HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-10-2006 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
5:30 p.m.
Plymouth Creek Center,
Conference Room 2,
Lower Level
1. Call to Order
2. Discuss Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy
3. Discuss Council Coordinating Representatives
4. Set future Study Sessions
5. Adjourn
Agenda Number:
TO: Laurie Ahren , City Manager
FROM: Mike Kohn, i cial Analyst through Dale Hahn, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Review Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy
DATE: December 29, 2005 for Council Study Session on January 10, 2006
1. BACKGROUND: Over the last several years the City of Plymouth has modified its street
reconstruction assessment policy, which has resulted in an increase in assessments. Prior to
2004, assessments were based on an amount per parcel, which was inflated annually by the
construction cost index. This rate, which had the goal of recovering 30% of actual
construction costs, had fallen behind actual construction costs and was in fact only recovering
approximately 16% of construction costs. As a result of this revelation, the City adopted a
revised policy on September 9, 2003 that eliminated the amount per parcel, and targeted the
assessments at "...30% of the engineer's estimated project cost as set forth in the project
feasibility report or 30% of the actual project cost, whichever amount is less, but in no event
less than 20% of the actual project cost." In order to phase in the impact of this change, it
was established that the 2004 project would be assessed at 20% of project costs (see
Attachment I). The 2005 project was assessed at 30%.
In 2005 the City, confronted with the reality that more street reconstruction needed to be done
to stem the decline in street condition, reexamined the level of street reconstruction
assessments as part of its overall funding program. In reviewing the benefit to property
owners, the rates of other cities, and availability of other funding sources it was determined
that an assessment rate of 40% would be beneficial. On September 27, 2005, the City of
Plymouth adopted a new street reconstruction assessment policy that increased assessments
from the previous rate of 30% of project costs, to 35% in 2006 and 40% in 2007 (see
Attachment II). The timeline of assessments is as follows:
Year Assessment as % of Construction Costs
2003 16%
2004 20%
2005 30%
2006 35%
2007 40%
While the assessment changes were taking place, the City went through its annual process of
selecting and prioritizing street reconstruction projects. These selections and prioritizations
were based upon the analysis of condition by City staff and in some cases by petitions of
residents in particular neighborhoods. Each year the City prepares a capital improvement
program (CIP) that stages projects over a five-year period. Projects selected for the first two
years usually proceed in the order selected. The typical process for including new street
projects into the CIP is to place them in the fourth or fifth year and they then roll forward
until their scheduled year of construction comes up. At any give time, there are several years
of projects planned and prioritized.
In June of 2004, the City received a petition signed by about 70% of the residents in the
Hawthorne Ponds area requesting that their streets be reconstructed in 2005. Since other
projects located in different areas of the City were already programmed into the 2004-2008
CIP for 2005 and 2006, and Hawthorne Ponds is immediately adjacent to the area scheduled
for 2007, the Hawthorne Ponds project was included in the 2005-2009 CIP for 2007 (see
Attachments III & IV).
Some residents of the Hawthorne Ponds area feel strongly that their street reconstruction
project should have been scheduled in 2005 or 2006. In addition, they also believe that even
if their project is done at a later date, they should be given the benefit of the assessment rates
that were in affect for 2005. This would require an exemption from the newly adopted street
assessment policy and would impact the City's ability to fund its street reconstruction
activities.
2. ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City could exempt the Hawthorne Ponds neighborhood from the new special
assessment policy and levy their assessments at a rate of 30%. This action would need to
be taken by the Council at the assessment hearing in 2007.
2. The City could exempt all neighborhoods included in the CIP at the time the new
assessment rates were adopted. This would mean that the new assessment rates would
not go into affect until 2010. The Council could take action at this time to amend the
special assessment policy if this option is desired.
3. The City could proceed as outlined in the current assessment policy, CIP, and street
reconstruction financing plan. No Council action would be required.
3. DISCUSSION: The argument of the Hawthorne Ponds neighborhood for requesting an
exemption from the recently adopted street assessment policy is fairness. They have asked
whether it is fair to make them pay a higher rate for a future project that they wanted done at
a previous time and under a previous set of conditions. An equally important question for the
City is whether it would be fair to the other projects contained in the CIP (some of which
were contained in the CIP well before Hawthorne Ponds petitioned) at the time of the change
in policy to exempt one of the projects without exempting the others? Some of these projects
have also been pushed back in the reconstruction schedule and they all face higher
assessment rates than when first proposed. The final question is whether the City can afford
to make exemptions without significantly impacting its financial ability to carry out planned
street reconstruction activities.
4. BUDGET IMPACT: If the assessments for the Hawthorne Ponds neighborhood were
lowered from 40% to 30% it would reduce assessment revenues by approximately $197,000.
If all the projects scheduled through 2009 had their assessments reduced to 30% it would
reduce assessment revenues by approximately $1,280,000. These assessment revenue
reductions could be absorbed by the Street Reconstruction Fund in the short-term but will
eventually need to be made up (even if funded by a bond issue) by increased property tax
levies or reducing or eliminating other projects.
5. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City proceed under the currently adopted
special assessment policy. I do not believe that any of the currently planned street
reconstruction projects can be fairly exempted while the others are not. If they were all
exempted through 2009, this would result in the need to levy additional tax dollars in an
amount that is approximately 85% of the current annual levy for street reconstruction or the
reduction or elimination of other projects.
In addition, while the special assessment increase from 30% to 40% is not insignificant, it is
not unreasonable. Most cities that assess for street reconstruction do so at a higher level.
The average in the metro area is 52%. The City of Edina recently conducted a study on street
assessments (see Attachment V) that included an evaluation of the amount of benefit each
property received due to street reconstruction. While they concluded that curb and gutter
could not be 100% assessed in some "country" look large -lot estate -type developments with
valuations exceeding $750,000, they determined that the cost of street reconstruction could
be assessed at the rate of 100%.
ATTACHMENT I
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT POLICY REVISED 2004
Resolution 2003-386
September 9, 2003 (Supersedes Res. 2003-358; Aug. 12, 2003)
Street Reconstruction. The City Council has adopted a long-range plan providing for the
periodic reconstruction, including resurfacing, of all paved city streets. The City Council
adopted policies which are designed to ensure the orderly and fiscally responsible
implementation of this planon a community -wide basis.
ji
The following is the General Street Reconstruction Pblicy for special assessments to
benefiting property.
a. It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property for street
reconstruction 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.
b. The assessment rate for the reconstruction of previously paved streets shall be
determined annually by the City Council.
The assessment rate is based on the following:
1) Benefited properties shall be assessed 30% of the engineer's estimated
project cost as set forth in the project feasibility report or 30% of the
actual project cost, whichever amount is less, but in no event less than
20% of the actual project cost.
2) _ Assessments shall not exceed any of the following:
a) the special benefit to the property being assessed;
b) the total assessments in a maintenance district may not exceed the
project cost in the maintenance district;
c) the total assessment for a project may not exceed the project cost.
Project cost includes both direct construction costs and all indirect 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 are being constructed at the same time.
4) Assessments for single-family parcels shall be made on a per parcel (unit)
basis.
5) Multi -family housing parcels shall be converted into an equivalent number
of parcel units by dividing the area of the multi -family parcel by 18,500
the City's established minimum lot size). The number of equivalent units
are then multiplied by the single-family assessment rate to determine the
assessment for the property.
6) The area of commercial/industrial parcels shall be divided by 18,500 to
establish the number of equivalent units for the property. Institutional
properties such as schools, churches, and public property are assessed as
commercial/industrial.
C. For the purposes of street reconstruction, the project costs will include the cost
of replacing or repairing concrete curb and gutter. In those cases where
bituminous curbing is replaced with concrete curb and gutter, an additional
special benefit will be assessed. The cost to be assessed shall be the cost of
installing the concrete curb and gutter and assessed on either a front foot or
per lot basis. The addition of a wider street or a storm sewer system may also
be considered an additional benefit and may be assessed.
7) The Street Reconstruction assessments for the 2004 Street Reconstruction
Program shall be calculated based on 20% of the total project cost of the
2004 Street Reconstruction Program.
Senior Citizens and Disabled People Special Assessments Deferrals. If you are at
least 62 years of age or are disabled, you may qualify to have special assessments
deferred if they create a hardship for you.
