average home for street reconstruction by 2019. If
special assessments were increased to 40% for reconstruction and resurfacing, the
levy increase would be $98 for the average home by 2019 (see Attachment IV).
Page 30
D. Option 4 (10%-7.5%-5% Expenditure Increase/Condition Tam — Option 4
would retain the level of expenditures proposed in the CIP for the next 3 years.
Expenditures would then increase by 10% per year from 2008 to 2012, 7.5% in 2013
and 2014, and 5% from 2015 to 2019. In order to raise condition as soon as possible,
it is assumed that about 50% of funds will go to complete reconstruction, and 50%
will go to mill -and -overlay for years 2008 to 2010. Thereafter, the City runs out of
streets to mill -and -overlay and the split becomes 90% reconstruction and 10% mill -
and -overlay. This would result in an average street condition rating declining slightly
but then returning to the current level of 66 by 2019. If the City's special assessment
policy for street reconstruction remains at 30% of street reconstruction costs, this
option would require a levy increase of $168 for the average home for street
reconstruction by 2019. If special assessments were increased to 40% for
reconstruction and resurfacing, the levy increase would be $119 for the average home
by 2019 (see Attachment V).
E. 'Option 5 (10% ExRenditure Increase/Condition Target 70) — Option 5 would
retain the level of expenditures proposed in the CIP for the next 3 years.
Expenditures would then increase by 10% per year from 2008 to 2016. Expenditures
would then stay at approximately $9,350,000 per year thereafter. In order to raise
condition as soon as possible, it is assumed that about 50% of funds will go to
complete reconstruction, and 50% will go to mill -and -overlay for years 2008 to 2011.
Thereafter, the City runs out of streets to mill -and -overlay and the split becomes 90%
reconstruction and 10% mill -and -overlay. This would result in an increase in average
street condition rating from the current level of 66 to 70 in 2020. If the City's special
assessment policy for street reconstruction remains at 30% of street reconstruction
costs, this option would require a levy increase of $198 for the average home for
street reconstruction by 2019. If special assessments were increased to 40% for
reconstruction and resurfacing, the levy increase would be $140 for the average home
by 2019 (see Attachment VI).
4. DISCUSSION:
If Option I (Historical Level of Expenditures) were selected the condition of the City's
streets would continue to decline at a fairly swift pace. By 2015 the average City street
would be in poor condition. It must also be noted that even this level of expenditures will
require a property tax increase for street reconstruction/resurfacing debt service. The reason
for this is that the City's non -debt related levy for street reconstruction is only $647,000 for
2005.
If Option 2 (Expenditure Level per Current CIP) were selected the condition of the City's
streets would continue to decline, although at a much slower pace than would result from
Option 1. The average street rating would drop to 59 over the next 15 years. Such a decline
would be noticeable to residents with the percentage of streets in poor condition increasing
from approximately 27 to 40 percent. If street condition is allowed to decline it will also be
Page 31
more difficult to reverse course and increase condition in the future, as the backlog of needs
will continue to grow.
If Option 3 (Expenditures Focused on Major Streets) were selected the condition of the
average City street would decline at a fairly swift pace despite significant spending increases.
The average street rating would drop to 46 over the next 15 years. The reason for this is that
the relatively few miles of major streets are very expensive to reconstruct due to their
additional width and higher design standard, In addition, most of the worst streets in
Plymouth are residential streets. Consequently, dollars spent on residential streets go the
furthest and have the greatest impact on average street condition. The Option modeled is not
realistic since it focuses all dollars on major streets; however, it is the best staff could do
given software constraints. This option would increase taxes substantially and decrease
average street condition substantially as well.
Staff has included a list of major streets along with condition ratings for your information
see Attachment VII).
If Option 4 (10%-7.5%-5% Expenditure Increase/Condition Target 66) were selected the
condition of the average City street would fall slightly and then return to a level of 66 by
2019. This option keeps the City's average street condition at the status quo. This does
come at a significant cost, as current ftinding levels are inadequate.
If Option 5 (10% Expenditure Increase/Condition Target 70) were selected the condition of
the average City street would fall slightly and then increase to a level of 70 by 2020. It is
important to note that this is the only alternative that is projected to actually increase the
condition of the City's streets over time. It is also the most expensive. The average home
would see an annual levy increase averaging between $9.40 and $13.27 depending on the
special assessment policy in place. It would also cost the average valued home between $31
and $22 per year more than it would to keep the average street condition at the status quo.
5. BUDGET IMPACT: Any of the options outlined above will require a tax increase. The
P r- A nnA rrL.. :. —f
I ov-t VVV . .1 JL.U.3 JL0 JLJ.VL. City's non -debt relaied levy supporting sfteet irconstruct-lorL is OrLly
sufficient to support even our historical levels of expenditure, which are woefully inadequate.
The only two options, which stem the decline in the City's average street condition ratings,
are Options 4 and 5. Assuming that these options are financed with overlapping I 0 -year debt
issuances, and current general obligation debt levies are captured to pay for street
reconstruction debt when the current debt is paid off, the City would need to raise its levy by
between $5,124,165 and $3,068,480 per year over a period of 15 years. The cost depends on
whether the Council would like to pursue an option that increases street condition or holds it
at its current level. The cost also depends on whether the special assessment policy is left at
its current level of 30% of reconstruction costs, or is modified and increased to 40% of all
reconstruction and mill -and -overlay costs.
The assessment issue has a greater financial impact on the potential property tax levy than the
question of whether to hold street condition at its current level or increase street condition to
Page 32
an average of 70. If the attached draft special assessment policy were adopted, which would
raise the assessment rate to 40% of reconstruction and mill -and -overlay costs, it would
decrease the 2019 levy by an average of 1,380,479 dollars (see Attachment VIII). The
decision regarding street rating of 66 versus 70 would only decrease the 2019 levy by an
average of $675,206.
It should be noted that the draft special assessment policy for street reconstruction includes
changes other than simply increasing the assessment rate and expanding assessments to mill -
and -overlay projects. The draft policy clarifies the process, provides guidance on term of
assessment, and modifies the allocation of assessments to different types of properties.
6. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City Council accept this report and forward
the draft special assessment policy for adoption. I also request that the Council provide staff
with guidance regarding appropriate funding levels for street reconstruction/resurfacing
activities.
Page 33
Street Improvement Funding History
Notes:
In 2005, Temporary Overlay bids were exceptional so the City Council authorized expenditures exceeding programmed amount,
In 2006, Seal Coat bids were excessive so the City Council rejected bids so funds were not expended although programmed,
In 2009, the Street Reconstruction bids were questionable so the City Council rejected bids so funds we not expended although programmed.
2005
Contract % of Total
2006
Contract % of Total
2007
Contract % of Total
2008
Contract %of Total
2009
Contract % of Total
Crack Seal 46,400 1 % 45,000 1 % 100,000 2% 125,000 2%' 130,000 2%
Seal Coat 235,000 7% 0 0% 340,000 5% 360,000 5% 427,000 7%
In-house Paving 100,000 3% 162,000 4% 345,000 5% 235,000 4% 400,000 6%
Temporary Overlay 480,0001 15% 370,000 8% 235,000 4% 320,000 5% 350,000 5%
Mill and Overlay 95,000 3% 350,000 8% 370,000 6% 640,000 10% 610,000 9%
Reconstruction 2,350,000 71% 3,456,000 79% 5,000,000 78% 5,000,000 75% 4,600,000 71%
Total 3,306,400 4,383,000 6,390,000 6,680,00Q 6,517,000
Increase over previous year N/A 33%1 46% 1 5% 2%,
Assessment Rate (%) T 301 1 351 40 1 46 401
Notes:
In 2005, Temporary Overlay bids were exceptional so the City Council authorized expenditures exceeding programmed amount,
In 2006, Seal Coat bids were excessive so the City Council rejected bids so funds were not expended although programmed,
In 2009, the Street Reconstruction bids were questionable so the City Council rejected bids so funds we not expended although programmed.
