HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 05-16-2006 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order
2. Presentation by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission on Shallow Lake Ecology, TMDLs, and the
Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Planning Process (Joe
Bischoff of Wenck Associates, Inc.)
3. Discuss Park Needs and Funding
4. Adj ourn
Shallow Lake Ecology, Lake
Nutrient TMDLs and the Shingle
Creek Water Quality Plan
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
Joe Bischoff, Wenck Associates, Inc.
Diane Spector, Wenck Associates, Inc.
Ed Metthiesen, Wenck Associates, Inc.
What is a Total Maximum DailylLoad (TMDL)?
The maximum amount of a pollutant
that a water body can receive and still
meet water quality standards
Developed for waters not supporting
designated uses after traditional
controls
Objectives of this Presentation
Overview of Shingle Creek Water Quality
Plan and TMDLs
Overview of Shallow Lake Ecology
Management Issues
TMDLs and Shallow Lakes
MPCA Standards
Examples of Shallow Lake TMDLs
Effects of Shallow Lake Ecology on TMDL
Formulation
Effective Implementation of TMDLs
Biomenipulation (Plant and Fish Communities)
Traditional Engineering Controls
Activities Identified in Second
Generation Plan
Set specific numerical water quality goals
for water resources
Chloride TMDL for Shingle Creek
Impaired Biota TMDL for Bass Creek
Develop Lake management plans
TMDLs for all lakes
Establish numerical water quality standards
for lakes
Identify priority wetlands
Functions and values assessment
Water Quality Plan
Commission has drafted a Water Quality Plan
with goals and strategies for lakes, streams,
and wetlands
Implementation Plan defines ongoing major
commission activities:
Monitoring & information gathering
Management plans & TMDLs
Education and public outreach
Capital improvement projects
2
Turbid and Clearwater States
3
Lake Response to Restoration
Twin Lakes W.Q. Response Model
s— Upper Twin
ii X60 —Hypothetical
y 1a0 Response
c 120
i rn 10080
0 60
ao20
X X i• i• X X X X X
Percent Load Reduction
Shallow Lake Switches
Drivers that cause a lake to shift from
either the turbid or clear water state to
the opposite state
Clear scientific understanding of forward
switches
Unclear understanding of reverse switches
M
nvasive Spec
Pondweed
Changing View of Lake
Management
OLD VIEW
Simple Cause Effect
Relationship
Increased P resulted
in Decreased water
quality
Dietz at al. 2003. Science.
NEW VIEW
Complex Adaptive
Systems
Hard to predict
Focus on Adaptive
Management
Learn by doing
Diversity of
knowledge
5
Lake Characteristics
Shorelines
The shoreline
areas are defined
as the areas
adjacent to the
lakes edge with
hydrophytic
vegetation and
water up to 1.5 feet
deep or a water
table within 1.5 feet
from the surface
T.Il Lekoe-2002C.bl-dMdha..Bi—...
Carp were approximately 10 times the upper 10" quartile
for similar lakes
Middle Twin Lake
Middle Twin
a
0.8 ......... ...__, 2.50
E 0.6 - — •— 2.00 t
0.5 1.50 c
0 0.4
t 0.3 1.00 a
a 0.2 0.50 20.1 a
a 0 0.00
4, 41, o, 416 A A
Surface TP Bottom TP Total (Inches)
LN/
N
Upper Twin Lake — Internal P
Loads
9
Fish Populations - Schmidt
Aquatic Plant Surveys — Schmidt Lake
91 % littoral
Should have significant plant cover
in 1976 DNR Survey
Purple Loosestrife
Reed Canary Grass
2005 Survey and Management Plan
Curly Leaf Pondweed
Eurasian water milfoil
Management plan to reduce invasive and maintain
native plant community
Need to tie plant management to fisheries
Load Allocations - Schmidt
Annual load Reductions
sehmIdt L.ke
60 - -- .---... ........ ......... _....... ......... _....
50 20% .
13% S% 16%-21%..
29%
40
i30920
1a
D
2001 2004 2005 0
o Load p Load @ Standard
10
Schmidt Lake TMDL Allocation
Annual load Reductions
Schmidt Lake
60
35%
11%
9 40 i
a 20
0 '
Nerage Wet Dry
PB Load o Load (a SUndatd
Internal loading estimate 7-61 kg
Lake Response to Restoration
Adaptive Management
Assess Design
Progress Strategy
13 Adaptive
Management
Evaluate Implement
Monitor
Apply Adaptive Management in NPDES Permit cycle
11
Implementation Framework
TMDL Load
Allocations
Watershed
Implementation
Plan
WatershedCity Watershed
CIP SWPPPs Activities
Ed,,aU,n,Rules)
Capital Improvement Program
Proposed cost -share policy for projects
includes watershed contribution (25%) for
projects on Commission CIP that meet
certain criteria
Part of TMDL implementation plan
Cities agree to share balance of cost (76%)
Address other important watershed issues:
Improve water quality
Prevent flooding
Prevent or correct erosion
Promote groundwater recharge
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat
Improve or create water recreation facilities
CIP Process
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
developed scoring system to select and
prioritize projects
Currently reviewing projects submitted by
cities
Will recommend to the Commissions a draft
CIP
Consider Water Quality Plan (including CIP)
through Major Plan Amendment process
City and Agency review
Public hearing
Review and approval by Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR)
9 month process
12
II Stormwater Permits
New NPDES General Permit
requires MS4s to include TMDL
implementation in SWPPP
must amend SWPPP within 18
months of TMDL adoption
Implementing TMDLs will
require both capital projects and
non -capital activities
TMDL Implementation Plans
being structured to be easily
incorporated into SWPPP
Conclusions
Lakes are complex, adaptive systems
Competing equilibria between turbid and
clear water state
Trophic Cascades (top-down controls)
Too complex for current tools
Adaptive Management is our best
approach to lake restoration
Long time frame for implementation
Need for new BMPs, source reductions
Biomanipulation and Green Tools (green
roofs, rain gardens, buffers)
13
DATE: May 11, 2006
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Council Study Session on Park and Open Space Acquisition
for May 16
Attached for Council review is the staff report on park acquisition from the March 8
study session and the follow up information that was generated from that study session
that was sent to the Council on March 21. There is no new information added in either
of these packets.