ATTACHMENT II
e a
DATE: September 12, 2005 for the City Council Meeting of September 27, 2005
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: Doran Cote, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: STREET RECONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT POLICY
ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the revised
Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy.
BACKGROUND: Attached please find the final version of the Street Reconstruction Assessment
Policy. The final version should address comments and concerns raised by the City Council at the
May 17, 2005 City Council Study Session. The Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy specifically
provides the following:
Item b: Provides for assessment for mill and overlay projects as well as complete street
reconstruction.
Item b (1): Identifies the rates as directed by the City Council (35% in 2006 and 40% in
2007).
Item b (4): Offers assessment payment period options (5, 10, and 15 years).
Item b (5): Clarifies that single family properties would be assessed for a residential
street as defined in the City Code regardless of the proposed street design, however,
properties that could be subdivided could be assessed for more than one unit.
Item b (7): Provides for alternative rates if an alternative design is needed due to
abutting uses.
Item b (8): Provides for assessing for County road improvements if appropriate.
BUDGET IMPACT: The proposed 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has been
prepared contemplating adoption of the revised Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy. All financial
analysis contained in the CIP also assumes adoption of the new assessment rates.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution approving the revised Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy.
attachments: Revised Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy
Resolution
Assessment Survey
O:\Engineering\G EN ERA UMEMOS\DORAN\200SCC St_Re on AssnuPo1icy_9_12, 0u:
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT POLICY
Street Reconstruction. The City Council has adopted a long-range plan providing for the
periodic reconstruction, including mill and overlay, of all paved city streets. With the
improvement of streets, as a result of reconstruction or mill and overlay, adjoining properties
receive special benefit that results in the increase of the property's value. It is the policy of
the City that this special benefit should be paid for by the property owner receiving the special
benefit rather than the City as a whole. This is accomplished by specially assessing the
benefited property as authorized by State Statute, Section 429. The following is the City of
Plymouth's policy regarding special assessments to properties benefiting from street
improvements.
a. It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property for
street reconstruction costs, but not in excess of the special benefit to the
property. This policy applies to all streets that are public streets.
b. The assessment amount for the reconstruction or mill and overlay of previously
paved streets shall be determined annually by the City Council.
The assessment amount is based on the following:
1) In 2006 benefited properties shall be assessed 35% of the engineer's
estimated project cost as set forth in the project feasibility report or
35% of the actual project cost, whichever amount is less. In 2007 and
thereafter, the rate shall be 40%.
2) For the purposes of street reconstruction or mill and overlay, the project
costs will include the cost of replacing or repairing concrete curb and
gutter. In those cases where bituminous curbing is replaced with
concrete curb and gutter, or where curb and gutter did not previously
exist, the additional special benefit will be assessed. The cost to be
assessed shall be 100% of the cost of installing the concrete curb and
gutter. This cost will be assessed on either a front foot or per lot basis.
The addition of a storm sewer system will also be considered an
additional benefit and shall be assessed at 100% of the cost.
3) Project cost includes both direct construction costs and all indirect costs
such as engineering and administration.
4) Assessments shall normally be levied for a period not to exceed five (5)
years for assessments of $5,000 or less, ten (10) years for assessments
greater than $5,000 but $10,000 or less, and Fifteen (15) years for
assessments greater than $10,000.
0:\Engineering\GENERAL\ASMPSV.4SC\Sueet Reconst u twn Azes nts_Proposed. doc
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT POLICY
Page 2
5) Assessments for properties guided or zoned for single-family use shall
be made on a per parcel (unit) basis for a local residential or residential
low volume street design standard as provided for in Plymouth City
Code and Engineering Guidelines A property may be assessed for
more than one unit in cases where the property could be reasonably
further subdivided in accordance with current Plymouth zoning and
subdivision requirements.
6) For properties guided or zoned for other than single family use, the City
shall calculate equivalent units based on the guided or zoned use. The
equivalent units may be based on front footage or area depending upon
the guided or zoned use and parcel configuration.
7) If a street is reconstructed to a design standard greater than the current
design standard due to the guided or zoned uses, the additional cost to
reconstruct the street shall be fully assessed to those properties. If the
street is reconstructed to a design different than the current standard,
the total cost shall be fully assessed to those properties if conditions
warrant.
8) Properties abutting county roadways reconstructed to complete urban
design and having reasonable access thereto shall be assessed in
accordance with this policy. The assessments shall be used to defray
the City's cost participation in the county improvement projects.
9) Properties or areas of property that have been determined to be
unbuildable shall be excluded from assessments. No building permits
will be issued for such property so deleted from assessments.
10) Partial prepayments of assessments can be made in accordance with
Amended Chapter III of the Plymouth City Code (Ordinance 2005-06).
11) Senior Citizens and Disabled People Special Assessments Deferrals in
accordance with City policy (if you are at least 65 years of age or are
disabled, you may qualify to have special assessments deferred). Other
deferrals may be available as authorized by State Statute, Section 429.
O:\Gnginecring\GENERAL\ASMCSMSC Stred Rcwnstruction Assessments_ Proposed.doc
Attachment 11
Assessment Survey
Street Street Water Main Sewer M
Reconstruction Overlay Replacement Replacerr
Eagan
Low Density Residential 75% 50% 00/0 0%
High Density ResidentialAnstitutionalMarks 1000/. 75% 0% 0%
CommercialAndustrial 100% 100% 0% 0%
Edina
Local Streets—Neighborhood Reconstruction 100% 0% 0% 0%
Collector & Arterial 20% 0% 0% 0%
Brooklyn Park
Improved Streets 70% 00% 00/0 0%
Bloomington
Single -Family & Two -Family 25% 00/6 0% 0%
Other Land Uses 50% 0% 0°A 0%
Maple Grove
All Uses 50'/e 50019 0% 0%
Hopkins
Local Street 70% 70% 0% 00/9
MSA Street 50010 50% 08/9 0%
Roseville
Existing paved roadways 25% 0% Oqe 0%
Chanhassen
Improved Streets 400/. 40% 0% 06/0
Woodbury
Retail/Commercial 100% 100% 100% 100%
Non-Profitltax Exempt/Institutional 75% 75% 75% 75%
Medium and High -Density Residential 33% 33% 33% 33%
Low -Density Residential 33% 33% 33% 33%
Lakeville
Improved Street 100% 0% 0% 0%
Apple Valley
Improved Street 0% On/. 01/6 0%
Burnsville
Improved Street 40% 40% 01/0 0%
Minneapolis
improved Street 25% 25% 0% 0%
Special Assessment Survey.xis
3131/2005
Attachment 11
Brooklyn Center
Residential 40% 0% 0% 0%
Commercial/industrial 70% 70% 0% 00%
Eden Prairie
Improved Streets 00/. 0% 0% 0%
Minnetonka
Improved Streets 0°/n 0% 0% 0%
Golden Valley
Improved Streets 200/6 OOA 0% 0%
Inver Grove Heights
Local Streets 80% 800/6 0% OOA
Collector/Arterial (percentage of local width) 800/0 8MM 00/0 00/0
The average for cities with assessments, for local streets and residential properties, is 52.87%.
Special Assessment Survey,xls
3/31/2005
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -
APPROVING REVISED ASSESSMENT POLICY
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a policy regarding a long range Street
Resurfacing and Reconstruction Program for the City; and
WHEREAS, the Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy has been reviewed by City staff
and City Council and revisions are proposed to the policy; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA:
That the revised Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy be and hereby is
approved.