2005-2009 Street Projects
L , Z -, 0 3: = LU
Z p En z LL' 0 0
W (n LO Z < U w >
cz > C w 1) 0 a w 0 0 cc
Z n L - - x U -C Ir Ix w L - -A00U) < Z po Sow C 0 a, Z3: M Y ccaDMZZ0OMMCaEncc W 0 >-
Z;< w U Z,
5<75L) Cr LuGM
Z L) U) w
MM K,'z,00"wC,-9 i < wz< ZZ 522 MYZ LL
w
w D < E -L < w
M > > I D M UJ MH >Z 1 9101aUU,
z -
o<-
Ow p0OOHMO.
a ZOSL
Lu
C3 Oiowflno-
L) Z
w
Z
Z w Z Eo < w LU
0
w >.
ix D LUZ
LLJ
wzQz
6u2w M << 2
x
D 0 Z C LIJ LOJ 0 (r' xC3 < D EnX - § ,
w wo w
Ix
Z V) IxLUZR60noMPMWRn
FUME <
IOr,
EooO!
52o 0
n mwm w
2 — — — — — — — — --
9
IC
flOTH AVE
YAT 60 rk] AVE
AL -;q I
55TH AVE.
55TH AVE
9--" CAN)
XI IC
L
50TH AVE q-
LLJ
451H AVF
4,1111 AVI
Leo,
Y
40TH AVE
40TH AVE
4
94
Mob4 a,
35TH ?
p
AVE
i'[H AVE
4, J
30TH AVE
30THAVE
I
25TH AVE.
wi
25TH AVE
too
0
N20THAVE.. S J
20TH AVE.
x
I 5TH AVE
15TH AVE
WTHAVE lzi
101HAVE
5TH AVE...
c3
ROGEMOUNTAVEr
RIDGEMOUNI AVF
gr.--
M amO., mom C
X 0 M 0 Z M t; z =1 -n m 0 m --c x q Im m 0 2 0 Z Lq X G) m o 0 w > 0 1
Ac;
mw0mMMzCow52zzzMM K,Mmzzcmszz
n zMe> moPm P Rgz>o MmCz)mmoo<rn M >0,-x
m
0 Mx mmm oxxx Z
loo 9 6' t z-
m Gmmm 0>2,
mom
22 =1 MM
0 mZ Lo m Z 7'51 0 M UH
w! mmzzn
ffl !MAOO p Op 'r
Z m C3 M I 15; 0 * z
m2,
ZZ
F7,
MZ -
4 S' ->
Rm
w
C: 0
o Ozco:'DOZ 5FnB w c > :,- >
1
x m >
Z
Zn C, ZmME;a 0 3: C Hmmm n rnxm0 ;
K M;
D2 -4;K C) -5
wq,rJ M
z>
0 0
0 Ln 0 T. m n, oo moo 0 rn m 0
Z m T2 8
00
M;
D8m > C2
0 > z m
1 2 0 o Z 0 Z;Qm06) m nm
rib
City of Plymouth, Mirinesota
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2009 Reconstruction Projects
N
W+ E
S
December 2007
2005-2009sireetprojects.mx,l
The City's Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy, established in 1994, specifically stated that "It is
the goal of this policy that benefited properties be assessed 30% of the cost....", but as stated in the
policy, the percentage could vary in any year, depending on construction factors. The policy
established a unit assessment rate for 1994 of $916 per parcel. That rate was to be adjusted annually
based on a percentage change in the construction cost index as published.
In 1994, the City assessed the 1994 Street Reconstruction Project (City Project No. 401) at the base
rate which resulted in a total cost assessed of $498,524.52, which represented 29% of the total project
cost of $1,734,998.
The City continued to assess street reconstruction utilizing this policy and adjusting the base rate
according to the policy through the 1990's. Beginning in 2000, the adjusted base rate assessment
amount was no longer high enough to keep up with increasing construction costs as is summarized in
the table below.
Year
Base
Rate/Unit
Total Cost
Assessed
Total Project
Cost Percent
2000 1,056 532,091.88 1,859,895.51 18%
2001 1,078 320,744.98 1,986,785-11 16%
2002 1,112 296,904.00 1,959,268.62 15%
2003 1,139 267,335.28 1,503,420.22 18%
In 2003, the City Council considered selling Special Assessment Bonds to finance the 2004 Street
Reconstruction Project. In order for the City to use these bonds, a minimum of 20% of the project cost
must be assessed. Although the Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy had not been changed by the
City Council, and still identified a goal of 30% of the costs to be assessed, application of the policy
was not adequate to allow the use of Special Assessment Bond. Accordingly, the City Council
directed staff to revise the policy.
In August, 2003, the City Council adopted a revised Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy which
set the assessment rate to achieve the goal of assessing 30% of the total project cost. After receiving
unfavorable responses to the proposed assessment rate at the 2004 Street Reconstruction Assessment
hearing, in September, 2003, the City Council recanted their earlier decision and directed staff to
assess the only 2004 projects at a rate of 20% and to proceed to 30% thereafter (see attached)
The 2005 Street Reconstruction Project was assessed prior to construction in the spring of 2005 at a
rate of $3,317.45 per unit, which reflected 30% of the bid project cost, In September, 2005, after
several deliberations, the City Council adopted the current Street Reconstruction Policy which
established rates of 35% for 2006, and 40% for 2007 and thereafter.
The 2006 Street Reconstruction Project was assessed at the 35% rate and the proposed rate for the
2007 Street Reconstruction Project appropriately reflects the 40% rate. The 2008 Street
Reconstruction Project was also assessed at 40%.
O Fliginuriag C,ENF,EZAI,NRSC'DORA-V2009'As3e.qsment Pftke lydoc
Agenda Number: /
TO. Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Mike Kln--Financial Analyst through Dale Hahn, Finance Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED STORM WATER UTILITY
DATE: May 18, 2001 for City Council Meeting May 22, 2001
1. ACTION REQLTESTED: Adopt the attached resolution directing staff to prepare an
ordinance for Storm Water Utility Fees to be placed on. the June 12, 2001 agenda.
2. BACKGROUND: In February 2000, the City of Plymouth adopted a Water Resources
Management Plan after several years of study. There were four major reasons for
developing this plan which included: 1) updating the 1980 Storm Drainage Plan, 2)
addressing water quality concerns, 3) meeting the rules of the four local watershed
management organizations, and 4) meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Council
which requires that a Water Resources Management Plan be included as part of a City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The Water Resources Management Plan identified eight major lakes within the city. In
addition to these major water bodies, there are several other smaller lakes and numerous
wetlands that require protection and preservation.
For each one of the lakes, the plan identified its appropriate use and established water
auality standards for the lake which would promote those uses. The following are the uses
ior each lake and projects which should be undertaken:
a Pomerleau Lake
The intended use is for boating, fishing, and aesthetics. This lake currently
meets these standards; and therefore, the plan identifies that the current
water quality should not be degraded. The watershed is mainly
undeveloped, but portions are included within the urban service area
approved as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Studies need to be undertaken
to ensure that the appropriate treatment standards are established and are
undertaken concurrently with urban development to preserve the existing
water quality.
Page 37
Schmidt Lake
The intended use of Schmidt Lake is boating, fishing, and aesthetics. The
Schmidt Lake Watershed is fully urbanized. The watershed was developed
before water quality treatment requirements were established; and therefore,
projects need to be undertaken to reduce the existing phosphorous loading to
the lake. Current level is 43 and needs to remain within a range of 23-50.
Although there are many storm sewers discharging to the lake, the major
input is from a large storm sewer on the east side. A feasibility study needs
to be undertaken and the recommendations implemented on mahods to
reduce the phosphorous loadings to the lake from this storm sewer. A
modular storm water treatment system has been identified as a possibility,
but requires additional study.