By way of recap, at our March 8 meeting Mike Kohn and I laid out for the Council a
problem that we have with our existing funding sources not being able to acquire and
build both the basic park and trail system and the greenway. Thus, it will be necessary
to find some additional funding to accomplish both portions of our overall park plan.
The Council talked about raising park dedication fees, which we anticipate doing mid-
year this year and again on January 1, 2007. The Council also briefly reviewed the
possibility of having a referendum either in '06 or '07. Staff suggests that if this is a
possibility we should bring in a survey firm to measure the community interest and
support for a referendum, for example, open space and trails.
I would also call attention to the projections Mike Kohn has put together for park
dedication fees, tying this back to the work the Council is doing on the comprehensive
plan and density. As the density decreases from a potential 6,000 units to 4,000 units,
there is a corresponding decrease in park dedication fees of $45,000,000 down to
26,000,000. Thus, the lowering of density makes our challenge that much more
difficult and refocuses our attention on identifying appropriate funding mechanisms to
pay for the Northwest Greenway.
EB/np
Agenda Number;
TO: Laurie Alarens,_City Manager
FROM: Mike Kohi ;Fin Rcial Analyst gild Eric Blank, Park & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Potential Park System Projects and Financing
DATE: March b, 2006
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Evaluate this report and place the issue of fixture park system projects and Financing on a
City Council study session agenda for further consideration.
2. BACKGROUND:
The Park and Recreation department has prepared a list of projects that they would like to
accomplish to finish off the park system for the City of Plymouth (see Attachment I). Sonne of
these items may change, be added to, or be eliminated as part of the Comprehensive Plan
process. However, they currently represent the best menu of potential projects available.
In addition, the Park and Recreation and Administrative Services departmerits have attempted to
estimate revenues that may be available to pay for these projects (see Attachment II). Once
again, these revenue estimates may change significantly based on decisions made in the
Comprehensive Plan process. These projections can be compared in total to see if the list of
projects is reasonable in total. These projections must also be compared from a timing
perspective to see if the projects can be adequately cashflowed,
The figures developed for this report rely heavily on a great nurnber of assumptions regarding
land costs, land donation vs. fee collection, park dedication fee amounts, inflation, ul.ti.m.ate land
use, community needs and others. In general we feel the report is fairly accurate with the
understanding that the margin of error is potentially in the $1,000,000 plus range.
3. DISCUSSION:
Expenditures
The list of potential projects (Attachment I) includes items already contained in the CIP (bold.) as
well as items which were omitted from the CIP due to timing or cost considerations. The items
contained in the CIP are poJ ected to cost approximately $5,150,000 and it is projected thal these
items can be adequately financed with Rinds on hand; plus projected park dedication fees
received in the next five year period.
The other projects on the list include: development costs for six neighborhood parks (the
assumption is that the land — approximately 40 acres - will be donated); additional cost for
acquisition of the 10"' playfield due to rising land prices; possible acquisition of an additional 20
acres for the 10"' playfield; development of 15 miles of trails; acquisition of approximately 23
acres of land for the Northwest Greenway Corridor (it is assumed that about 30 acres of trail
corriclor will be donated); development of the Northwest Greenway Corridor; l Ota' playfield
development; West Med Park building; Parker's Lake pavilion upgrade; Zachary Park program
building; skate park; and tennis dome. In total, this list represents projects with a cumulative
total cost of $38 million.
Revenues
Attachment II, which projects park dedication fee revenues, consists of three separate tables
illustrating three separate scenarios. The first scenario is based on the Metropolitan Council's
estimates on household growth for the City of Plymouth. The Met Council projects that
Plymouth will add 6,000 households between 2005 and 2030 with specific targets in 2010 and
2020. Based on this information, a computation of land donation vs. fee revenues, and a
projection of fee increases, the first scenario estimates revenues of $5.3 million by 2010, $22.5
million by 2020 and $45.6 million by 2030. If this scenario is correct the City would receive
more than enough revenue from the Park Dedication Fund to eventually pay for all the items in
the. Potential Parks Projects list.
The, second scenario reflects what could potentially happen if the City of Plymouth chooses to
develop as a lower density than desired by the Met Council. This scenario projects a total of
5,000 new households by 2030. Based on this information; the second scenario estimates
revenues of $3.3 million by 2010, .Six %.8 million by 2020, and $36.8 million by 2030. If this
scenario is correct the City would receive just about enough revenue fi-orn the Park Dedication
Fund to pay for all the items in the Potential Park Projects list.
The third scenario reflects what could happen if the City of Plymouth chooses to develop at an
even lower density. This scenario projects a total of 4,000 new households by 2030. Based on
0.1is information, the third scenario estimates revenues of $2.3 million by 2010_ $14 trillion by
2020, arld $26.4 million by 2030. If this scenario is correct. the City would not receive enough
revenue from the Park Dedication .Fund to pay for all the items on the Potential Park Projects List..
All of these scenarios are greatly affected by a number of assumptions. One of the primary
assumptions is the park dedication fee. Currently, the fee is $4,000 per unit for residential
property. Several other communities have fees that are considerably higher than $4;000. In
a.d.diti.on, a model based on land costs of $150,000 per acre and 6.,000 new Linits suggests 'that a
fee of up to $6,400 could be. just.i.:6ed. When the model is run based on land costs of $200.000
per acre and 4,000 new units it suggests that a fee of up to $9,300 could be justified. The
Council may wish to become more aggressive in raising park dedication fees which would
greatly impact the amount of revenues that would be received.
Cashilows
For the :most part, development costs are assumed to increase at the rate of inflation (3%). Land
costs are quite another matter. Raw land prices in Plymouth have increased dramatically over the
years. The attached table (Attachment III) shows the escalation of land prices since 1969. From
1969 to 2005 land prices have gone up an average of 13% per year. However, there has been a
recent spike in land prices both inside and outside the MUSA area, and in adjacent areas such as
Maple Grove. Land speculation by developers who believe that development will be allowed in
NW Plymouth, as a result of Comprehensive Plan modifications, is well underway. Any actual
change in the Comprehensive Plan may cause land values to shoot even higher. To provide some
perspective; land is currently going for over $300,000 per acre in Maple Grove for property that
is served by sewer and water. Other areas of Plymouth are seeing % acre lots served by streets
and utilities going for nearly $500,000.