Adopted by the City Council on September 27, 2005.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the
Plymouth City Council on , with the original thereof on file in my
office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
day of
City Clerk
Q\Engire ringlGENERALIASMTSIRESOLkSp-_A—t_Policy_9_12-doc
City of Plymouth
2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2004
Street Project CommunityProjectSpecialReplacementState/Federal Administration Improvement
Nuurbcr Proiect Title Assessments Fund 111SAFund County Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total Comments
S - 1 City Centcr Entrance Signs 22,500 63,500 86,000S- 2 City Center Street Lighting 110,000
S-3 Larch Lane/Medicinc Ridge Road - Overlav 420,000
110,000
S-4 Cheshire Lane - Glacier Vista to CR 47 880,000
420,000
S - 5 Traffic Signal - Vicksburg & CR 47 Temporary 200,000
880,000 Additional $880,000 likely paid by developer
200,000
S - 6 Street Reconstruction - Districts 5 and 27 335,000 1,340,WO
S-7 Sunset Trail/Cheshire Lane/Carlson Parkway Overlay 610;000
1,675,000
610,000
S - 8 Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements- 3 Crossings 115,000 47,000 165,000
S-9 Street Reconstruction - Petition (Burt Oaks) 113.000 433,000 546,000S- 10 Street Reconstruction - Petition (Kinesview) 281,000 333.000 614,000S - 1 I Replace Retaining Walls 55,000 55.000
Ibtal 839,000 1,085.000 1,198.000 0 2,106,000 22.500 63.500 47,000 5,361.000
W
J
Cite of PlN'mouth
2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
200-5
Project
Street Project CommunitySpecialReplacementState/Federal Administration ImprovementNumberProiectTitleAssessmentsFundVISAFundCountyBondsDonationsFundFund Total Comments
S - I I Rcphce Retaining %1 ally 124.000
S - I2 Nathan Lame xCR 10 Intersection 00.000
124, 000124,000S - 13 Traffic Sienals -Four Intersections(") 825.000 55,000
S - 14 Street Reconstruction - District 73 727,000 1,024,000
880,000 CR 61 & 42nd in Count' CIP
S - IS Gleason I Ac Road O crlav 250.000
1,751,000
S - 16 I'c t Medicine Lake & lhvv 55 Intersection 350.000
250.000
350,000 Includes richt-of=svav
Dotal 727.000 1.398.000 1.575.000 55,000 0 0 0 0 3.755,000
CR 6I & 42nd. Cheshire R Schmidt Lake, Fernbrook Schmidt Lake, and Cheshire & CR 47
City of Plymouth
2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2006
Project
Number
S - 11
PIoicctTitle
Replace Retaining Walls
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund
96,000
INISA Fund
State/Federal
County
Project Community
Administration Improvement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total
96,000
Comments
S - 17 CR 101 - CR 6 to CR 24 - Design R ROW 420,000 420,000 840,000 Phase 1 of 2
s- 18 Strcet Reconstruction - District 5 595,000 1,390,000 1,985,000
s- 19 Pine view Lane R Campus Drive - Overlav 400,000 400,000
S -20 Tratlic Sienals - Two Intersections Not Yet Determined 385,000 55,000 440,000
S - 21 South Shore Drive Bridge Replacement 100,000 300,000 400,000 State Bridge Funds
S - 22 CR 24 - =0th Ah entre to CR 101 - Design R ROW 125,000 125,000 250,000 Phase I of 2
Total 595,000 1.986,000 930.000 900,000 0 0 0 0 4,411,000
City of Plymouth
2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2007
Project
Number
S - 17
Proiect Title
CR 101 - CR6 to CR 24 - Construction
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund ISA Fund
210,000
State/Federal
County
7,321,000
Project Community
Administration Improt'ement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total
7,531,000
Comments
S-22 CR 24 - 30th A%cnuc to CR 101 - Construction 95-000 846.000 941,000
S - 23 Traffic Signals -Three Intersections (') 710.000 710,000 Part of Fernbrook project
S -'_3 Fcrnbrook Lane- 27th A%e to 34th Ase 800.000 1.000,000 1,800,000 Scope and schedule depend on Fed funding,
S - 24 Nathan Lanci 10th; I3th - O%crlas 400,000 400.000
S - 25 Railroad Safety lmproNennents - West Nled Lake Dr 17,500 157,500 175,000 Local Match 10'0
S - 26 Street Reconstruction -District 76 943,000 1.281.000 2,224,000
Total 941,000 1,681000 1.832.500 9.324.500 0 0 0 0 13,781,000
1 27th & Pernbrock. 34th & Fernbrook- and Ilarbor lane & Pernbrook
City of Plymouth
2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2008
Project
Number
S- 27
Project Title
Tmlfic Signals - Two Intersections Not Yet Determined
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund VISA Fund
385,000
State/Federal
County
55,000
Project Community
Administration Improvement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total Comments
440,000
S-18 Street Reconstruction - Not Yet Determined 450,000 1,050,000 1,500,000
S- 29 Overlay - Not Yet Determined 400,000 400,000
Total 450.000 1.450,000 385,000 55.000 0 0 0 0 2.340,000
City of Plymouth
2005-2009 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2005
Project
Number ProiectTitle
S-1 Re lace Retaining Walls
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund
124,000
State/Federal
MSA Fund County Bonds Donations
Project
Administration
Fund
Park
Dedication
Fund
Community
Improvement
Fund Total
924,000
Comments
S-2 Traffic Signals - Four Intersections (") 825,000 55,000 12,000 892,000 CR 61 & 42nd in Cowity CIP
S-3 Street Reconstruction - District 73 876,000 984,000 1,860,000
S-4 Gleason Lake Road & Carlson Parkway Overlays 285,000 60,000 345,000 60,000 from Carlson Company
S-5 VicksburgM155 & Vicksbur 132nd Intersection Imp 76.5,000 135,000 900;000 Developer contribution and TIF bonds
S-6 Street Recon - Dist 73 Expanded, Resden & Ravenwood 430,000 630,000 1,060,000
S-7 West Medicine Lake & Hwy 55 Intersection 350,000 350,000 Includes right-of-way
Total 1,306,000 2,023,000 1,175,000
CR 61 & 42nd. Cheshire & Schmidt Lake, Fernbrook & Schmidt Lake, and Vicksburg & Shenandoah
55,000 765,000 195,000 0 12,000 0 5,531,000
W
U1
City of Plymouth
2005-2009 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2006
Project
Number Proiect Title
S- I Replace Retaining Walls
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund
96.000
VISA Fund
State/Federal
Countv
Project Community
Administration Improvement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total
96,000
Comments
S-8 CR 101 - CR 6 to CR 24 - Design & ROW 420,000 420,000 840,000 Phase I of 2
S-9 Street Reconstruction - District 5 & Hemlock 805,000 1,670.000 40,000 2,515,000 40,000 from Maple Grove
S- 10 Street Reconstruction - District 34 500,000 825,000 1,325,000
S- I I Cheshire Lane - Glacier Vista to CR 47 935,000 935,000 Additional $935,000 likely paid by developerS- 12 PinevicN, RR Crossing Improvements 35,000 15,000 50,000
S- 13 Pineviety lane & Campus Drive - Overlay 400,000 400,000
S-14 Traf"iicSignals-Tx oIntersections " 385,000 55,000 440,000
S- 15 Nathan Lane & CR 10 Intersection 400,000 400,000
S- 16 South Share Drive Bridge Replacement 100,000 300,000 400,000 State Bridge Funds
S- 17 CR 24 - 30th Avenue to CR 101 - Design & ROW 125,000 125,000 250,000 Phase 1 of')
Total 1,305.000 3 091,000 2.300 000 900,000 0 40,000 0 15,000 7,651,000
Cheshire & CR 47, and CR 10 & Trenton Lane
City of Plymouth
2005-2009 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2007
Project
Number Proiect Title
S- l Replace Retaining Walls
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund
50,000
MSA Fund
State/Federal
County
Project Community
Administration Improvement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total
50,000
Comments
S -8 CR 101 - CR6 to CR 24 - Construction 210,000 7,321,000 7,531,000 Phase 2 of 2
S- 17 CR 24 - 30th Avenue to CR 101 - Construction 95,000 846,000 941,000 Phase 2 of 2
S- 18 Traffic Signals - Three Intersections (*) 710,000 710,000 Part of Fembrook project
S- 19 Fembrook Lane - 27th Ave to 34th Ave 800,000 1,000,000 1,800,000 Scope and schedule depend on Fed funding
S-20 Nathan Lane/lOth/13th - Overlay 400,000 400,000
S-21 Railroad Safety Improvements - West Med Lake Dr 17,500 157,500 175,000 Local Match 10%
S-22 Street Reconstruction - District 78 595,000 680,000 1,275,000
S-23 Street Reconstruction - District 76 1,140,000 1,225,000 2,365,000
Total 1,735,000
27th & Fembrook, 34th & Fembrook, and Harbor Lane & Fembrook
2,355,000 1,832,500 9,324,500 0 0 0 0 15,247,000
City of Plymouth
2005-2009 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2008
Project
Number Proiect Title
S- I Replace Retaining Walls
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund
50,000
MSA Fund
State/Federal
Countv
Project Community
Administration Improvement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total Comments
50,000
S-24 fra(Tc Signals - T%o Intersections Not Yet Determined 385,000 55,000 440,000
S-25 Railroad Crossing Improvements - Zachary Lane 84,000 150,000 16,000 250,000 $150,000 from CP Railroad
S-26 Street Reconstruction - District 10 515,000 1,200,000 1,715,000
S-27 Street Reconstruction - South Shore Drive 500,000 650,000 1,150,000
S-28 0%erlav - Not Yet Determined 400,000 400,000
Total 1,015,000 2,300,000 469,000 55,000 0 150,000 0 16,000 4,005,000
W
J
W
00
City of Plymouth
2005-2009 Capital Improvements Program
Street Projects
2009
Project
Number Proiect Title
S - 1 Replace Retaining Walls
Special
Assessments
Street
Replacement
Fund
502000
VISA Fund
State/Federal
County
Project Community
Administration Improvement
Bonds Donations Fund Fund Total Comments
50,000
S-29 Traffic Signals - Two Intersections Not Yet Determined 385,000 55,000 440,000
S-30 Railroad Crossing Improvements - Vicksburg 84,000 150,000 16,000 250,000 $150,000 from CP Railroad
S-31 Street Reconstruction - District 35 945,000 1,500,000 2,445,000
S-32 Street Reconstruction - District 16 535,000 1,250,000 1,785,000
S-33 Overla - Not Yet Determined 400,000 400,000
Total 1,480,000 3,200,000 469,000 55,000 0 150,000 0 16,000 5,370,000
ATTACHMENT V
A f
1: V r JII1
December 21, 2005
Mr. Mike Kohn
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth B'Ivd
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: City of Edina's Special Assessment Policy
Dear Mike:
The City of Edina would like to thank you for helping us formulate our new assessment
policy. Attached you will find a copy of the assessment policy and our City Council
Report which includes the results of the cities we surveyed.