0 Bass Lake
The intended use is for boating, fishing, and aesthetics. The lake's existing
average phosphorus value of 67 exceed the range, 23-50, when compared
with representative "minimum impacted" lakes within this region. Studies
need to be undertaken on how to reduce the phosphorous loading to the lake
and the recommendations need to be implemented. Also because of the
current quality of the lake, internal lake loadings need to be addressed.
a Pike Lake
The intended use is boating, fishing, and aesthetics. The lake's existing
average phosphorus value of 78 exceed the range, 23-50, when compared
with representative "minimum impacted" lakes within this region. Pike
Lake is also a shallow lake and power boating may have a negative effect on
the overall water quality. Appropriate surface water uses need to be
established. The erosion problem in the existing drainageway to the lake
also needs to be corrected.
9 Parkers Lake
The intended use for Parkers Lake is swimming, boating, fishing, and
aesthetics. The phosphorous loading to the lake (currently 48) needs to be
reduced to a level of 38 to maintain these uses. A report has been prepared
by the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission investigating in a preliminary
way projects that are feasible to reduce loadings to the lake. The estimated
cost of these improvements is $3.8 million.
Medicine Lake
The intended use is swimming, boating, fishing, and aesthetics. The current
in -lake phosphorous and the phosphorous entering the lake has been
identified as the major problem (currently 57) which needs to be reduced to
a level of 38. The Bassett Creek Water Management Commission has also
2
Page 38
completed a preliminary study of feasible projects. The estimated cost to
implement these projects is $4 million. Since this is a take which services
more than Plymouth, some funding may be available from other sources.
e Gleason Lake
The intended use for Gleason Lake is fishing and aesthetics. The current
phosphorous concentrations (205) are very high indicating that extreme
measures would be necessary to bring excessive nutrification under control.
The most feasible project for Gleason Lake is an alum treatment of the lake
bottom to keep the existing phosphorous from providing nutrients for algae
growth.
Mooney Lake
The intended usage of Mooney Lake is fishing and aesthetics. The lake has
no outlet. A Water Level Management Plan needs to be established.
In addition to the water quality projects described above, the Water Resources
Management Plan also recognizes the need for drainage and flood control activities
such as maintenance and construction of storm water infrastructure. Specific
examples of maintenance include dredging of ponds and ditches, and cleaning and
repairing storm sewer main and culverts. Examples of construction activities
include enlarging or adding ditches, culverts, storm sewer main, and ponding
facilities where they are deficient or currently do not exist. These activities would
be aimed at resolving local flooding issues that occur with substantial rainfall or
snowmelt events.
Upon completion of the Water Resources Management Plan the City Council evaluated
how best to finance the newly identified water resource expenditures. The two main
options were property tax and a storm water utility. In the case of the property tax the
required revenues would be added to the property tax levy and be allocated to property
owners based on their property value. A storm water utility wouid receive revenues
through placement on the utility bill. Several advantages were identified with the storm
water utility. First of all, a storm water utility fee could be placed on each property based
on the amount of run-off each property produces rather than property value. This means
the utility can be targeted to those who should be paying for water quality improvements
much more precisely than through the property tax. Secondly, through use of a utility,
reduced rates can be offered as an incentive for persons to reduce the quantity or increase
the quality of run-off that originates from their property. This is not possible through the
property tax. Finally, in the year 2002, as in 25 of the last 28 years, the City will likely
be under state property tax levy limits. Consequently, the City would not be able to fund
the new water quality activities without reductions to other current services.
3
Pa -e 39
Having made the decision not to pursue an increase to the property tax the City Council
directed staff to prepare a Storm Water Utility Fee proposal to finance the additional cost
identified in the Water Resources Management Plan. Implementation of a storm water
utility fee requires the establishment of a utility as authorized by State Statute 444.075. By
establishing a storm water utility the City will gain a stable, dedicated and fair source of
revenue to support ongoing storm water management programs. Also, the implementation
of a fee directly related to storm water management costs and runoff may provide an
incentive to property owners to reduce the amount of surface water runoff leaving their
properties. The City Council has held two study sessions and reviewed the proposed
structure and fees. We believe the Utility fee as proposed provides a viable means of
financing the needed improvements.
3. DISCUSSION: The proposed storm water utility is very similar to those implemented by
numerous communities in the Twin Cities area. It would impact all developed properties
based on the amount of runoff that each parcel produces. The only exempt properties
would be public rights-of-way, vacant land, railroad rights-of-way, and unoccupied public
land. Public and private school would be deferred for one year until their next budget
cycle. A fee based on the proportionate share of runoff from the non-exempt properties
would be placed on the utility bill along with charges for water, sewer, recycling, and
street lighting. The proposed fee schedule is as follows:
Single Family and Duplex $3.25 Per Month/Per Unit
Multi -Family (Townhomes, Condos, and Apartments) $10.79 Per Month/Per Acre
Commercial/Industrial $23.34 Per Month/Per Acre
Other property types such as churches, schools, institutions, city, county and state property
would all be billed based on an individual calculation of each sites' runoff. The average
rate for these groups is $8.97 per month/per acre.
Golf courses and regional parks would have their fees based on the amount of run-off
produced by the impervious area of each. parcel, not the total parcel size. The rate per
acre of impervious surface would be 1$44-14.
Rates set at these levels would be sufficient to generate $1,500,000 per year (see Storm
Water Utility Rate Model) which would fully fund the activities and projects identified in
the Water Resources Management Plan.
El.
Page 40
Storm Water Utility Rate Model
Average 125,341.74 1,504,100.89
Source: Units and acres obtained from 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the rates would be sufficient to cover fee reductions for appeals, best
management practice incentives, and the deferral of public and private school fees for one
year. A list of the activities supported by the fee can be found in the following table:
Cashflow and Funding Requirements
Expenditures
Current Operating
Salary & Benefits
Public Information Materials & Office
Consultants and Other Contractual Services
Watershed Membership Dues
Computer and Space Allocations
Other Unfunded Operating Costs
Lake Studies
Capital Expenditures
Lake Cleanup Projects
Pond & DrainaLye Imnrovements
Possible Revenue Reductions
Fee Reduction
Appeals & Administration
Incentives Program
Incentives for Best Management Practices
School Revenue Deferral
Deferred School Revenues
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR RATE
Inflators 2001
Rate Per
2003 2004 2005
5%
REF Unit/Acre Units/Acres Dollars Month Dollars Year
Single Family/Duplex 1.00 3.25 14,815.00 48,148.75 577,785.00
Multi -Family 3.32 10.79 927.55 10,008.26 120,099.17
Commercial/Industrial 7.18 23.34 2,473.93 57,729.16 692,749.88
Churches 2.62 8.52 208.48 1,775.21 21,302-49
Schools 2.76 8.97 471.46 4,229.00 50,747.95
Public Lands - Occupied 3.32 10.79 194.78 2,101.70 25,220.37
Institutional 2.34 7.61 73.59 559.65 6,715.82
Golf Courses 13.58 44.14 17.9 790.02 9,480.20
Average 125,341.74 1,504,100.89
Source: Units and acres obtained from 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the rates would be sufficient to cover fee reductions for appeals, best
management practice incentives, and the deferral of public and private school fees for one
year. A list of the activities supported by the fee can be found in the following table:
Cashflow and Funding Requirements
Expenditures
Current Operating
Salary & Benefits
Public Information Materials & Office
Consultants and Other Contractual Services
Watershed Membership Dues
Computer and Space Allocations
Other Unfunded Operating Costs
Lake Studies
Capital Expenditures
Lake Cleanup Projects
Pond & DrainaLye Imnrovements
Possible Revenue Reductions
Fee Reduction
Appeals & Administration
Incentives Program
Incentives for Best Management Practices
School Revenue Deferral
Deferred School Revenues
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR RATE
Inflators 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
5% 165,799 182,793 191,933 201,530
3% 361600r"I" 17',`;698. 38,829 39,994 41,194
3% 92 106' 8,691 97,715 100,647 103,666
3% 160,144 1. '948' 169,897 174,994 180,243
7% 18,690-- 21,398 22,896 24,499
4% 0;
1P
124,800 129,792 134,984
3% 330'AW 545,900 562,277 579,145
3% 50.000 AT. -M.