Given the rapidly increasing price of land, it is clear that land acquisition should be a priority, if
the City does desire to add a 10"' Playfield and create a Northwest Greenway Corridor. On the
bottom of attachment I there is a breakout entitled "Select Land Acquisition". This breaks out
the cost of land acquisition for the 10`x' Playfield (40 acres only) plus the N orthwest Greenway.
The cost per acre for the 10"' Playfield has been held at $200,000 per acre since negotiations are
currently underway. The cost of land for the Northwest Greenway has been inflated from the
current price of -1200,000 per acre by 15% per year and is projected to be acquired in 2007, 2008,
and 2009. In total, it is estimated that it will cost approximately $14,000,000 to acquire the 10"'
Playfield and Northwest Greenway. Of this amount, $4,000,000 is already programmed into the
CIP and is funded by monies currently in the Capital Improvement Fund., Community
Improvement Fund, and Park Dedication Fund, as well as park dedi.catiori proceeds that will
hopefully be received over the next 5 years. This leaves a shortfall of approximately
10,000,000 if only land, and the other items contained in the CIP, are done in the 2006-2010
timeframe.
Alternatives
To solve this casllflow issue the City has only a few alternatives. Most available reserves have
already been spoken for which leads to the conclusion that some form of debt must be utilized.
There are two reasonable debt alternatives for the acquisition of the 1 Ot" Playfield and Northwest
Greenway: 1) General Obligation debt backed by a tax levy on the taxable market value of the
City (requires referendum), and 2) Amzual Appropriation Lease Revenue Bor,)cl.s backed by future
park cled.ication fees (does not require a referendum).
The single most important consideration when evaluating these two alteraa.tives is to answer the
question of who should be paying to support the debt service (and ultirFlLenly the land purchase).
There arc several items to consider including: who will use the facilities. historical precedents,
and th.e. purpose of fees being collected.
When evELI uating the 10'x' Playfield we would argue that this facility is prinnari.ly requirecl to serve
the new residents who will be moving into NW Plymouth as it develops. Consequently, it would
seem reasonable that the new residents should pay for that facility with the park dedication fees
that they generate vs. usage of a general tax leery paid for by all residents. including those who
have Lillead-v paid for playfrelds located in ether areas of the community. Park dedication fees are
authorized for the. acquisition; development and expansion of park facilities necessary to serve
new developr.erit. Therefore, use of these fees to acquire the 10"' Playfield would seer to be a
hood fit.
When evaluating the NW Greenway we would argue that this is primarily open space that
benefits the cormnunity as a whole. Consequently; the acquisition of this property should be paid
for by the City as a whole. This has been the City's past practice. The last time the City acquired
open space it was paid for by 512,235,000 of GO bonds issued in 1995.
When malting the. decision to issue debt, the City must remain cognizant that this will likely not
be the only debt 'that will be issued by the City in the not too distant future. It is likely that the
City may have to issue some debt for future street reconstruction projects. a fourth fire station,
and reconstructioiAxpsuision of streets such as Vicksburg Lane, CR 47, grid possibly others.
Summar),
If the City desires to acquire land for a 10"' Playf eld and NW Greenway in the near future it may
make sense to issue two separate bond issues. The first would be an Annual Appropriation Lease
Revenue Bond for the 10t"
Playfield. This would enable the City to use future park dedication
fees to pay for the purchase of the property. If a portion of the fiords currently earmarked for use
in the purchase of the 10"' playfield were used, the bond issue could be bought down to
approximately $6.,000,000. The remainder of the proceeds could be transferred into the Park
Dedication Fund to cashflow debt service and other park dedication funded projects. Two
examples of cashflows are attached (see Attachment IV).
If this option is a.cceptable it could be clone fairly quickly without waiting for a referendum in
November of this year. This could result in more favorable sales terms.
The second bond issue would be a General. Obligation bond issue for purchase of't:h.e. portion of
the NW Greeriway not likely to be acquired through land dedication. It has been the City's past
practice to purchase open space with GO issues which results in the spreading of the cost. on all
taxable market va.l.uein the City. If a GO bond is pursued, it would require that the horn be
placed on the, ballot as a referendum question at either the November, 2006 or 2007 general
elections. The clai.e for notification of the County for intent to place an itei.-n on the ballot is
September 15 of each year.
If a GO bored `xlerct issued for the approximately $6,000,000 cost of acquiring the NIA/ Gre.enway
Corridor. it would result in an annual levy of $123.1 /1 for an average valued home of 4356,200
see Attach ricial V). This would be at least pau-tially offset by the maturity of the cun'ent open
space bond which matua,es in 2010. This maturity will free up approximately $10.77 of levy
from the average valu.ed home for other uses (which may not be parks related).
4. BUDGET IJAPA.CT:
Any action taken to increase the authorized costs or change funding sources for acquisition of the
10°i Play -field and NW Greenway will require an amendment to the 2006-2010 CIP.
4
5. 12E C O MIMEN D AAT1 ON:
The scope and funding of future purl: system projects is a cotnpltx issue with potential lone -tern
ramifications. Due to market conditions, and deadlines for submission of ballot referendum
questions, it is important that staff receive some timely direction on which course(s) of action to
pursue to ensure the future that the City Council desires. Consequently, staff would reconuntrld
that the City Council place the issue of future park projects and financing on a future study
session agenda for more detailed analysis and consideration.
Attachment I
Potential Park Projects - 2006 to 2020
Inflation - Land 15.00%
Inflation Development 3.00%
Item Funding Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
NW Greenway -Acquisition Capital Improvement 350,000
10th Playfield -Acquisition Community Improvement .::*.7.50.,0.00.. ; :500 000- 750;000 ;:250;000
10th Playfield -Acquisition Capital Improvement ::. ;250;000
Current CIP - Other Funds
10th Playfield -Acquisition Park Dedication 750 000 -:.250,000': 250;000 250;000NewTrailsParkDedication " 75 000:::: 75;000 75;000 100 000 <110,000.