Thank you again for helping us out with this task.
Sincerely,
0, 0a
Wayne D. Houle, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Enclosure
City Hall
4801 WFSI SOIH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1 94 www.((ityofec ina.com
952-927-8861
FAX 952-826-0390
TTY 0524826-0370
C
e
491
1
o
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VI.C.
From: ERIC ANDERSON Consent
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
Only F]Information
Date: AUGUST 16, 2005 Mgr. Recommends To HRA
To Council
Subject: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Motion
POLICY Resolution
Ordinance
Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt attached Special Assessment Policy.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND:
Staff and Council have had four work sessions since the beginning of 2005 reviewing
the residential road reconstruction program and how the City assesses those costs. Staff
is recommending an increase in road reconstruction projects over a period of the next
few years. The projects that were reviewed for feasibility in 2005 have resulted in
substantially higher costs than prior assessment years. In addition, there has been
greater resistance from neighborhoods to have curb and gutter installed in areas where
it does not exist today. As a result of the increased costs and the resistance to pay for
them, the City engaged a consultant to review some of the proposed project areas and
is determine if the cost of the projects generate the equivalent market value benefit to the
homeowners. If the costs were higher than the benefit, the City would be at risk for
legal challenges to the assessments. Results of the study indicated that the proposed
assessable costs do match up with the market value benefit to the homes.
REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION - Special Assessment Policy •
August 16, 2005
Staff also conducted an extensive survey of other communities road reconstruction
programs and how the cities assess/pay for those costs. Results of the survey showed a
combination of tax supported expenditures with varying assessment practices in those
communities.
The new special assessment policy being proposed takes the information we gathered
and proposes a number of changes to the current assessment policies that the City uses
today. Staff will have a presentation highlighting the reasons for a need to change the
current policy, a brief overview of the appraisal report and city assessment survey, and
the proposed changes to current assessment policy.
CJ
0
1
Special Assessment Policy Proposal
August 16, 2005
1. Cost of Non -State Aid Residential Street Curb and Gutter will be financed by
the Stormwater Utility Fund. For the 2004-2005 assessment projects, this
will require an increase in Storm water rates of approximately $2.00 per
household per quarter.
Rationale — The curb and gutter system is an above -the -ground water drainage
system that controls storm water within the City. Staff feels very strongly about the
addition of curb and gutter in the City where it does not exist today. It is very
important in areas of poor soil condition, steep grade changes or very flat conditions.
It also decreases the degradation of the residential roadway system, reduces fall and
spring street maintenance and aids in street cleaning and snow plowing.
Projects to be reimbursed by proposed change (to be assessed Oct. 2005):
Halifax & Grimes - $137,000 (approx 24% of street costs)
Shannon Dr. - $18,000 (100% of assessable costs)
Sunnyslope - $40,000 (6% of assessable costs)
Bridge Lane - $10,000 (9% of assessable costs)
Schaefer Circle - $14,000 (petition requesting C&G only if policy is approved)
Total $ 219,000
Curb and Gutter Cost Projections for Future Year Assessment Projects:
Estimated cost for 2006 - $441,000 (+2.14 per household per quarter)
Estimated cost for 2007 - $621,000 (+1.56/per household per quarter)
Attachment: Survey of Stormwater Utility Rates 2005
Note: Stormwater rates will need approximately a $1.50 - $2.00 per quarter increase
to cover the cost of projects occurring independent of this policy. If adopted, staff
will be proposing a $4.00 per household per quarter increase this fall.
2. Street Reconstruction Cost (excluding curb and gutter) should be assessed at
100% of the cost.
Rationale - Based on an appraisal study conducted by the Valuation Group, the
consultants indicated that the market value benefit of the street improvements equates
to the cost of the improvements being done. Assuming Council agrees with the
financing of curb and gutter improvements, the risk of losing an assessment challenge
by a resident or neighborhood is diminished due to the extensive study that was
conducted and the subsidy of the curb and gutter cost. In most projects, the street
Page 1 of 5
reconstruction cost represents only a percentage of the entire project costs. Most •
projects include other storm water improvements as well as sanitary sewer and water
system improvements. The table below shows the total and assessable costs of
projects that will be assessed this fall or next year depending on construction
completion.
Project
Cost of All
Improvements
Curb &
Gutter
Assessable
Cost Assessable
Halifax & Grimes 888,900 137,000 420,000 47%
So. Harriet Park 1,029,872 588,000 57%
Sunn sloe 1,028,218 40,000 663,000 64%
Schaefer Rd. 264,290 195,000 74%
Shannon Dr. 168,719 18,000 0%
Bridge Lane 106,601 9,975 97,000 91%
3. The assessable unit for non -state aid residential street projects should be the
residential equivalent unit (Lot) rather than the front footage of the lot.
Rationale — Trips generated for residential lots are the same regardless of the size of
the lot. A resident on a corner lot, cul-de-sac or circular street does not use the roads
differently than a mid -block resident on the same street. •
4. If a corner lot is subject to multiple street reconstruction assessments over a
period of years, the total assessable cost should be the equivalent to 1
residential equivalent unit.
Rationale — Current policy allows the assessment of the front of a corner lot to be
assessed at one R.E.U. and the side lot for another assessment project to be assessed
at 1/3 of an R.E.U. Staff believes that the total of both assessments should not exceed
one R.E.U. so that lots are equitably assessed over the City. A corner lot does not
generate more trips onto the residential roadway system than a non -corner lot.
5. Multiple Assessments cannot be treated differently than areas with one
assessment being incurred.
Rationale — Assessments must be equitable to all homes that are being assessed.
This issue was driven by the potential of a portion of the Country Club being assessed
for sound walls and residential road reconstruction. If and when the Country Club
area gets assessed for street improvements, you have the option to re -assess the sound
wall improvement to a longer term. By re -assessing, the Council opens the
assessment up to a potential challenge. If a challenge was raised, you could leave the
sound wall assessment at the current term of 15 years and decide not to re -assess. •
Page 2 of 5
6. The term of residential roadway reconstruction assessments should stay at 10
years.