72H
103,000 106,090 109,273
0'0 M '7
100'Wo 100'Wo 100'Wo
50,000
J
100,000 100,000 100,000
Fw- 25,000- 50,000 50,000 50,000
648,339..'i A: 1,534,333 1,578,622 1,624,533
5
Page 41
The above expenditures can be broken down into the following general areas:
Capital Projects 60%
Education 10%
Standards Review/Enforcement 20%
Maintenance 10%
The fees outlined above are about average when compared to other communities in the
metro area. The following chart compares the single family/duplex rate to other
communities.
Savage 4.65
Burnsville 4.20
Golden Valley 4.00
Apple Valley 3.98
New Hope 3.65
Bloomington 3.48
Brooklyn Center 3.33
Plymouth 3.25
Shakopee 2.52
Eagan 2.03
St. Louis Park 2.00
Crystal 1.95
Edina 1.67
Lakeville 1.63
Eden Prairie 1.00
In summary, the storm water utility as currently proposed provides the revenues necessary
to carry out the objectives identified in the Water Resources Management Plan by charging
properties based on their proportionate share of storm water produced. Only developed
properties are targeted for the fee since it is development that produces the most adverse
impact upon surface water quality and storm water quantities.
It is recognized that the fee structure proposed will not be 100 Vo accurate for most
individual properties due to variations in landscaping, surface coverage, grade, and other
factors. However, background work has been done to group similar properties together in
a manner that will provide for overall equity in terms ot fees paid. Furthermore, the
proposed structure does allow for challenges to the fee structure when non -single family
and duplex properties do have characteristics that place them outside the norm for their
grouping. This will help ensure that properties are paying only their fair share toward the
common good of sound water quality and quantity management.
One additional aspect that separates this storm water utility proposal from most others is
the provision for monetary incentives to adopt best management practices to reduce
adverse quantity and quality impacts. This provides all property owners with the
possibility to reduce their fee by up to 20% by being proactive in their efforts to address
storm water issues.
lei
Page 42
4. COMMITTEE AND CITIZEN COMNMNTS: Staff has received comments from the
Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) and several City residents regarding the
proposed storm water utility. Copies of their correspondence and/or summaries of phone
conversations have been attached for your review.
One concern that has been brought up by two residents is that the state and county should
assist in any cleanup costs. In addition, one resident felt that non-residents who benefit
from any increased water quality should also pay through a user fee.
In answer to these concerns it should be pointed out that the fee is being levied on those
parties that are in some way contributing to the problem, not those who might benefit from
the solutions. Since the problem is created by run-off produced by surrounding properties
it would not be reasonable to charge others from outside the City who have not contributed
to the problem. In addition, there is no mechanism authorized by state statute to collect
fees for water quality issues from non-residents.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I recommend City Council approve
the attached resolution directing staff to prepare a Storm Water Utility Ordinance for
adoption at the June 12, 2001 City Council meeting.
7
Page 43
NX
C ITY OF I 0
zt!d
A
4", IbITY CO
DATE: May 10, 2001 for the City Council Meeting of May 22, 2001
TO: Dale Hahn, Finance Director through Fj-
Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
FROM: Shane Missaghi, Water Resources Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE PROPOSED SURFACE WATER UTILITY FEE
BACKGROUND: The Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) has reviewed the
proposed Surface Water Utility rates, appeals, incentive programs, and schedule of
implementation. The EQC has been involved in developing and implementing the City's
Water Resources Management Plan. The committee is also involved in developing and
implementing the city wide annual educational efforts and reviewing specific projects such
as Parkers Lake and Medicine Lake Implementation plans. The EQC is supportive of a
Surface Water Utility to fund and support these projects in order to meet its goals and
objectives as stated in the Surface Water Management and Comprehensive Plans.
At their April 11, 2001 meeting, the EQC reviewed the Surface Water Utility memo
presented to the City Council (March 20, 2001). The committee, unanimously, agreed to
support the City's effort as outlined in that report, with particularly attention paid to the
incentives programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The EQC, unanimously, supports the
City's initiatives to implement a Surface Water Utility to meet the goals of its Surface Water
Resource Management and Comprehensive Plan.
yw-A'A±L!-
S h an -e -7M i's s a'gh?CZZZL
Water Resources Engineer
N-.%P.%IRnilinci ingIVrrRQLTY%MEMGS\2001%CityCouSuppoutiliLYfcc-ftge 44
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STORM
WATER UTILITY FEE FOR THE JUNE 12, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Storm Water Utility Fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the reconunendation for the Storm Water Utility
Fee; and
WIJEREAS, the City Council has recommended that the Storm Water Utility Fees take effect
on July 1, 2001.
NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the Finance Director is hereby directed to
prepare an ordinance amendment reflecting the proposed Storin Water Utility Fees in the
Finance Director's memo of May 15, 2001, and that the effective date shall be July 1, 2001.
Adopted by the City Council on May 22, 2001.
Pa -e 45
Agenda Number: 8, /
TO: Dwight D, Johnson, City Manager
7- A',
FROM: Mike Kohn, Vinancial Analyst through Dale Hahn, Finance Director
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE
DATE: June 4, 2001 for City Council Meeting June 12, 2001
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached ordinance amending Section 725 of the
Plymouth City Code creating a Storm Water Utility. Also, approve the attached resolution
authorizing summary publication of the Storm Water Utility Ordinance.
2- BACKGROUND: At the May 22, 2001, City Council Meeting a public hearing was held
and the City Council passed a resolution directing staff to prepare a storm water utility
ordinance. The attached ordinance is in response to that request.
3. DISCUSSION: The proposed storm water utility, as outlined in the attached ordinance, is
very similar to those implemented by numerous communities in the Twin Cities area. It
would impact all developed properties based on the amount of runoff that each parcel
produces. The only exempt properties would be public rights-of-way, vacant land, railroad
rights-of-way, and unoccupied public land. Public and private schools would be deferred
for one year until their next budget cycle. A fee based on the proportionate share of runoff
from the non-exempt properties would be placed on the utility bill along with charges for
water, sewer, recycling, and street lighting. The proposed fee schedule is as follows:
Single Family and Duplex $3.25 Per Month/Per Parcel
Multi -Family (Townhomes, Condos, and Apartments) $10.79 Per Month/Per Acre
Commercial/Industrial $23.34 Per MonthlPer Acre
Other property types such as churches, schools, institutions, city, county and state property
would all be billed based on an individual calculation of each sites' runoff. The average
rate for these groups is $8.97 per month/per acre.
Golf courses and regional parks would have their fees based on the amount of run-off
produced by the impervious area of each parcel, not the total parcel size. The rate per
acre of impervious surface would be $44.14.
Rates set at these levels would be sufficient to generate $1,500,000 per year (see Storm
Water Utility Rate Model) which would fully fund the activities and projects identified in
the Water Resources Management Plan.
Page 46
Storm Water Utility Rate Model
Average 125,341.74 1,504,100.89
Source: Units and acres obtained from 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the rates would be sufficient to cover fee reductions for appeals, best
management practice incentives, and the deferral of public and private school fees for one
year. A list of the activities supported by the fee can be found in the following table:
Cashflow and Funding Requirements
inflators 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Expenditures
Current Operating
191,933 201,530Salary & Benefits 5% 165,799, 182,793
38,829 39,994 41J94PublicInformationMaterials & Office 3% 36,600'_VE! -b
Consultants and Other Contractual Services 3% 921106"_ 97,715 100,647 103,666
Watershed Membership Dues 3% I60'I447i1""'V___1 169,897 174,994 180,243
AComputerandSpaceAllocations7% 8, 6 90 §hF. 21,398 22,896 24,499
Other Unfunded Operating Costs
124,800 129,792 134,984LakeStudies4%
fa gCapitalExpenditures
545,900 562,277 579,1455' Jz'; Lake Cleanup Projects 3%
11 Of zn nnnl- ()f, n90 109,?73Poiad & DradiffldarV JL11iJJXVV;,1-L1V1LW1 -0 /V 'V '
Possible Revenue Reductions
Fee Reduction
1W,OW 1W,OGO lW,0G0Appeals & Administration 50'000"'.