Transfer to Park Replacement Fund Park Dedication .:::50.000:*:*.:: 50 000; 50;000 .100.000:.108 000
Current CIP - Park Dedication Fund
Neighborhood Park - Development (1)
Neighborhood Park - Development (2)
Neighborhood Park - Development (3)
Neighborhood Park - Development (4)
Neighborhood Park - Development (5)
Neighborhood Park - Development (6)
Cost Increase - 10th Playfield - Acquisition ($200,000 per acre)
10th Playfield - Acquisition - Extra 20 acres ($200,000 per acre)
Additional Trails - Development (Total 15 Miles) ($100,000 mile)
NW Greenway - Acquisition (23 acres - majority donated)
NW Greenway - Development (2 miles paved) (underpasses - Vicksburg & Cheshire)
10th Playfield Development (estimated current cost $6,000,000)
West Med Park Building (estimated current cost $2,000,000)
Parker's Lake Pavilion Upgrade (estimated current cost $500,000)
Zachary Park Program Building (estimated current cost $1,000,000)
Skate Park (estimated current cost $350,000)
Tennis Dome (estimated current cost $750,000) (Could potentially pay itself back)
Total
Cumulative Total
Park Dedication Total
Cumulative Park Dedication Total
Select Land Acquisition
10th Playfield - Acquisition - 40 Acres ($200,000 per acre)
NW Greenway - Acquisition (23 acres - majority donated)
Items Included in Park Dedication Cashflow Projection
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Park Dedication
Loan
325;000:
1::344;7,93.
b00 000 ::1 000;000: 1 000.;000 1 000,OOb
2,645,000 3,041,750
1,763,333 2,027,833 2,332,008
388.;067
411.700
A36773
2020 Total Sub -Total
350,000
2,250,000
250,000
2,850,000
435,000
358,000
2,293,000
173;891 1.79,108: 1.84 481 ]90;0]6 :1:95 716 201;587 207;635'.:,.:.21:3:.864.220;280 226;888
874,503
3,477,822 3,582,157
2,251,018
597,026
1,229, 874
371,315
869,456
2,975,000 4,213,333 7,169,148 7,418,550 3,343,521 4,886,959 4,358,291 1,802,422 190,016 607,416 201,587 644,408 213,864 220,280 226,888
7,188,333 14,357,481 21,776,031 25,119,552 30,006,511 34,364,802 36,167,224 36,357,240 36,964,656 37,166,243 37,810,651 38,024,515 38,244,795 38,471,684
1,875,000 3,463,333 6,419,148 7,168,550 3,343,521 4,886,959 4,358,291 1,802,422 190,016 607,416 201,587 644,408 213,864 220,280 226,888
5,338,333 11,757,481 18,926,031 22,269,552 27,156,51.1 31,514,802 33,317,224 33,507,240 34,114,656 34,316,243 34,960,651 35,174,515 35,394,795 35,621,684
2,500,000 1,750,000 2,250,000 1,500,000
1,763,333 2,027,833 2,332,008
325,000
344,793
365,790
388,067
411,700
436,773
4,000,000
5,686,750
1;993,467
6,123,174
874,503
7,059,979
2,251, 018
597,026
1,229,874
371,315
869,456
38,471,684
35, 621,684
8,000,000
6,123,174
14,123,174
Already Funded - CIP -4.000.000
10,123,174
Attachment II
Park Dedication Fee Projections
Based on Current Met Council Household Estimates
Current Met Council Household Estimates Increase From 2005
2004 27,206
Fee Increase (2006-2015)
2005 27,500
2010 29,000 1,500
2020 31,500 4,000
2030 33,500 6,000
D:V ccountino\WRICSFITS\Mltohn\comp PlanNfFuture Park Dedication Fees.xls]Mel Council Estimates
Fee Increase (2006-2015) 1.1
Fee Increase (2016-2030) 1.05
Cumulative
Year Annual Total Percent Land Park Dedication Fee Revenues Revenues
2006 300 7,800 0. 2 Tl 7 x,000 873,960
2007 300 28,100 0.2717 4,400 961,356
2008 300 28,400 0.2717 4,840 1,057,492
2009 300 28,700 0.2717 5,324 1,163,241
2010 300 29,000 0.2717 5,856 1,279,565 5,335,613
2011 250 29,250 0.2717 6,442 1,172,934
2012 250 29,500 0.2717 7,086 1,290;228
2013 250 29,750 0.2717 7,795 1,419,251
2014 250 30,000 0.2717 8,574 1,561,176
2015 250 30,250 0.2717 9,432 1,717,293
2016 250 30,500 0.2717 9,903 1,803,156
2017 250 30,750 0.2717 10,399 1,893,316
2018 250 31,000 0.2717 10,918 1,987,982
2019 250 31,250 0.2717 11,464 2,087,381
2020 250 31,500 0.2717 12,038 2,191,750 22,460,08'1
2021 200 31,700 0.2717 12,640 1,841,070
2022 200 31,900 0.2717 13,271 1,933,123
2023 200 32,100 0.2717 13,935 2,029,779
2024 200 32,300 0.2717 14,632 2,131,268
2025 200 32,500 0.2717 15,363 2,237,832
2026 200 32,700 0,2717 16,132 2,349,723
2027 2.00 32,900 0.2717 16,938 2,467,210
2028 200 33;100 0.2717 17,705 2,590,570
2029 200 33,300 0.2717 10,674 2,720,099
2030 200 33,500 0.2717 19,808 2.856,104 45,616,860
D:V ccountino\WRICSFITS\Mltohn\comp PlanNfFuture Park Dedication Fees.xls]Mel Council Estimates
Park Dedication Fee Projections
Based on 5,000 New Housing Units
5.000 New Units IncreaseFroni 2005
2004 27,206
2005 27,500
2010 28,500 1;000
2020 30,750 3,250
2030 32,500 5,000
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
202:;
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Annual Total
200 27,700
200 27,900
200 28,100
200 28,300
200 28,500
225 28,725
225 28,950
225 29,175
225 29,400
225 29,625
225 29,850
225 30,075
225 30,300
225 , 30,525
225 30,750
175 30,925
175 31,100
175 3'1,275
175 31,450
175 31,625
175 31,800
175 31,975
175 32,150
175 32,325
175 32,500
Fee Increase (2006-2015)
Fee. Increase (2016-2030)
Percent Land
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3'166
0.3'166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3'166
0.3166
0.3'166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
0.3166
Attachment II
Park Dedication Fee
4,000
4,400
4,840
5,324
5,856
6,442
7,086
7,795
8,574
9,432
9,903
10,399
10,918
11,464
12,038
12,640
13,271
13,935
14,632
15,363
16,132
16,938
17,785
18,674
19,608
U:\Accouniing\WR KSI-ITS\Mkohn\Comp Plan\[Fulure Part,, Dedication Fees.xls)5000 New Units
Cumulative
Revenues Revenues
516,720
60'1,392
661,531
727,684
800,453 3,337,780
990,560
1,089,616
1,198,578
1,318,436
1,450,279
1,522,793
1,598,933
1,678,880
1,762,824
1,850,965 '17,799,644
1,511,621
1,587,202
1,666,562
1,749,890
1,037,385
1,9'29,254
x,025,717
2,127,003
2,2K,353
2,345,021 36,B1 2,653
Park Dedication Fee Projections
Based on 4,000 New Housing Units
4,000 New Units Increase From 2005
2004 2.7,206
2005 2/,500
2010 28,250 750
2020 30,250 2,750
2030 31,500 4,000
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
20'17
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Annual Total
150 27,650
150 27,800
150 27,950
150 28,100
150 26,250
200 28,450
200 28,650
200 28,850
200 29,050
200 29,250
200 29,450
200 29,650
200 29,850
200 30,050
200 30,250
125 30,375
125 30,500
125 30,625
125 30,750
125, 30,875
125 31,000
125 31,125
125 3'1,250
125 31,375
125 31,500
Fee Increase (2006-2015)
Fee Increase (2016-2030)
Percent Land
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
0.3755
Atiachrrr-.n: II
Park Dedication Fee
4,000
4,400
4,840
5,324
5,856
6,442
7,086
7,795
8,574
9,432
9,903
10,399
10,9'18
11,464
1'2,038
12,640
1.',.27'1
13,935
14,632.