Rationale — There was some discussion of extending the term of residential roadway
reconstruction to 15 years. While this would be legal, rating agencies prefer the term
for residential assessments to match the term of the bonds. This would also increase
the interest cost to the homeowner
7. Assessment Interest Rate — The interest rate of the assessment should be
pegged to the assessment bonds that have been issued in the past 12 months
or the 10 year Aaa bond rate plus 2%.
Rationale — The City's assessments of the past number of years have been charged a
fixed rate of 6.5%. The number and dollar amount of improvement projects have
allowed the City to internally finance the capital cost of the improvements. With the
amount of improvements occurring this year and in future years, the City has
incorporated a public debt component to the special assessment process. The bonds
are General Obligation (G.O.) debt that is used to pay the construction costs and are
supported by the stream of assessment payments over the term of the bonds (10
years).
Because the City is using G.O. public improvement bonds to finance the
improvements, State law requires that the amount of assessments (or taxes) that
come in each year must equal 105% of the debt service payment on the bonds
for each year. In order to achieve the necessary 105%, the assessment interest rate
needs to be pegged at the bond's interest rate plus 2% or approximately 5.9%. Some
cities have a lower rate than this because they have taxes supporting the bonds or they
internally finance their public improvements. Of the cities we studied, only one had a
lower interest rate than the one staff is proposing.
City Calculation Index
Assessment
Rate
Edina Bond Rate + 2% 3.92% 5.92%
Bloomington Bond Rate + 1 % 3.92% 4.92%
Plymouth Prime Rate +.5% 6.25% 6.75%
Fridley None 6.50%
Maple Grove None 6.00%
The excess dollars generated by the statutory 105% requirement is used to make up
for cost of bond issuance, delinquencies and underpayments.
8. The City will accept both partial pre -payments and full pre -payments on
assessments before going to the County for tax rolls. For ease of
administration, a minimum of 25% of the assessable cost must be applied for
a partial payment.
Page 3 of 5
Rationale — City past practice allowed only 100% pre -payment on assessments. •
Many residents have inquired in the past about partial pre -payments to reduce their
annual tax bill. This will create some extra calculations, but this is a good public
relations move with a minor increase in workload. The full and partial pre -payments
can only occur after the assessment hearing and before the certification to the County.
This is gives the resident approximately 30 days to make the payment. Staff will
make sure extra information is provided to the residents when they get their formal
assessment notice information before the hearings.
9. Payment Schedule — Currently, assessments are calculated on a level
principal payment schedule. This results in a declining payment schedule
which is cheaper than a traditional amortized schedule which would have
equal payments over the life of the assessment. Staff recommends that the
declining balance schedule continue to be used because of the lower total
cost.
Rationale — See payment schedules attached.
Council could provide an option on more expensive projects to select an amortized
level payment schedule, but this needs to be selected for the entire project. The
amount of time provided to staff to certify the assessments to the County doesn't
allow for mixing and matching of payment schedules for each assessment project. •
10. The new policy will not be retroactive to projects that have already been
assessed.
Rationale: It would be very difficult to determine how many years to go back and re-
assess projects that have been completed and already assessed. Looking back at
projects that were assessed since 1999, most of the projects were assessed at a cost
per lot of around $2,000 - $4,000 per lot. The 2004 Maple Rd./White Oaks
assessment cost $5,941 per lot. This year's projects have taken a substantial jump in
total cost due to the need to reconstruct vs. reclaim the street pavement. Estimates for
this year's project range from $7,200/lot for So. Harriet Park to $11,000/lot for
Sunnyslope. As we forecast future street projects, our estimates indicate most will be
in the $8,000 - $12,000 per lot range.
Our research with other City's policies indicates that all cities made a clean break
when beginning their new programs.
Page 4of5
A couple of elements of the Senior Deferral Program should change for equity
and fairness.
Rationale:
a. The current interest rate for the deferral program is one percentage point higher
than the standard assessment rate. This should be changed to reflect the new
interest rate adopted in this policy (bond rate plus 2%)
b. The current deferral policy requires that both spouses live in the residence. This
should be changed to reflect situations that have one of the spouses residing in a
facility that accommodates health care situations (i.e. assisted living centers, etc.)
Some other administrative changes (application dates, etc.) would be made to the
policy.
If Council agrees with the changes to the Senior Deferral Program, Staff would
prepare the appropriate resolution to bring back to Council for approval in September.
Page 5 of 5
Survey of Residential
Annual Storm Water Utility Charges
for Various Cities in the Metropolitan Area
2003 Rates 2004 Rates 2005 Rates
Single -Family Single -Family Single -Family
Residential Residential Residential
r1ii, per lot per lot per lot
2005
S.F.
Quarterly
Rate
Golden Valley 72.00 75.96 87.20 21.80
New Hope 48.60 66.84 68.88 17.22
Burnsville 62.60 68.00 68.00 17.00
Savage 57.00 62.76 62.76 15.69
Woodbury 40.00 61.00 61.00 15.25
St. Paul 52.00 54.60 55.42 13.85
Bloomington
Hopkins
43.74
48.00
45.84
48.00
48.13
48.00
12.03
12.00
Apple Valley 47.76 47.76 47.76 11.94
Brooklyn Center 47.40 47.40 47.40 11.85
Duluth 45.00 45.00 45.00 11.25
Plymouth 39.00 39.00 44.52 11.13
Minnetonka 30.00 42.00 42.00 10.50
Cottage Grove 20.00 21.00 40.00 10.00
Shoreview 37.92 37.92 38.88 9.72
Richfield 36.24 37.32 38.44 9.61
Wayzata 33.72 34.56 36.29 9.07
Eagan
St. Louis Park
27.08
24.00
27.96
28.80
29.36
28.80
7.34
7.20
Coon Rapids
Shakopee
26.00 26.00
24.06
28.60
24.06
7.15
6.02
Brooklyn Park 22.00 22.00 22.00 5.50
Chanhassen 20.00 20.00 20.00 5.00
Oakdale 20.00 20.00 5.00
Roseville 18.40 19.00 19.76 4.94
Lakeville 19.00 19.00 19.00 4.75
Eden Praire 12.00 12.00 12.00 3.00
Median 34.98 37.62 39.44 9.86
Average 34.10 38.54 40.37 10.09
Note: 2001 Rates were used from the 2001 Storm Water Utility Business Plan
not all Cities were surveyed in 2001
Minnetonka is planning on raising the rate in February 2005.
0
Option 1: Level Principal Payments
Levy $ 12,000
Interest Rate 6%
Term 10 years
Year
Principal
Principal
Total Payment
Interest Total Pa ment
910.42
Balance
1 1,200 720 1,920. 10,800
2 1,200 648 1,848 9,600
3 1,200 576 1,776 8,400
4 1,200 504 1,704 7,200
5 1,200 432 1,632 6,000
6 1,200 360 1,560 4,800
7 1,200 288 1,488 3,600
8 1,200 216 1,416 2,400
9 1,200 144 1,344 1,200.
10 1,200 72 1,272
Total Cost $ 15,960
Option 2: Amortized Level Total Payment
40 Le $ 12,000
Interest Rate 6%
Term 10
Year Principal Interest Total Payment Balance
1 910.42 720 1,630.42 11,089.58
2 965.04 665.38 1,630.42 10,124.54
3 1,022.94 607.47 1,630.42 9,101.60
4 1,084.32 546.10 1,630.42 8,017.28
5 1,149.38 481.04 1,630.42 6,867.90
6 1,218.34 412.07 1,630.42 5,649.56
7 1,291.44 338.97 1,630.42 4,358.12
8 1,368.93 261.49 1,630.42 2,989.19
9 F 1,451.06 179.35 1,630.42 1,538.13
10 1,538.13 92.29 1,630.42 1 0.00
Total Cost $16,304.15
Option 2 is 2.16% More Expensive
4
Valuation Group Job No. 250168
ATION
GROUP, INC
2005 Appraisal Consulting Report
Edina Street Reconstruction Assessments
South Harriet Park Neighborhood
Sunnyslope Neighborhood
Rolling Green Neighborhood
Edina, Minnesota
4
G
3655 Plymouth Boulevard, Suite 105
Plymouth, MN 55446
763-525-0000 main
763-525-8875 fax
IJune 24, 2005
Eric Anderson, Assistant City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424-1394
Principals
Paul G. Bakken, MAI, MS, CCIM
Cletus C. Liedl, MAI
Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA
David S. Reach, MAI
Scott F. Muenchow, MAI
Michael A. Bownik, MAI
RE: Appraisal consulting report pertaining with City street reconstruction assessment policy
Three sample neighborhoods—South Harriet Park, Sunnyslope and Rolling Green
Edina, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In accordance with your request, an inspection and appraisal consulting work on the above -referenced
neighborhoods have been completed. We have considered all the pertinent factors relating to the subject
neighborhoods and the current market forces. The attached report contains the pertinent data, summary
of the analysis completed, commentary, value conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to this real
estate.