Incentives Program
OW: 100,()00 100,000 100,000IncentivesforBestManagementPractices50,000:,J'r ;'R
77
School Revenue Deferral
Deferred School Revenues 25,00W4'-"'- "-".-15-%000 50,000 50,000 50,000
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR RATE 648,339'q':' 9Y,601 1,534,333 1,578,622 1,624,533
2
Page 47
Rate Per
REF Unit/Acre Units/Acres Dollars Month Dollars Year
Single Family/Duplex 1.00 3.25 14,815.00 48,148.75 577,785-00
Multi -Family 3.32 10.79 927.55 10,008.26 120,099.17
Commercial /Industrial 7.18 23.34 2,473.93 57,729.16 692,749.88
Churches 2.62 8.52 208.48 1,775.21 21,302.49
Schools 2.76 8.97 471.46 4,229.00 50,747.95
Public Lands - Occupied 3.32 10.79 194.78 2,101.70 25,220.37
Institutional 2.34 7.61 73.59 559.65 6,715.82
Golf Courses 13.58 44.14 17.9 790.02 9,480.20
Average 125,341.74 1,504,100.89
Source: Units and acres obtained from 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, the rates would be sufficient to cover fee reductions for appeals, best
management practice incentives, and the deferral of public and private school fees for one
year. A list of the activities supported by the fee can be found in the following table:
Cashflow and Funding Requirements
inflators 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Expenditures
Current Operating
191,933 201,530Salary & Benefits 5% 165,799, 182,793
38,829 39,994 41J94PublicInformationMaterials & Office 3% 36,600'_VE! -b
Consultants and Other Contractual Services 3% 921106"_ 97,715 100,647 103,666
Watershed Membership Dues 3% I60'I447i1""'V___1 169,897 174,994 180,243
AComputerandSpaceAllocations7% 8, 6 90 §hF. 21,398 22,896 24,499
Other Unfunded Operating Costs
124,800 129,792 134,984LakeStudies4%
fa gCapitalExpenditures
545,900 562,277 579,1455' Jz'; Lake Cleanup Projects 3%
11 Of zn nnnl- ()f, n90 109,?73Poiad & DradiffldarV JL11iJJXVV;,1-L1V1LW1 -0 /V 'V '
Possible Revenue Reductions
Fee Reduction
1W,OW 1W,OGO lW,0G0Appeals & Administration 50'000"'.
Incentives Program
OW: 100,()00 100,000 100,000IncentivesforBestManagementPractices50,000:,J'r ;'R
77
School Revenue Deferral
Deferred School Revenues 25,00W4'-"'- "-".-15-%000 50,000 50,000 50,000
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR RATE 648,339'q':' 9Y,601 1,534,333 1,578,622 1,624,533
2
Page 47
The above expenditures can be broken down into the following general areas:
Capital Projects 60%
Education 10%
Standards Review/Enforcement 20%
Maintenance 10%
The monthly fees outlined below are about average when compared to other communities
in the metro area. The following chart compares the single family/duplex rate to other
communities.
Savage 4.65
Burnsville 4.20
Golden Valley 4.00
Apple Valley 3.98
New Hope 3.65
Bloomington 3.48
Brooklyn Center 3.33
Plymouth 3.25
Shakopee 2.52
Eagan 2.03
St. Louis Park 2.00
Crystal 1.95
Edina 1.67
Lakeville 1.63
Eden Prairie 1.00
In summary, the storm water utility will provide the revenues necessary to carry out the
objectives identified in the Water Resources Management Plan by charging proper -ties
based on their proportionate share of storm water produced. Only developed properties
are targeted for the fee since it is development that produces the most adverse impact upon
surface water quality and storm water quantities.
It is recognized that the fee structure proposed will not be 100 % accurate for most
individual properties due to variations in landscaping, surface coverage, grade, and other
factors. However, background work has been done to group similar properties together in
a manner that will provide for overall equity in terms of fees paid. Furthermore, the
proposed structure does allow for challenges to the fee structure when non -single family
and duplex properties do have characteristics that place them outside the nonn for their
grouping. This will help ensure that properties are paying only their fair share toward the
common good of sound water quality and quantity management.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I recommend City Council
approve the attached Storm Water Utility Ordinance amending Section 725 of the City
Code. I also recommend approval of the attached resolution authorizing summary
publication of the Storin Water Utility Ordinance.
3
Page 48
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 725
OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001, the Plymouth City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-, an
ordinance amending Section 725 of the Plymouth City Code; and
WHEREAS, in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance in the City's official newspaper, State
Law permits the publication of a summary approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the summary of Ordinance No. 2001-, which is
attached to this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it shall and hereby does approve Summary Ordinance No.
2001-, amending Section 725 of the Plymouth City Code, for publication in the City's official
neWSDaper.
Adopted by the City Council on June 12, 2001.
Pa -e 49
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 725
OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CREATING A STORM WATER UTILITY
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 725 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
MWIT40F.P.N
L *
w-- . '0 - - -
0-1-
1. -
0-1, -. . - 102
WL —
M.M.
Pa -e 50
M TTn wa
brwaRIM -jw-9vrjMzp.
mr—yff-wqr
M..
ni "'
Uh.
I ORM.
pm lip lifil1ii0l"
OHIO, M-1 MV Mr. M r- 7T M.
W&WIEWW".
MWIT40F.P.N
L *
w-- . '0 - - -
0-1-
1. -
0-1, -. . - 1 02
WL —
M.M.
Pa -e 50
725. 0 1. Storm Water Utility Established. A municipal storm sewer utility is hereby established and
shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 from which
revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota Statutes.
725.02. Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words or phrases
have the meanings given in this Subdivision.
A. Residential Equivalent Factor (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of
runoff generated by one acre of a particular land use to the average volume of runoff generated
by one-half (1/2) acre of typical single family residential land, assuming Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) "Type B" soil conditions, during a standard 1 year rainfall event, as determined
by the Public Works Director.
B. Storm Water Utility Rate. The charge to a typical one-half (1/2) acre single family residential
parcel shall be the storm water utility rate.
725.03. REF For Land Uses. Storm water drainage fees for single family (detached) and duplex
parcels shall be on a per parcel basis. These fees shall be calculated by multiplying the REF
by the storm water utility rate.
Storm water drainage fees for all other land uses shall be determined by multiplying the REF
for the land use by the parcels' acreage and then multiplying the resulting product by the storm
water utility rate. The REF values for various land uses are as follows:
Land Use
Per Parcel
Single Family (Detached) & Duplex
REF
1.00
Per Acre
Multi -Family (Townhomes, Condominiums, and Apartments) 3.32
Commercial and Industrial 7.18
725.04. Other Land Uses. Land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be evaluated individually
based on the amount of impervious coverage and parcel size.
Golf courses and regional parks will have their fees based on the amount of run-off produced by the
impervious area of each parcel, not the total parcel size.
725.05. Storm Water Utility Rate. The storm water utility rate is $3.25 per month and shall be
charged to all parcels not listed as exempt in Section 725.08.
725.06. Credits. The City Manager, or designee, may adjust the REF for parcels of land (other than
single family and duplex parcels) based on the demonstration of impervious coverage substantially
different from the standards used by the City to establish the REF for the use to which the parcel
belongs. Information and hydrologic data must be supplied by the property owner(s) to demonstrate
that a fee adjustment is warranted. Adjustments to a REF shall not be made retroactively. Appeals of
the City Manager's determinations shall be made to the City Council.