15,363
16,132
i6,938
i7,785
18,674
19,608
0AAccounil ng\WRKSFiTSVARot n\Comp Plan\[Future Park Dedication Fees.xls14000 New Units
Cum ulative
Revenues Revenues
374,700
412,170
453,387
498,726
548,598 2,267,581
604,611
885,072
973,579
1,070,937
1,178,031
1,236,932
1,zse,779
1,363,718
1,431,904
1,503,499 14,034 , 642.
986,671
1,036,005
1,087,805
1,142,195
1,199,305
1,259,270
1,32^_,234
1,38B,345
1,457,763
1,530,651 26,444 , 885
Attachment III
Raw Land Prices o PlYM Lith
Year Actuals 10.23% 10..23% 13.7'2% 17.71% 15.81% 21.64°/,, Cost Per Acre 13.001/
1969 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
1970 2,425 2,425 2,486
1971 2,673 2,673 2,809
1972 2,946 2,946 3,974
1973 3,248 3,248 3,587
1974 3,580 3,580 4,053
1975 3,946 3,946 4,580
1976 4,349 4,349 5,176
1977 4,794 4,794 5,849
1978 5,284 5,284 6,609
1979 5,825 5,825 7,468
1980 6,420 6,420 8,439
1981 7,077 7,077 9,536
1982 7,800 7,800 7800 7,800 10,776
1983 8,598 8,598 12,176
1984 9,477 9,477 13,759
1985 10,447 10,447 15,548
1986 1'1,515 11,515 17,569
1987 12,693 12,693 19,853
1988 13,992. 13,992 22,434
1989 15,423 15,423 25,35'1
1990 17,000 17,000 17000 17,000 28,646
1991 i 9,332 19;332 32,370
1992 21,984 21,984 36,579
1993 25,000 25,000 25000 25,000 41,334
1994 29,428 29,428 46,707
1995 34,641 34,641 52,779
1996 40,777 40,777 59,640
1997 48,000 48,000 48000 48,000 67,394
1998 55,590 55,590 76,155
1999 64,379 64,379 8G,05!:
2000 74,558 74,558 97,242
2001 86,347 86,347 109,884
2002 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 124,168
2003 121,644 121,644 140,310
2004 147,973 147,973 158,551
2005 180,000 180,000 180,000 179,162..
Raw Land Pares In Plymouth 1969-Presen!.xl:
3/7/2006
Attachment. 1\/
Park Dedication Fund
6 Million Dollar - 15 Year Bond Issue
Year
Beginning
Cash Balance
Park Dell
Fees
Capital
Expenditures Debi Service Interest
Ending
Cash Balance
3006 3;970,000 598,775 2,125,000 113,241 556,016
2001 2,556,016 2497348 450,000 558,682 81,613 1,878,295
200 1,878,295 274,2$_5 125,00(1 558.682 66,944 1.535,840
2009 1,535,540 567,911 541.79; 558,682 57,063 1,057,339
2010 1,057,339 439,200 218,000 558,682 44,430 764,286
2011 764,386 804;6! 1 539.681 558,682 30,871 501,401
2012 501,405 885,072 179,108 558,682 28,752 677,439
2013 677,439 973,579 572,548 558,652 39,931 149.719
3014 549,719 1,070,937 190,016 558.682 35,542 907,500
20 15 907,500 1,178,031 607:416 558.682 45,673 965,106
2016 965,106 1236:932 20 1..587 558,682 60,172 1,501,9zi1
3017 1,501,941 1,298,779 644.408 558.682 77.459 1,675.119
A I b, 1,675,119 1,36.3,7 18 21 1.864 558,682 98,5:; 2,364.827
201c) 3„364,837 1,4;1,904 220.280 558,682 13 4,565 3.152.334.
2020 3,152,334 L503.499 326,888 558,682 175,565 11.045,827
20_' 1 4.04 .x,275.9bG.G71 5(,.68'2 212'.«x) l 4.686.1,05
lneludes: transfer in oFS2,500,000 oi'Capital Iniproverncnt Punct and Conununil; lrriprovement i,und
money. 7;2,000,000 cash expenditure on 10th I'lu field in 2006. all items currently in CIP,
clev(dopment oi'6 additional neighborhood jwirlcs. clevelopmeni o1.15 mile; of addilJonal trails.
Pari; 6,tchcation Pecs revenues based on cicl.ailuo projec;tiou through 2010 and 4.000 I-10115in-l'. unit
projection 101- future years.