Because of the aging and deteriorated condition of public streets within many neighborhoods, The City of
Edina is undergoing planning efforts on a stepped-up street reconstruction schedule. Of major concern are
the funding options and the impact on future taxation policies. To assist the City in setting its future special
assessment policies, the use of the following report is to provide supported opinions of the market value
benefit that properties within the subject neighborhoods will experience in conjunction with street reconstruc-
tion improvements. It includes a general study of what value benefit a typical residence will achieve, and not
specific complete appraisals of individual properties. The date of our analysis is June 24, 2005.
Our appraisal consulting has been made in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP), and the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
of the Appraisal Institute.
To the best of our knowledge and belief, the data contained in the attached report is believed to be reliable.
Neither our employment to make appraisal opinions nor the compensation received is contingent upon the
conclusions, values or recommendations reported herein. The appraisal consulting is subject to the special
and general limiting conditions contained on pages 9 through 11 (please review these assumptions before
Iany of the values, conclusions or recommendations are relied upon).
I
City of Edina
June 24, 2005
Page 2
We have employed several valuation tools, including a resales and paired sales analysis on numerous
properties, interviews with experienced residential appraisers, interviews with experienced Edina Realtors,
and a survey of homeowners within two upper valued neighborhoods which have recently had new streets
installed.
Based upon all of our research and analysis, we conclude the following market value benefits for the subject
three neighborhoods:
South Harriet Park With Curb and Gutter:
Sunnyslope With Curb and Gutter:
Sunnyslope Without Curb and Gutter:
Rolling Green Without Curb and Gutter:
9,000 to $10,000
1.8% to 2.0% on a $500,000 residence)
12,000 to $14,000
1.6% to 1.9% on a $750,000 residence)
10,000 to $12,000
1.3% to 1.6% on a $750,000 residence)
14,000 to $16,000
9% to 1.1% on a $1.5 million residence)
With costs reportedly near $3,000 to $4,000 per 1/4 -acre property, and $6,000 or more per larger site sub-
divisions, the marginal benefit of curb and gutter greatly diminishes in the "country" look neighborhoods.
Based upon our market research, South Harriet Park can fully bear the $3,000 to $4,000 curb and gutter
costs, Sunnyslope could bear near $2,000 per parcel, and Rolling Green $0 to $1,000. While this is inverse
to the costs, the market appears to prefer the no curb "country" look in the large -site estate -type suburban
developments. While this conclusion is not fully consistent with all of our market research, the majority of
data supports this opinion.
With new street improvements net of consideration of the curb and gutter issue, the market appears to fully
bear the cost when the original improvements are in poor condition. Costs reportedly are in the $4,000 to
10,000 range depending upon size of the lots. When the pavement has some remaining life where signifi-
cant annual patching is not needed, a proration of the new pavement cost would be appropriate. All of the
subject neighborhoods' streets appear to be at the end of their useful life.
It has been a pleasure to serve you in this manner
concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
THE VALUATION GROUP, INC.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or
Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA
Minnesota Certified General Real Property Appraiser #4000814
I
M
r
M
N
y
Client
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424-1394
Type of Engagement
Appraisal consulting assignment pertaining to special as-
sessment policy and market value benefit associated with
new street reconstruction in sample neighborhoods within
Edina, Minnesota
Property Name and Location
Three sample neighborhoods studied:
South Harriet Park
Sunnyslope
Rolling Green
All located in Edina, Minnesota
The Valuation Group File Number
250168
Property Types
Detached residential properties within established neigh-
borhoods having good locational appeal, mostly quality
housing, and strong market values
Property Rights Appraised
The fee -simple interest has been appraised. Not included
in the value opinions are any personal property
Valuation Dates
Date of values: June 24, 2005
Date of neighborhood inspections:
Several dates during March, April and May of 2005
Date of report: June 24, 2005
Appraiser
Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA
MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser #4000814
0
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Summary of Conclusions
Our study has included the following work:
Resales analysis --study of neighborhoods where
new streets have recently occurred. This includes
identifying and studying properties which sold
twice --first recently before the street reconstruc-
tion, and secondly after completion of the project
to provide a value benefit indication.
Paired sales analysis --study of neighborhoods
where new streets have recently occurred; com-
parable before and after sales are analyzed to pro-
duce value benefit indications.
Survey of property owners who have recently ex-
perienced street reconstruction.
Survey of Realtors who are active in Edina.
Survey of experienced professional real estate ap-
praisers.
Within our resales and paired sales analysis, a total of 39
properties have been used for detailed study. Some iden-
tified sales indicated no value benefit, yet many of these
sold during the late 1990s where the 10% time adjustment
might not be fully supported, or where there is some un-
certainty with the features or condition of the comps.
Following are a summary chart and table. Due to market
irregularities, a few resales/paired sales indicate a nega-
tive benefit, and a few indicate exorbitant amounts. The
majority, however, indicate a typical benefit of $6,000 to
15,000.
With omitting the extremes, the average value indication is
11,666, and the median amount is $9,700. The percent-
age mid -points are 3.4% to 4.0% of total property value.
Resales/Paired Sales Value Benefit Indications
Histogram of Value Benefit Indications
Extremes Omitted)
12 - --- ---- — - ----------------- --- - -- - --- - — — --- - —
10
0
I
C
0
W
4
z
z
0
Less than $3000 $3001 to $6000 $6001 to $9000 $9001 to $12,001 to $15,001 to Over $18,000
12,000 $15,000 $18,000
Value Benefit
M
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Summary of Resale and Paired Sale Conclusions
Location Set
Resales
Benefit % Benefit
Paired Sales
Benefit % Benefit
White Oaks 1 5,580 1.021/6
27,860 4.89%
White Oaks 2 18,480 4.50%
White Oaks 3 98,700 14.33%
White Oaks 4 6,060 1.14%
White Oaks 5 16.500 223%
White Oaks 6 19,750 3.29%
Pamela Park 7 5,100 1.41%
48,550 12.73%
Pamela Park 8 38,700 11.34%
12,900 3.51%
9,550 2.58%
School Road 9 8,100 2.98%
8,500 3.13%
10,900 4.05%
So. Tyrol Hills 10 18,900 10.44%
2,140) 1.06%
So. Tyrol Hills 11 32,500 8.51%
7,100 1.74%
So. Tyrol Hills 12 8,000 3.51%
14,300 6.10%
So. Tyrol Hills 13 12,500 2.51%
So. Tyrol Hills 14 8,200 1.84%
51,200 12.68%
So. Tyrol Hills 15 26,300 8.00%
So. Tyrol Hills 16 26,900) 8.23%
31,250) 9.43%
22,750 8.21%
So. Tyrol Hills 17 25,000 4.55%
So. Tyrol Hills 18 1,000) 0.58%
Misc Golden Valley 19 9,000 5.26%
Misc Golden Valley 20 7,300 3.37%
Misc Golden Valley 21 1,900 0.15%
Misc Golden Valley 22 7,000 1.09%
Misc Golden Valley 23 1,000 0.60%
Misc Golden Valley 24 6,400 2.99%
Misc Golden Valley 25 74,000 38.44%
Misc Golden Valley 26 8,500 7.23%
Mist Golden Valley 27 14,017 6.15%
Mist Golden Valley 28 4,000 2,11%
Misc Golden Valley 29 9,000 3.74%
Misc Golden Valley 30 9,900 5.50%
Misc Golden Valley 31 19,000 9.31%
Shoreview 32 17,000 5.70%
Woodbury 33 13,800 6.24%
Bloomington 34 3,500 1.80%
Brooklyn Center 35 9,850 6.12%
Minnetonka 36 14,000 3.37%
Minnetonka 37 14,500 5.13%
Minnetonka 38 5,000) 1.53%
Eden Prairie 39 4,650 1.721/6
Lovit 26,900) 8.23% 31,250) 9.4396:
High 74,000 38.44% 98,700>
Average. 10,794. 4.73%, 20,258` 46896" .