Page 53
725.07. Incentives. The City Council may adopt, from time to time, by resolution an incentive
program which would allow for the reduction of fees for individual parcels of land. The maximum
reduction for any parcel shall be 20%.
725.08. Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt from storm water utility fees.
A. Public Rights -of -Way
B. Vacant Land (e.g., undeveloped land, agricultural land without a dwelling)
C. Railroad Rights -of -Way
D. Unoccupied Public Land (e.g., open space, parks without permanently staffed
structures)
725.09. Billing and Payment. Storm water utility charges shall be computed and billed periodically
with, and included as a charge on, bills issued by the City for water, sewer, recycling or streetlight
services. If a parcel of land subject to the storm water utility charge is not served by other utilities, a
separate bill shall be issued every two (2) months for residential properties and every one (1) month for
commercial properties.
725.10. Amount Due After Due Date. An amount equal to 10% of the unpaid current service charges
shall be added to each account which is not paid by the due date as specified by the Finance
Department.
725.11. Deligquent Bills. If storm water utility charges are not paid within three (3) months after a
billing is issued, the City shall certify the amount due, together with penalties, to the County Auditor to
be collected with other real estate taxes on the parcel.
725.12. Establishment of Fund. All fees collected for the storm water utility shall be placed in a fund
for storm water purposes as permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective for all billings (with the exception of public and
private schools) rendered after July 31, 2001. This ordinance shall become effective for billings to
public and private schools rendered after July 1, 2002.
ADOPTED by the City Council June 12, 200 1.
Joycelyn Tierney, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra Paulson, City Clerk
Page 54
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-245
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-19, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 725
OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE
WHEREAS, on June 12, 200 1, the Plymouth City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-17, an
ordinance amending Section 725 of the Plymouth City Code; and
WHEREAS, in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance in the City's official newspaper, State Law
permits the publication of a summary approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the summary of Ordinance No. 200149, which is
attached to this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CTTY COUNCrL OF THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MlNNESOTA, that it shall and hereby does approve Summary Ordinance No.
2001-19, amending Section 725 of the Plymouth City Code, for publication in the City's official
newspapp c
Adopted by the City Council on June 12, 200 1.
Page 55
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 725
OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CREATING A STORM WATER UTILITY
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 725 of the Plymouth City Code is amended to read:
AWIMM nvi&
VON
KTMMV.T=
1INK 111
ON PI
3161
111111101, 11
NOW
1
M-
11
WA M
HIM w 1101m, I I I N N. M* M.
WII il"
mwer
MIN! e"WAburwar. Tn
M11, I I
INVIRM)WHOW
3161
Page 56
111111101, 11
NOW
1
M-
11
WA M
HIM w 1101m, I I I N N. M* M.
Page 56
Ordinance No. 2001-17
Page 2 of 6
Wo -114WIRM1 .1 "M IN 11 'Noll
p
1. M. I k INS. ill. W. MR. 01 WA '. "WRYMMIMITTIMIIIIIWiM I
MMOMWIVAN, a
INN
IN
ii
L W., =W111 M
10,0111 10
mm NO H NOW
IAMHIMm! i
mo- "W11F 1, M, . ....... i M.1p
MINN."
Wo -114WIRM1 .1 "M IN 11 'Noll
p
1. M. I k INS. ill. W. MR. 01 WA '. "WRYMMIMITTIMIIIIIWiM I
MMOMWIVAN, a
INN
IN
INN
M. W110"",
MM I ILW., =W111 M
10,0111 10
Pa -e 57
10,0111 10
Pa -e 57
Ordinance No. 2001-17
Page 3 of 6
0MR.M., ai"' -M.
R.- W, m - M. -
Mrr.I !IIIIIIIIiI!lR"MffM
WON 0-0. RN -M., Will.
M%- "WINTSUNTMIM ITTE
WIRRIMISmA-
MILIMMMERM!IIIIIIIIIII!A1112%M PER wMer.1mr.r. IIIIIIII MM%%,M pm
4, S4jfjgj@ C=r-p-
Distriet 0.4-7-hp- A- f Distr- No. 4 afe asset 4484-4- in- 1 --he exaet 4egA
deser-iption
City affiees.-
R— the published tex4 of
IM
M.. I NO 1-milm mlllll,=-
file for- publie ifispeetion in
725.15. Stann
1979,
Sewev Ro-Se-I DistrJut NE). 4. 94&Asien 1. Rmd Created. Pufsuant to Laws
0MR.M., ai"' -M.
R.- W, m - M. -
Mrr.I !IIIIIIIIiI!lR"MffM
WON 0-0. RN -M., Will.
Subd. 3. Qistfi
fol -01- ~-1
Stefm Sewer-
Tm Eli
4, S4jfjgj@ C=r-p-
Distriet
Subd. 3. Qistfi Created. Stefm Sewer- Rnpfe;,l fRoat TaX 4, S4jfjgj@ C=r-p-
Distriet 0.4-7-hp- A- f Distr- No. 4 afe asset 4484-4- in- 1 --he exaet 4egA
deser-iption
City affiees.-
R— the published tex4 of OfIdinanee No. 79 17, eta file for- publie ifispeetion in
725.15. Stann
1979,
Sewev Ro-Se-I DistrJut NE). 4. 94&Asien 1. Rmd Created. Pufsuant to Laws
X, ChaptVr- 303, Seetion 15 (the "Aet fundAj.4. r-eated a 8peeial
Stafm Sewff ReIse-n,e Fund triPt NA 4
Q-1-1- 'P-- T T a- 2 --17+1-e A
Sliho I F14 . T44AXP 4A]l hP APIAAWA411A ad in the FLA4nd (1) the p+:oeeeds a ta*es le, ielid.; sopfee
pufsua+A to Ae-t 1:64-; its suppeA, (2) 4westment eamings of the Fund, and (3) sueh ot-her- r-e'vemdes
and monies as may be diFeeted by the City Couneil te be plaeed in the Pund and v4lieh are REA f e0luir-Od
Page 58
Ordinance No. 2001-17
Page 4 of 6
00-11-0.1", '11
ww" RMS
725.01. Storm Water Utility Established. A municipal ston-n sewer utility is hereby established and
shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 from which
revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota Statutes.
725.02. Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates other -wise, the following words or phrases
have the meanings given in this Subdivision.
A. Residential Equivalent Factor (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of
runoff generated by one acre of a particular land use to the average volume of runoff generated
by one-half (1/2) acre of typical single family residential land, assuming Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) "Type B" soil conditions, during a standard I year rainfall event, as deten-nined
by the Public Works Director.
B. Storm Water Utility Rate. The charge to a typical one-half (1/2) acre single family residential
parcel shall be the stom-i water utility rate.
725.03. REF For Land Uses. Storm water drainage fees for single family (detached) and duplex
parcels shall be on a per parcel basis. These fees shall be calculated by multiplying the REF
by the storm water utility rate.
Storm water drainage fees for all other land uses shall be determined by multiplying the REF
for the land use by the parcels' acreage and then multiplying the resulting product by the storm
water utility rate. The REF values for various land uses are as follows:
Land Use
Per Parcel
Single Family (Detached) & Duplex
REF
1.00
Per Acre
Multi -Family (Townhomes, Condominiums, and Apartments) 3.32
Commercial and Industrial 7.18
725,04. Other Land Uses, Land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be evaluated individually
based on the amount of impervious coverage and parcel size.
Page 59
Ordinance No. 2001-17
Page 5 of 6
Golf courses and regional parks will have their fees based on the amount of run-off produced by the
impervious area of each parcel, not the total parcel size.
725.05. Storm Water Utility Rate. The storm water utility rate is $3.25 per month and shall be
charged to all parcels not listed as exempt in Section 725.08.
725.06. Credits. The City Manager, or designee, may adjust the REF for parcels of land (other than
single family and duplex parcels) based on the demonstration of impervious coverage substantially
different from the standards used by the City to establish the REF for the use to which the parcel
belongs. Information and hydrologic data must be supplied by the property owncr(s) to demonstrate
that a fee adjustment is warranted. Adjustments to a REF shall not be made retroactively. Appeals of
the City Manager's determinations shall be made to the City Council.