Attachment IV
Park Dedication Fund
S6 Million Dollar - 20 Year Bond Issue
Year
Beginning
Cush Balance
Park Ded
Hees
C:"tpital
Expenditures Debt Service interest
Ending
Cash Balance
2006 3,970,000 598,775 2,125;000 112,241 3,556,(116
2007 2,556,016 249,348 450,000 4717302 83,251 1,967,314
2008 1,967,314 2721.283 125,000 471,302 72,252 1,717,5217
2009 1,717,547 567,911 544,793 471,302 67,205 1,336,568
2010 1,336,568 439,200 218,000 471,302 60,576 1,147.042
20.1:1 1,147,04' 804,611 539,681. 471,302 53,193 992.863
2012 993,863 885,072 179,108 471,302 55,510 1?83,034
2013 1,283,034 973,579 572,548 471,302 62,397 1.275,158
2014 t,275,158 1,070,937 190,016 471,302 73,998 1,758,770
2015 1,758,776 1,178,031 607,416 4717302 90,423 1,i48,51t
2016 1,948,510 1,236,932 201..:58"/ 471,302 111,527 2,624.,08()
2017 2,624,080 1298.779 644..401; 471.302 135,781 2,Qz1'-1.930
2018 2,94',930 1,363.718 213,804 1171.302 164,110 3.785,592
2019 3,785,592 1,4;1,004 220,280 471,302 207,78& 4.73:,.70;
2020 4,733,702 1,503.499 226,M,, 471,302 256,818 5,795782y
2021 5.795,829 98(1.671 471.303 302,676 6.613.87?
includes: transfer in 01 12,500,000 of Capital Improvement FL111CI alld Collltllt11141 1 lmprovenleul J=ut),
money. $2.000,000 cash expenditure on 101:1-j PlayJield in 2006. all items currently ill C1P,
de.velopment of 6 additional neighborhood liana. developnlenl of* 15 miles of additional trails.
Par]; dedication fees revenues based on detailed projection throw=h 2010 and 4.000 110tI5I112unit
projection Jbr future years.
Attachment V
Debt Service on 15 Year Bored Issue For Parks
Optionsdons 5,000,000 6,000.000 7,000,000 8,000:000 9,000,000 10,000,000
4.5001-0 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%
15 15 15 15 15 15
465,569.04 558,682.85 651,796.66 744,910.46 838,024.27 931,138.08
Effect on Average Home
Referendum Market Value $8.598,255.800
Market Value Rate 0.054146917 0.0649763 0.075805683 0.086635067 0.09746445 0.108293833
Annual Levy on $356,200 Home 19.29 23.14 27.00 30.86 34.72 38.57
J
DATE: April 7, 2006
TO: Mayor & Council -'
ice
FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks & Recreation h w
SUBJECT: Follow-up Information from March 21 Council Work Session on
Parks.
Mike Kohn has put together a packet of information answering many of the questions
that were raised at the study session on parks two weeks ago. One of the questions had to
do with the number of teams and percentage of players participating in youth athletic
associations. Those statistics, are attached in the report. When reviewing this
information, please keep in mind that Plymouth both imports players to our community
and exports players to surrounding communities. All of the athletic associations that are
parent -run use their school district boundary, ie. Wayzata, Hopkins, or Robbinsdale, as
the official attendance boundary for their athletic associations. Thus, you have many
cities in each of these districts supplying children to each of the athletic associations.
You also have a number of cities providing facilities to these athletic assocations, not just
Plymouth. Keep in mind that we allocate our facilities based on the number of Plymouth
kids to each athletic association, not the total it uliber of kids playing.
I was also asked to talk to the Wayzata School District about the plans at their elementary
school site on County Road 47. I spoke by phone with their business manager, Alan
Hopeman. Alan indicated that the disctrict has no plans at this time to build another
elementary school. However, their plaruiing only goes out about five years, and he
certainly would leave the door open for something to change that they are not anticipating
at tliis time. IIe felt confident that as we have at other locations, we could work out some
type of a lease/use agreement of their property as long as we understood that they may
still need it for district needs some time in the future. A very quick review of their site,
then, would indicate that of the 20 acres they own, it might be possible for us to use in a
range of 8-12 acres of this site for athletics. He did not feel at this time that they would
be in a position to sell the site to the city. It was also brought up at the meeting about the
property owned by Speak the Word Church. After a recent council meeting, their facility
and property manager; Reginald Cammon, and I briefly discussed this. I told Mr.
Cammon what our needs and our interests were and gave him a business card. He
indicated that they would think about this issue and get back to me as soon as possible.
The last issue was the possibility of purchasing property in another community. Because
I was on vacation this past week, I have not had a lot opportunity to pursue this issue. I
will follow up on this issue as time permits. I think Medina is probably a more likely
joint powers candidate than the City of Corcoran. If there is any other information the
Council would like us to research, please send us an e-mail, and Mike and I would be
happy to provide any additional inforuciation in which you would be interested.
EB/ds
enclosures
Park Dedication Fees Sample - March 2006
Maple Grove (Single -Family)
Eden Prairie (Single -Family)
Apple Valley (Single -Family)
Bloomington (Single -Family)
Plymouth (Max Per Unit)
Prior Lake (Single -Family)
Brooklyn Park (Single -Family)
Medina (Single Family)
Burnsville (Single -Family)
Woodbury (Single -Family)
Wayzata (Single -Family)
Minnetonka (Single -Family)
New Hope (Single -Family)
Golden Valley (Single -Family)
2005 2006
4,000 5,500
3,400 5,000
4,584 4,584
4,800 5,400
3,400 4,000
3,750 3,750
3,400 3,600
3,500 to $8,000
2,288 2,860
2,000 2,500
2,500
2,375 2,375
1,500
1,000
Basecl on 8% of land value
0:\Accounting\WRKSHTS\Mkohn\Comp Plan\[Park Dedication Fees Sample - March 2006.x1s]Sheetl
2005 Field Usage
Numbers of Teams & Players
Organization Teams Players Plymouth Player
Summer Soccer
PSA 200 2,552 75%
Wings 104 1,575 48%
WSC 30 300 70%
Adult 4 77 43%
ix u......:: '. _.x.MN .. a:r .......:.: . w «a __.,.... u.„a x.. ..a...t a..n.. ...._..,_.. E
Fall Soccer
PSA 33 450 75%
Wings 32 437 44%
WSC 11 160 69%
Park & Rec 91 874 77%
Fall Football
Wayzata Youth Football 38 697 71%
Armstrong/Cooper 20 320 27%
OMGFA Flag 12 140 18%
Park & Rec Flag 12 124 70%
Adult 4 -Man 12 96 48%
Summer Baseball
PWYBA 120 1,400 85%
RAYB 26 350 22%
PNHLL 26 334 65%
OMGBA 7 84 23%
Park & Rec Evening 6 96 88%
AALI 1 12 58%
Adult 1 12 50%
Fall Baseball
PWYBA 17 204 83%
RAYB 1 13 57%
PNHLL 6 72 66%
5....