Mediert' 8;500" 3.5191; 14 300
Combined Average 14,769 4.71%
Combined Median L 9.875. 3.51%,
Without extremes:
LOW 1,000. 0.1596 5,500;:;<<" 1.0290;:
Hgh 25,000" ' 10.44% i, 27,860 ° 821%
Average 9,976 4.19% 14,202 3.67%
Median 8,750 3.62% 12,700 3.21%
Combined Average 11,666 3.98%
Combined Median 9.700 3.44%
M7
IR
IR
IR
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Appraiser Survey
Telephone interviews were conducted with 22 experienced
residential real estate appraisers in the Twin Cities metro-
Rolling Green value benefit ranged from $0 to
25,000 per property, having an average of $13,972
politan area familiar with Edina real estate. and a median of $15,000. Many appraisers stated
new street improvements, including new curb and
All appraisers' opinions and comments were used in our gutter, would enhance this neighborhood least of
analysis. The results obtained are summarized as fol- the three presented, relative to costs. The feeling
lows: was that it is a unique area providing very upscale
residents with "country" living, yet still being very
20 appraisers (91%) expressed a positive opin- close in to the City of Minneapolis and its opportu-
ion of new street improvements; 2 were negative nities. The majority feel the curb and gutter benefit
which dealt with the Rolling Green neighborhood.
Positive comments generally mentioned improved
is minimal within this neighborhood.
m General comments on curb and gutter were most
appearance and appeal. Many commented their positive in South Harriet Park, and least in Rolling
opinions could vary based on the condition of the Green, yetthere were a full range ofopinions--some
original street, with streets in poor condition obvi- were very supportive of the value benefit in all 3
i
ously receiving a greater benefit than those in okay neighborhood, others were more neutral, and a few
condition. were negative for Rolling Green. Sunnyslope was
Value benefit results for South Harriet Park ranged considered between the other two neighborhoods.
from $2,000 to $10,000, with an average of $7,461 Based upon general comments, we have ranked
and a median of $10,000 per property. Many felt them into 3 categories: curb & gutter benefit is
3.P 3 ®
this neighborhood would receive the greatest ben- 100%+ of cost, 50% of cost or "minimal". 9 were
efit return relative to the cost from new streets and ranked at 100%, 8 were 50%, and 6 were "mini -
new curb and gutter due to its "urban" feel. mal". Nearly all of the "minimal" were exclusive to
Sunnyslope value benefit ranged from $2,000 Rolling Green, and some 50% rankings were for
both Roiling Green and Sunnyslope.
to $17,500, averaging $10,939 and a median of
11,200 per property. Opinions were mixed about
the benefit of new curb and gutter in this commu-
nity, since many residents prefer the "country" look
without them.
M7
IR
IR
IR C
r- -
i
3.P 3 ® rtzff
i 1 1 1 11 , 111 111 • 1 1
C
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Realtor Survey
Telephone interviews were conducted with 32 experienced Three Realtors expressed their value benefits as a
residential Realtors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area fa- percentage of property values, ranging from 3% to
miliar with Edina real estate. The results are summarized 10% increase, averaging 7.7% and having a me-
as follows: dian of 10%.
Many Realtors indicated there would be a return or
partial return on costs/special assessments paid,
either immediately or at some time in the future.
For purposes of analyzing our data, $10,000 +/_
was assigned as a dollar amount for costs. There
were a total of 17 value benefit amount responses-
either a specific dollar amount, or a percentage re-
turn of costs/assessments. The overall increased
value opinions ranged from $4,000 to $21,000, with
an average of $9,941 and a median of $10,000.
The amounts were generalized to all 3 neighbor-
hoods. With greater costs/assessments in larger
lot subdivisions, some greater average amounts
would be produced.
None of the Realtors expressed value benefit
opinions individually for the three neighborhoods.
There were comments supporting the appraisers'
opinions as to South Harriet Park having the great-
est benefit -to -cost ratio, and Rolling Green the
least, due to the same "urban" vs. "country" feel.
Two Realtors expressed specific curb and gutter
value benefits of $8,000 and $10,000. On the 10 -
scale, seven gave opinions ranging from 1 to 5,
with an average of 2. General comments placed
most benefit to South Harriet Park, least to Rolling
Green, and some to Sunnyslope.
L 5 J
5 3
F
i
d
t
Y
Y `br 3
1
111 ', 111 . ', 111 '. 11 . ', :111 .: li . 1 1 1 . 11 . • - :111
L 5 J
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Homeowner surveys
Telephone interviews were conducted with numerous ho-
meowners in the neighborhoods of White Oaks in Edina,
and South Tyrol Hills in Golden Valley. These subdivisions
had recent street improvements, and their values and ap-
peal were felt to be similar to some of the subject neigh-
borhoods.
Both neighborhoods where interviews occurred indicated
positive opinions of new street improvements, yet the
Edina neighborhood had stronger positive views.
White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart
Total New Streets Project)
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
Conclusions and Recommendations
With costs reportedly near $3,000 to $4,000 per 1/4 -acre
property, and $6,000 or more per larger site subdivisions,
the marginal benefit of curb and gutter greatly diminishes
in the "country" look neighborhoods. Based upon our mar-
ket research, South Harriet Park can fully bear the $3,000
to $4,000 curb and gutter costs, Sunnyslope could bear
near $2,000 per parcel, and Rolling Green $0 to $1,000.
While this is inverse to the costs, the market appears to
prefer the no curb "country" look in the large -site estate -
type suburban developments. While this conclusion is not
fully consistent with all of our market research, the majority
of data supports this opinion.
With new street improvements net of consideration of the
curb and gutter issue, the market appears to fully bear the
cost when the original improvements are in poor condi-
tion. Costs reportedly are in the $4,000 to $10,000 range
depending upon size of the lots. When the pavement has
some remaining life where significant annual patching is
not needed, a proration of the new pavement cost would
be appropriate. All of the subject neighborhoods' streets
appear to be at the end of their useful life.
Based upon all of our research and analysis, we conclude
the following market value benefits for the subject 3 neigh-
borhoods:
South Harriet Park With Curb and Gutter:
9,000 to $10,000
1.8% to 2.0% on a $500,000 residence)
Sunnyslope With Curb and Gutter:
12,000 to $14,000
1.6% to 1.9% on a $750,000 residence)
Sunnyslope Without Curb and Gutter:
10,000 to $12,000
1.3% to 1.6% on a $750,000 residence)
Rolling Green Without Curb and Gutter:
14,000 to $16,000
9% to 1.1% on a $1.5 million residence)
Note that these are average values where there may be
some exceptions—small/modest homes on poor -feature
lots may be less, and larger than average sites with strong
values commanding site premiums would be greater.
City assessment policy may varying from a conservative
across the board low percentage of cost rate with general
taxes funding the balance, to an aggressive near 100% of
cost rate where property owner appeals would be prob-
able on some class of properties.
If current costs are below the above market value benefit
conclusions, a more aggressive stance could be feasible.
To reduce potential appeals, however, a compromise
policy would be to establish a floor assessment amount
somewhat below the above value benefit rates, plus apply
a certain percentage for the overage. The shortfall would
have to be covered by a City contribution funded via the
general tax levy.
Unique floor amounts would be appropriate for the differ-
ent types and valued subdivisions (see the notable value
benefit differences between South Harriet Park and Roll-
ing Green).
If curb and gutter are to be included in some large -lot de-
velopments where a "country" look is preferred, greater
care should be used in establishing the floor amount.
Please review the "extraordinary assumptions, special
limiting conditions, and hypothetical conditions" section of
this report on page 11 before relying on the values, recom-
mendations or other conclusions.