725.07. Incentives. The City Council may adopt, from time to time, by resolution an incentive
program which would allow for the reduction of fees for individual parcels of land. The maximum
reduction for any parcel shall be 20%.
725.08. Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt from storm water utility fees.
A. Public Rights -of -Way
B. Vacant Land (e.g., undeveloped land, agricultural land without a dwelling)
C. Railroad Rights -of -Way
D. Unoccupied Public Land (e.g., open space, parks without permanently staffed
structures)
725.09. Billing and PayMent. Storm. water utility charges shall be computed and billed periodically
with, and included as a charge on, bills issued by the City for water, sewer, recycling or streetlight
services. If a parcel of land subject to the storm water utility charge is not served by other utilities, a
separate bill shall be issued every two (2) months for residential properties and every one (1) month for
commercial properties.
725.10. Amount Due After Due Date. An amount equal to 10% of the unpaid current service charges
shall be added to each account which is not paid by tl-te due date as specified by the Finance
Department.
725.11. Delinquent Bills. If storm water utility charges are not paid within three (3) months after a
billing is issued, the City shall certify the amount due, together with penalties, to the County Auditor to
be collected with other real estate taxes on the parcel.
725.12. Establishment of Fund. All fees collected for the ston-n water utility shall be placed in a fund
for storin water purposes as permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective for all billings (with the exception of public and
private schools) rendered after July 31, 2001. This ordinance shall become effective for billings to
public and private schools rendered after July 1, 2002.
Page 60
Ordinance No. 2001-17
Page 6 of 6
ADOPTED by the City Council June 12, 2001.
Isl Joycelyn H. Tierney
Joycelyn H. Tierney, Mayor
ATTEST:
Isl Sandra R. Paulson
Sandra R. Paulson, City Clerk
Page 61
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-19
SECTION 725 OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 725 OF THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A
STORM WATER UTILITY
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
Section 1. Amendment of City Code. Section 725 of the City Code of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, is hereby amended to create a Storm Water Utility.
Section 2. Effective Date. This amendment shall become effective for all billings (with
the exception of public and private schools) rendered after July 31, 2001. This ordinance shall
become effective for billings to public and private schools rendered after July 1, 2002.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 12, 200 1.
Joycelyn H. Tierney, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra R. Paulson, City Clerk
Page 62
rp)City of Agenda 2A.4PlymouthNumber:
Addi,q Qqdily to Life
To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
July 28, 2009 Reviewed by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
Item: 2010 and 2011 Budget — Street Lighting Funding
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff direction for 2010 and 2011 budget preparation.
2. BACKGROUND:
In late 2008, staff began evaluating the City's street lighting funding. Early in 2009,
the analysis was complete and some of the significant findings of the analysis are as
follows:
The City currently budgets $600,000 in the General Fund (Street
Maintenance) for street light costs.
The City receives $480,000 in revenue from street light charges on utility
bills.
The remaining $120,000 is unfunded and is absorbed in the General Fund.
The $120,000 includes the costs for street lights that are required on traffic
signal poles ($10,000) and other Xcel Energy imposed "other" charges
40,000) that are in excess of the Xcel Energy rates which are the basis for
the charges imposed by the City.
The current City ordinance requires that street light charges imposed by the
City be based on the costs of the street lighting plus $0.10 per benefitting
property. The "other" charges account for 7% to 10% more than imposed by
the City.
Based on the Ordinance requirements, the City has a significant number of
different street light rates charged to similarly situated properties making
billing difficult and some could conclude unfair or unequal.
It appears that there are a number of properties that have street lighting but are
not currently being charged a street light fee. These unfunded street lighting
costs could account for $20,000 of the above referenced funding shortfall
based on a very preliminary analysis.
There are a number of recent developments that also have street lights for
which the costs are currently being charged to an outlot or other common
property maintained by the HOA for that development. In a couple cases, the
Page 1
City actually owns the outlot that is being charged but the HOA is paying the
costs.
Neither the utility providers nor the City are accounting for replacement costs
for the street lights.
There are a number of billing irregularities that the street light account has
been paying the costs for. These irregularities are being corrected.
3. BUDGET IMPACT:
The City is failing to capture $120,000 of the costs of street lighting charged by Xcel
Energy and Wright -Hennepin Electric Cooperative. The City Council has a number
of options to make changes to the way we collect for street lighting. We could simply
raise rates to offset the costs, we could impose a flat rate for all properties with street
lights or a street light utility could be created.
The proposed 2010 and 2011 budgets reflect adjustments in the Street
Maintenance revenues (Utility Charges Street Lighting — 4330.500) to account
for capturing revenue through street lighting fees to fully cover the cost for
energizing street lighting and traffic signals. This will require an increase in fees
for properties already paying a fee and adding those properties that have street
lights but are not paying fees.
4. ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 2
City of
Plymouth 2A.6A
Date: July 23, 2009
To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
From: Calvin Portner, Administrative Services Director
Subject: Allocation explanation
The city Internal Service Funds receive allocations from city divisions to pay for the costs of the
goods and services they provide in the form of office/workspace, vehicles/equipment,
hardware/software technology and communications. This memo outlines each of the allocation
line items and their impact to the budget.
Photocopying
The city has seven copy machines throughout the organization with operational costs for
maintenance contracts, toner, paper, etc. ranging between $4,800 and $20,000 and depreciation
from $2900 to $7,600. For 2010 and 2011, the increase accounts for the increased citywide use
of color copies. A portion of the color cost increase is offset by a negotiated decrease in
citywide costs per copy for black and white copies.
Information Technology
Covers the cost of hardware and software including maintenance contracts and depreciation as
well as overhead (personnel costs) and supplies for the network, data storage, PCs, and other
work-related technology. The city has made several large investments in technology in recent
years and the fund is under review. The total IT allocation for 2010 will not increase; however,
there will be movement of allocations between divisions to reflect a number of software and
hardware purchases in public safety.
Facility Management
Includes overhead costs, building maintenance, utilities, ancillary equipment replacement and
contract costs to operate and maintain each of the city's facilities. A fund analysis was
completed and showed a structural imbalance of $5 10,000 which we propose to correct over four
years.
Administrative Services
This allocation offsets overhead administrative costs for non -general fund departments, divisions
and activities for the services they require for recruitment, retention, citywide training, payroll,
mail, accounting, communications and centralized customer service. The current allocation is
sufficient to recover the costs of services.
Mobile Phone
The city has about 160 cell phones on Nextel, voice and data plans. About 150 of the phones are
on Nextel Push -To -Talk (direct connect) for the police, public works, park maintenance and
inspections as the primary communication device (2 -way radio). For 20 10 and 2011, the overall
mobile phone allocation is decreasing by about 20% due to a software application that does not
require a dedicated Blackberry server and using the State of Minnesota contract for phone plan
purchases.
Page I
Security
The allocation pays the costs to operate and maintain closed circuit security cameras in and
around city facilities including city hall, public safety, transit stations and water treatment plants.
The allocation is sufficient to cover replacements that fail each year.
Telephone
The citywide telephone system was upgraded to an hiternet Phone (IP) phone system in 2007,
which included all handsets, servers and software. The allocation was reviewed following the
purchase and covers replacement and ongoing maintenance contracts.
Central Services (Internal Rental Charge)
Allocations are recovered for fleet vehicles, power equipment, vehicle use, replacement and
maintenance. An analysis of this fund showed a $420,000 shortfall in allocations to the General
Fund. We propose correcting this imbalance over four years.
800 MHz radio
In 2012, our lease with Hennepin County for 800 MHz radios will expire and we will need to
upgrade to a new service radio. We currently have 84 police portables and 52 fire portables, 38
police mobiles and 24 fire mobile radios. The replacement value is expected to be over
550,000. The 800 MHz radio is required for use with the Hennepin County Dispatch system. It
provides for interconnectivity with other agencies and is the most reliable service available in the
case of a major regional event. The budget will reflect large increases in 800 MHz radio
allocation to account for new radios in just two years.