Summer Softball
PWYSB 25 295 75%
Cooper/Armstrong 1 14 57%
OMGSB 3 40 30%
Adaptive 4 52 48%
Adult 96 1,381 52%
Fall Softbal}
Cooper/Armstrong 1 13 38%
PWYSB 8 104 73%
Osseo/Maple Grove 3 40 30%
Adult 46 557 57%
Spring Rugby
Armstrong Boys Club
Armstrong Girls Club 1 21 62%
Wayzata Boys Club 2 47 66%
Wayzata Girls Club 2 8175%
SpringLacrosse
Armstrong Boys Club 3 65 50%
Armstrong Girls Club/ Var. 2 35 48%
Wayzata Boys Club 3 66 61%
Wayzata Youth Girls 3 23 83%
Wayzata Girls ClubNar. 1 23 65%
Summer Lacrosse
Armstrong/Cooper Boys 3 56 50%
Armstrong/Cooper Girls
ayzata Youth Boys 6 145 74%
Park & Rec Leagues 4 48 86%
Spring Ultimate Frisbee
1 25 44% Armstrong Boys Club
Wayzata Boys Club 1 21 73%
TOTALS 1,029 13,531 o64 /0
DATE: March 24, 2006
T0: Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
FROM: Mike Kohn, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: Increase in Park Dedication Fees
Per the information contained on the attached "Park Dedication Fee Fact Sheet" it
appears that the City of Plymouth could justify a higher maximum per-unit park
dedication fee. Land values of $200,000 per acre could justify as maximmn fee of
11,346 per unit for single-family detached housing units. In addition, several other
communities are leading the way in terms of setting the standard for fees acceptable to
the market. Maple Grove currently has their fee set at $5,500. Eden Prairie has its fee set
at $5,000.
While Plymouth would have a hard time gaining acceptance of a fee of $11,000, it is not
unreasonable to join the ranks of other similar communities by raising our fee from
4,000 to $5,000. This could be done by ordinance at anytime this year. However, a
logical break would be to make it effective for the last 6 months of the year. Per state
statiute the raid -year increase would not apply to applications for final approval that have
been submitted to the City.
If the City were to adopt a fee increase to be effective 7/1/06 it would have to be placed
on the Council agenda for the meeting of June 27t" at the latest.
Park Dedication Fee fact Sheet
By statute, cities "...may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the
public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreation
facilities... playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space...". Statute also states that a ..."municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to
be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land...".
In order to follow the statute, the City of Plymouth developed a formula for park dedication fees based on
a benchmark of land per capita and market value for the land. Based on the 2000 Comprehensive Plan,
the City determined that existing parkland and open space amounted to .0183 acres per capita. This
amount was adopted as the standard for future park land need, and has since been utilized to determine the
amount of land that should be required for donation, or the required cash fee in lieu of land.
The pari: dedication fee (currently $4,000 maximum per dwelling Lunt) paid in each development may
vary. Different housing types have different average household sizes. Single family detached dwellings
are estimated to average 3.1 persons per unit. Duplexes and townhomes are estimated to average 2
persons per unit. Multi -family dwellings are estimated to average 1.9 persons per unit. The total
expected population in each development is multiplied by the per capita share (.0183) to determine how
much land is required. The resulting number - the acres of land required for that development - is then
multiplied by the current land value to determine the maximum cash donation in lieu of land, up to the
maximum amountt per unit established by the City (currently $4,000). The following table shows several
examples of the maxim -am per unit fee for various housing types and land values if the $4,000 maximum
were not in existence:
Maximum Potential Fee
5,673
3,477
11,346
6,954
17,019
10,431
Since land prices are now in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, it is clear that the City can justify a higher
rate than $4,000 based on the need for park land. created by residential development.. however, there is
the practical consideration of how much the market will consider generally acceptable. The following is a
list of pari: dedication fees for Plymouth and other cities:
Land Value
Single Family 100,000 per acre
Multi -Family 100,000 per acre
Single Family 200,000 per acre
Multi -Family 200,000 per acre
Single Family 300,000 per acre
Multi -Family 300,000 per acre
Maximum Potential Fee
5,673
3,477
11,346
6,954
17,019
10,431
Since land prices are now in the $200,000 to $300,000 range, it is clear that the City can justify a higher
rate than $4,000 based on the need for park land. created by residential development.. however, there is
the practical consideration of how much the market will consider generally acceptable. The following is a
list of pari: dedication fees for Plymouth and other cities:
2005 2006
Maple Grove (Single -Family) 4,000 5,500
Edell Prairie (Single -Family) 3,400 5,000
Apple Valley (Single -Family) 4,584 4,584
Bloomington (Single -Family) 4,800 5,400
Plymouth (Max Per Unit) 3,400 4,000
Prior Lake (Single -Family) 3,750 3,750
Brooklyn Park (Single -Family) 3,400 3,600
Burnsville (Single -Family) 2,288 2,860
Woodbury (Single -Family) 2,000 2,500
DATE: March 24, 2006
TO: Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
FROM: Mike I olu1, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: Community Improvement Fund
The Community Improvement Fund was created from the arbitrage, and other surplus
monies, from various special assessment bond fiu7ds. In the past it has been used. to
finance items such as the following:
Development of the Bass Lake playfield
Development of the Parker's Lake playfield
Construction of the public safety building
Public safety building expansion
PW building expansion
Currently, the Community Improvement Fund has a cash balance of approximately
6,950,000. The 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan anticipates the expenditure of an
additional $2,323,000 for acquisition of a 10`x'
playfield and small portions of railroad
crossing improvements. If all projects are clone as planned, this would bring the cash
balance down to around $5,500,000 by 2008. It has been the policy of the City to
maintain a cash balance of at least $5,000,000 in the Community Improvement Fund for
emergencies or other unique opportunities Chat may arise. There are other potential
projects \Alhich could be funded fiom this source, such as a 4`l' fire station.
Use of funds from the Community Improvement Fund is regulated by the City Charter
and is reflected in the City Code. A copy of the code is attached for your review.