F7 I
Agenda Number: -
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager(
SUBJECT: Appointments of Council Coordinating Representatives
DATE: December 30, 2005, for City Council study session of January 10, 2006
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the appointments for Council Coordinating Representatives for 2006. This item is
on the January 10 regular meeting agenda for adoption.
2. BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Council considers appointments of Council Coordinating Representatives
CCR), as well as appointments to other agencies and boards. The 2005 appointment list follows, and I have received a
couple of comments from councilmembers. Three individuals have expressed interest in the Council appointment to the
Municipal Legislative Commission (Johnson, Bildsoe, Willis). Councilmember Slavik has a conflict with the meeting
nights for the Human Rights Commission and has asked if anyone wishes to take this appointment. Councilmember
Willis has indicated a desire to transfer the School District 279 appointment.
Board/Commission/AgencyBoard/Commission/Agency 2005 Appointments 2006 Appointments
Planning Commission Bob Stein
Park & Recreation Advisory Comm. Kelli Slavik
Environmental Quality Committee Ginny Black
Human Rights Commission Kelli Slavik
Youth Advisory Council Judy Johnson
Advisory Committee on Transit Sandy Hewitt
Charter Commission Bob Stein
School District 279 (Osseo) Jim Willis
School District 281 (Robbinsdale) Bob Stein
School District 284 (Wayzata) Kelli Slavik/Sandy Hewitt
School District 270 (Hopkins) Sandy Hewitt/Judy Johnson
School District 284 CICC Tim Bildsoe/Sandy Hewitt
Plymouth Foundation Jim Willis
Municipal Legislative Commission
1 elected and 1 appointed)
Tim Bildsoe/Judy Johnson
Laurie Ahrens
Northwest Suburban Cable Comm. Sandy Hewitt/Helen LaFave
Suburban Rate Authority Jim Willis/Doran Cote (alt.)
1-494 Corridor Commission
Council, Council alternate; Staff,
Staff Alternate)
Sandy Hewitt
Kelli Slavik (alt.)
Pat Qvale
Barb Senness (alt.)
Highway 55 Corridor Commission Anne Hurlburt/Sandy Hewitt
alt.)
Plymouth Civic League Kelli Slavik
Suburban Transit Association Sandy Hewitt/Judy Johnson
Pat Qvale (alt.)
TwinWest Minnetonka -Plymouth
Business Council
Tim Bildsoe/Judy Johnson
Agenda Number: 1—/
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City ManagerfA--/
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: January 3, 2006, for City Council meeting of January 10, 2006
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list, set study sessions
and amend the topics if desired.
2. BACKGROUND: 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)
Public Safety Emergency Plan (Mar.)
Other requests for study session topics:
Update with City Manager (summer)
Discuss Solid Waste Program (spring)
Police and Fire staffing studies (mid 2006)
Report on staffing needs of City (Willis)
Meet with Xcel Energy to discuss reliability issues (Willis)
Request meeting with TwinWest PAC (Willis) — invitation
provided to TwinWest, waiting for response
Discuss image relating to funding and opportunities provided to
Plymouth (Stein)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
January 2006
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NEW YEAR'S
DAY CITY OFFICESCLOSEDIN
OBSERVANCE OF THE
NEW YEAR HOLIDAY
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Plymouth Creek Center
Conference Room 2
Black Box Theater,
Plymouth Creek
Center
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Plymouth Creek Center,
lower level Conference
Room 2
s:]D PM sPECIAL clw
COUNCIL MEETING: DISCUSS
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT POLICY,
DISCUSS CCR
M—MENTS: PYrrmNH
CaMw M M Roan ]
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth Creek
Center Classroom A
7:00 PM PARK 8
RECREATION
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Plymouth Creek Center
Classroom A
7'.OD PM REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING, Bled Boxu"c' Phmoulh c— C-
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR. BIRTHDAY
Observed) - City Offices
Closed
6:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
COUNCIL GOALS 8
OBJECTIVES, Plymouth
Creek Center
conference Room z
lower level
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Black Box Theater,
Plymouth Creek
Center
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Plymouth Creek Center,
Meeting Room 1
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORYCOUNCIL,
Plymouth Creek Center,
lower level Conference
Room 2
1+'^s AM PLYMOUTH
BUSINESS COUNCIL, rnGI
RkpM.la a..., --k.
w-_ _ GPaTv MA.
nceILL
ANNUAL EVALUATION,
PLYMOUTH GREEK CENTER
COHF. RM ]
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANS. (PACT),
Plymouth Creek Center
WPM REGUTAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING, Bled Bav
Tro . Pl .- Crank Caller
29 30 31
00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
PLYMOUTH AREA
LEGISLATORS,
Plymouth Creek Center,
Fireside Room
Feb 2006
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Dec 2005
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 26 27 28
modified on 1/4/2006
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
February 2006
Sunday I Monday I Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
2 3 4
Jan 2006 Mar 2006
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 7:00 PM
PLANNING
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
2:00 PM -7:00
PM FIRE & ICE12341234g67COMMISSION, COMMISSION- FESTIVAL,
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Council Chambers Medicine Lake Parkers Lake
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Room
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
5:00 PM SPECIAL CITY
COUNCIL MEETING:
DISCUSS HOUR
RESTRICTIONS ON
WEEKEND
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
ECC), Council
7:00 PM PARK 8
RE ADVISORY
COMMISSION
CONSTRUCTION; Medkine bChamers FRAC), Council
Lake Room Chambers
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
7:00 PM
PLANNING
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
Council Chambers
COMMISSION,
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chambers
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PRESIDENTS 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
DAY - City
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
Offices Closed TRANSIT (PACT) -
Council Chambem
26 27 28
7:DDPMYOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Council Chambers
T:311AM MLC REGIONAL
LEGISLATIVE MEETING,
Pt1'^°'A^ Raal—, 3131
C.- Onva
11:0.5 AM PLYMOUTH
9USIHE55 COUNCIL. 1--1
RkpMaI. orae, Ni—...
1145 AM —INW EST STATE
OF THE CITY LUNCHEON,
Piy a Cnak—
00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING, C-11 ::::n
modified on 1/3/2006
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
March 2006
Sunday Monday I Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
t7:00 PM
PNNING
COISSION,
2
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
3 4Feb2006
S M T W T F S
Apr 2006
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CouChambers Medicine Lake
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Room
ASH
WEDNESDAY
26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
S 6 7 8 9 10 11
5:45 PM -7:45 PM
YOUTH
LEADERSHIP
CONFERENCE,
ETIN-NTA
QU
7:00 PM PARK 6
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
7:00 PM Caucus Night
Plymouth Creek Chambers
Center
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Council Chambers
26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORYCOUNCIL,
Council chambers
11:45 AM PLYMOUTH
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
12201 Ridgedale Dme,
Minnetonka
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH
FINE ARTS
COUNCIL
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
SHOW
Plymouth Creek
Center
modified on 1/3/2006
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
April 2006
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
May 2006
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
J
y
PRIMAVERA
UTH FINEPLCOUNCILSHOW,
TS
Plymouth Creek center
Mar 2006
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
2
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
COMMENCES -
set docks ahead 1
hOUf
3
PRIMAVERA
PLYMOUTH FINE
ARTS COUNCIL
SHOW, Plymouth Creek
Canter
4
7:00 PM BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION,
Council Chambers
PROUTH RAPLYMOUTHARTS
COUNCIL SHOW,
Plymouth Creek Center
5
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
6
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
7 8
9
PALM SUNDAY
10
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUAL[TYCOMMITTEE
ECIC), Council
Chambers
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Council Chambers
11
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
12
PASSOVER
BEGINS AT
SUNSET
13
7:00 PM PARK&
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
14
GOOD FRIDAY
15
16
EASTER
SUNDAY
17
7:00 PM YOUTH
SERVICE AWARDS,
Council Chambers
18
I 7:Do PM BOARD OF
EQUALIZATIONRECONVENED),Counul
cn.mesra
19
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
20
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
2.1 22
YARD &GARDEN
EXPO,PIymOuth
Creek Center
23 24
7:00 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Council Chambers
25
11:45 AM PLYMOUTH
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
12201 Ridgedale Or e,
Minnetonka
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
26
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Council Chambers
27 28 29
30
modified on 1/3/2006