Risk Management
Currently set up as a fund transfer, Risk Management receives revenue to fund anticipated
annual expenses for property, casualty, worker's comp and other insurance premiums, as well as
funding for deductibles. The revenue transfers for 20 10 will not increase, but there will be
movement of allocations between divisions based on accident and claim history.
Page 2
rp)City of Agenda 2A.6BPlymouthNumber:
Addi,q Qqdily to Life
To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
July 28, 2009 Reviewed by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
Item: 2010 and 2011 Budget — Central Equipment
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff direction for 2010 and 2011 budget preparation.
2. BACKGROUND:
In late 2007, staff began evaluating the Central Equipment Fund and developing a Fleet
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Policy. Early in 2008, the analysis was complete and
some of the significant findings of the analysis are as follows:
It appears that the most recent similar analysis was conducted in 2001.
The fleet and equipment allocations to other departments are not appropriately distributed to
the utilizing departments (e.g. the Water Fund was being charged an allocation for a bucket
truck).
Budgeted allocations are not adequate to cover the cost of providing fleet and equipment
maintenance services.
Budgeted allocations are not adequate to cover the cost of replacing fleet and equipment.
Replacement costs were underestimated, particularly for fire apparatus.
Maintenance costs charge through work orders are not accounting for the true cost of the
service (e.g. overhead is too low).
The analysis of the Central Equipment Fund concluded that maintaining the current
allocations will result in a negative impact on the fund balance. Fund balances would fall
below the level established by the Policy.
3. BUDGETIMPACT:
After all of the City's fleet and equipment is properly allocated and adjustments are made to
increase the allocations to fully account for costs, the total allocations require a $200,000
increase. A number of allocations require significant increases, most notably Park Maintenance
270,000) and Street Maintenance ($230,000), while others would see decreases if the
adjustment is made. In total, the General Fund impact of the reallocations is $420,000.
The proposed 2010 and 2011 budgets reflect adjustments in the Central Equipment
allocations to all departments the net effect of which will properly align the allocation over a
4 year period.
4. ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page I
rp)City of Agenda 2A.6CPlymouthNumber:
Addiq Q.,fity to Life
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING
July 28, 2009
To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Prepared by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Doran Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
Item: 2010 and 2011 Budget — Facilities Management
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff direction for 20 10 and 2011 budget preparation.
2. BACKGROUND:
In 2008, staff began evaluating the Facilities Management Fund and developing a Facilities
and Related Operating Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Policy. Early
in 2009, the analysis was complete and some of the significant findings of the analysis are
as follows:
It appears as if the most recent similar analysis was conducted in 1999. That analysis
did not include capital replacement costs in determining allocations.
The 1999 analysis assumed that Facilities Management would fund 100% of the
replacement of all of the Fire Stations and only portions of other buildings.
Significant changes growth to the City's facilities has occurred since 1999.
The facilities allocations to other departments are not appropriately distributed to the
utilizing departments (e.g. the Water and Sewer Funds were being allocated 20% of
City Hall maintenance costs).
Budgeted allocations are not adequate to cover the cost of providing facilities
maintenance services.
Budgeted allocations are not adequate to cover the cost of replacing facilities and
related operating equipment.
Replacement costs were underestimated.
The analysis of the Facilities Management Fund concluded that maintaining the
current allocations will result in a negative impact on the fund balance. Fund
balances would fall below the level established by the Policy.
The new analysis contemplates Facilities Management funding only 25% of the costs
to replace all buildings.
3. BUDGET IMPACT:
After all of the City's facilities and operating equipment are properly allocated and
adjustments are made to increase the allocations to fully account for costs, the total
allocations require a $640,000 increase. A number of allocations require significant
increases, most notably Fire ($230,000) and Police ($130,000), while others will see
decreases. In total, the General Fund impact of the reallocations is $510,000. One way to
Page 1
reduce that impact would be to utilize the Facilities Management Fund reserves for capital
purchases to offset the increase in General Fund allocations.
The proposed 2010 and 2011 budgets reflect adjustments in the Facilities Management
allocations to all departments the net effect of which will properly align the allocation
over a 4 year period. The impact of the allocation increases is proposed to be tempered
through the use of reserves for a portion of the capital expenditures.
4. ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 2
rp)City of
Plymouth
Adding QqaWy to Life
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
July 28, 2009
Agenda
Number:
To: Mayor and City Council
Prepared by: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Item: Set Future Study Sessions
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the pending study session topics list and set study sessions or amend the topics list if desired.
Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
0 Joint meeting with Environmental Quality Committee (fall)
Other requests for study session topics:
Update with the City Manager (fall)
Meet with prosecutor for update (fall) (TB)
Consider incentives to encourage tree preservation
Lake sediment deltas report
Architectural guidelines (fall)
vCity of
PlymouthoiI
Adding Quality to Life
August 2009
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2:30-5:00 PM 7:00 PM
NIGHT TO UNITE PLANNING
Kick -Off COMMISSION
Station III MEETING
Council. Chambers
6:30-9:30 PM
NIGHT TO UNITE
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 PM 7:00 PM Cancelled
REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK Ft REC
MEETING QUALITY ADVISORY COM -
Council Chambers COMMITTEE MISSION (PRAC)
EQC) MEETING MEETING
Council Chambers Council Chambers
16 17 18 19 20 21 227:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
23 24 25 5:00 PM 26 27 28 29
SPECIAL COUNCIL Cancelled 7:00 PM
MEETING PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING
Medicine Lake Room ADVISORY Medicine Lake RoomY3031
Budget Study Session COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
7:00 PM
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Council Chambers
Modified on 07124109
vCity of
PlymouthoiI
Adding Quality to Life
September 2009
Modified on 07124109
1 2 3 4 55:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING HUMAN RIGHTS
MEETING COMMISSION COMMISSION
Medicine Lake Room MEETING MEETING
Budget Study Session Council Chambers Parkers Lake Room
6 7 jjjp_= 8 9 10 11 127:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM Autumn
REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK Et REC ADVI- Art Fair
MEETING QUALITY SORY COMMISSION Parkers Lake
LABOR DAY Council Chambers COMMITTEE PRAC) MEETING
Council Chambers
EQC) MEETING
CITY OFFICES Council Chambers
CLOSED
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
ROSH HASHANAH
Begins at Sunset
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
7:00 PM 7:00 PM, 7:00 PM 9:00 AM -3:30 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING SPECIAL
MEETING ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room RECYCLING DROP
Council Chambers COMMITTEE ON OFF EVENT
TRANSIT (PACT) Plymouth
MEETING Maintenance Facility
Medicine Lake 1:00 PM
Room A Plymouth On
Parade Cele ration
City Center Area
27 28 29 30
YOM KIPPUR
Begins at Sunset
Modified on 07124109
vCity of
PlymouthoiI
Adding Quality to Life
October 2009
Modified on 07124109
2 3
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6:30-8:30 PM ENVIRONMENTAL 7:00 PM
Volunteer QUALITY PARK Et REC 12:00-4:00 PM
Recognition Event COMMITTEE ADVISORY COM- Fire Dept.
Plymouth Creek EQC) MEETING MISSION (PRAC) Open House
Center Council Chambers MEETING Fire Station III
Council Chambers
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
COLUMBUS DAY MEETING
Observed
Council Chambers
PLYMOUTH PUBLIC
WORKS DIVISION
CLOSED
18 19 20 1 7:00 PM2 22 23 24PLANNING
7:00 PMCOMMISSION
MEETING HRA MEETING
Council Chambers Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
MEETING
Medicine Lake
25 26 2 7 28 29 30 317:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL 5:30-8:30 PM
MEETING Halloween on
Council Chambers the Creek
Plymouth Creek
Center
Modified on 07124109