Section 321 - Cominunity Improvement Fund Page 1 of 2
Section 321 - Community Improvement Fund
321.01. Establishment of Fund. Pursuant to City Charter Chapter 7, Section 7.14, there is
established a field to be Imown as "Community Improvement Fund."
321.03. Allocation of Monies to Fund. There shall be accumulated in such Community
Improvement Fund (1) surplus money from the various special assessment funds that remain after the
costs of each improvement project have been frilly funded and bonds issued for the project paid or
defeased, and which money has not been transferred to another separate improvement fiend, (2)
collections of special assessments received after an improvement project has been fully funded and
bonds issued for the project paid or defeased, (3) investment earnings generated by the money in the
fiend, (4) any other money appropriated by the Council or donated to the City for the purposes of the
fiend.
32.1.05. Use of Fund. Subdivision 1. Generally_. The Community Improvement Fund. shall be
used only when all of the following are met:
a) The project has sufficient community wide benefit as determined by its intended uses,
addresses a community need or problem, and is consistent with other City goals,
programs and policies.
b) The expenditure for the project is for an item of a capital nature.
c) The Council has conducted a public hearing on the project.
d) There has been an estimate prepared outlining the operating expenses and proposed
funding sources for the project for a five year period.
e) Expenditures for a project in excess of three million dollars have been approved. by a
majority of the votes cast in a regular or special election.
Subd. 2. Expenditures requiring 5/7ths Council Approval. Upon meeting the requirements of
Subdivision 1, expenditures from the Community Improvement Fund shall require at least five
affirmative votes of the Council, but shall not require voter approval, if the expenditure is for a project
that has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for at least the current year or is declared to
be an emergency, e.g., an "Act of God" as that term is defined by generally accepted business general
liability insurance policies, and does not exceed three million dollars for any site or project location.
Subd. 3. Expenditures requiring Majority Council Approval. Upon meeting the requirements of
Subdivision 1, expenditures from the Community Improvement Fund shall require a simple majority
votes of the Council, but shall not require voter approval, if the expenditure:
a) is for a project that has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for at least
two years;
1-itti)://www2.cl.nlvmouth.=.us/pts/con/docs/FOLDER/CIT'Y GOV/CG CODE/CODE ... 3/24/2006
Section 321 - Community Improvement Fund Page 2 of 2
Plymouth City Code 321.05, Subd. 3(b)
b) is a loan from the Community Improvement Fund and must be repaid or is made with the
condition that no further expenditures from the Community Improvement Fund shall be
made until the principal is repaid plus ten percent of the investment earnings that would
have been generated on the principal at the previous amount; and
c) expends a total amount of principal not to exceed an amount equal to the Community
Improvement Fund's investment earnings from the previous two calendar years prior to
the expenditure, not to exceed three million dollars for any site or project location.
Ord. 94-9, 5/16/94)
http://wvvu72.ci.plymouth.mn.us/pls/cop/docs/FOLDER/CITY GO -\//CG CODE/CODE ... 3/24/2006
MAP PROP ID # SELLER BUYER SALE SALE GROSS ACRE
DATE PRICE ACRES
1 04-22-0001 Seaburg Lundgren Bros. 12/3/2004 3,000,000 20.47 146,556
2 04-23-0001 Scherber Lundgren Bros. 5/4/2005 5,014,162 32.25 155,478
Part of)
3 04-31-0007 Lavedure Plymouth 12/29/2005 1,700,000 4.98 341,365
Development
4 04-34-0001 Hampton Hills Hampton Hills 12/31/2004 9,000,000 146.42 61,467
04-43-0003 Development
09-11-0001
09-21-0001
5 04-43-0010 Leeper Hampton Hills 1/6/2006 300,840 5.20 57,854
Investment
6 04-43-0011 Leeper Hampton Hills 1/4/2005 1,446,600 12.05 120,050
Development
7 06-13-0005 Lundgren Bros. Scherber Investment 5/4/2005 2,864,048 51.27 55,862
8 06-22-0003 Smith Estate MCM Rand 12/8/2004 2,600,000 27.25 95,413
9 07-22-0003 Bendickson Charles Cudd 7/15/2005 1,637,437 21.54 76,018
10 07-22-0003 Charles Cudd Scherber Investment 7/15/2005 2,478,200 21.54 115,051
11 04-31-0008 Brown Plymouth 10/14/05 1,150,000 5.00 230,000
Development
DATE: March 24, 2006
TO: Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director
FROM: Mile ILohn, Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: Referendum Dates and Considerations
The City could place an item on the ballot authorizing issuance of general obligation debt
at either the November, 2006 or November, 2007 general elections. The date for
notification of the County for intent to place an item on the ballot is September 15"' of
each year.
The November.2006 general election ballot will include elections for federal, state and
local offices. It is expected that turnout will be about 80% or about 40,000 voters. The
2007 general election is for school district seats. It is expected that turnout will vary
between 5% and 30%, by school district, depending on whether each school district
places a bond levy referendum on the ballot. This would mean that between 2,500 and
15,000 voters will likely be going to the polls in November of 2007. Staff has been
informed that Robbinsdale and Osseo do plan on placing referendum questions on the
ballot. in 2007. Wayzata and Hopkins may still choose to do so as well. This means that
voter turnout will likely be toward the top end of the range.
The following are considerations relating to election date: ZD
November 2006
The November 2006 referendum date is only 7 months away. This limits the
inflationary increase in the price of land compared to waiting 1.9 months.
The November 2006 referendum date is only 7 months away. This limits the
amourit of preparation time available for education of voters on the issue.
The November 2006 ballot will include federal, state, and local elections as well
as a constitutional amendment question. Any City referendum question could get
lost amongst the other items on the ballot.
The November 2006 referendum date would ensure the largest voter turnout and
broadest community input.
November 2007
The November 2007 referendum date is 19 months away. This may result in
significantly greater land acquisition cost due to inflation.
The November 2007 referendumn date is 19 months away. This would allow more
preparation time for education of voters on the issue.
The November 2007 ballot will have fewer offices and other questions. A City
bond referendum will be less likely to be lost amongst the other items on the
ballot.
The November 2007 referendum would likely experience lower voter turnout.
Voter makeup may also be targeted to those persons most interested in school
elections.
The City would experience additional costs for sharing the schools ballot. The
cost. could vary significantly depending on whether the City would need to take
over or share in the costs of the election.