The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Packet 02-08-2000 SpecialAgenda City of Plymouth Special City Council Meeting Tuesday, February 8, 2000 7:00 p.m. Public Safety Training Room 1. Call to Order 7:00 p.m. 2. Drainageway Maintenance and Notification (requested by Councilmember Black) 7:00 p.m. 3. Building Inspection Process and Fees (requested by Councilmember Johnson) 7:30 p.m. 4. Community Foundation (requested by Councilmember Brown) 8:00 p.m. 5. Livable Communities Goals (requested by Councilmember Bildsoe) 8:30 p.m. 6. Set next study sessions and topics: Goals and Priorities Session Joint meeting with Charter Commission 9:00 P.M. 7. Quarterly check-in with City Manager 9:15 p.m. 8. Adjourn 9:30 p.m. DATE: February 4, 2000 TO: City Councilmembers; City Manager FROM: Councilmembers Tim Bildsoe and Judy Johnson SUBJECT: Travel Outside the Seven -County Metro Area We will be attending the National League of Cities Annual Conference in Washington, DC, March 11-14, 2000. We are advising you of this travel in advance as required by the City's Travel Policy for overnight travel outside of the seven -county metro area. cc: Dale Hahn, Finance Director DATE P PPOP TPTI 01-29-97 01-07-94 02-02-96 02-24-98 CITY OF PLYMOUTH CLAIMS STATUS REPORT December 31, 1999 CLAIMS STILL PENDING FROM LAST REPORT DATE TYPE OF LOSS OF LOSS 01-26-91 Liability rT A TWA A WT Loyal Holseth 01-07-94 Automobile Reinhardt Schewe 02-01-96 Automobile 02-24-98 Automobile 09-03-98 Automobile Susan Hayden Gary Jacobson City of Minneapolis NATURE OF CLAIM In response to a Police complaint, the SPCA seized dogs that claimant was raising in his car Icy conditions. Fire Inspector slid through stop sign and struck empty school bus causing minor injuries to driver Engineering employee lost control of car and struck driver exiting parking lot Police Officer rammed car of fleeing shoplifting suspect, forcing it into oncoming vehicle on I-494 Minneapolis and Plymouth Squad Cars collided in a controlled intersection. Both Police Officers claim the green light CURRENT STATUS OF CLAIM First Notice was a pro se lawsuit. Referred to LMCIT. Case inactive and waiting for dismissal due to lack of prosecution Referred to LMCIT for investigation. Claimant driver alleging non- specific bodily injuries Referred to LMCIT. Claimant is represented by attorney. Has many non -accident problems. Settled PD claim for 1,857. $385 damage to City vehicle. Offered 8,500 to settle BI claim Referred to LMCIT for investigation. Open for contribution towards settlement of minor BI Claim Referred to LMCIT for investigation. Liability unclear. File closed then re -opened when injured Minneapolis Police Officer and his attorney surfaced. LMCIT handling G:\fmance\riskmgmtclaimsrpt\decclaim.doc PAGE 1 06-19-99 09-24-99 06-19-99 Automobile 09-24-99 Automobile Roger Rutten Julie Ipsen Claimant tried to drive around backing Police Vehicle, vehicle damaged Police Officer backing from parking spot, struck claimant's moving vehicle Referred to LMCIT for investigation. Claim Denied. File closed then re -opened when claimant filed suit. LMCIT defending Referred to LMCIT for investigation. Subrogation claim denied G:\finance\riskmgmtclaimsrpt\decclaim.doc PAGE 2 CLAIMS CLOSED SINCE LAST REPORT DATE DATE TYPE OF REPORTED OF LOSS LOSS 01-14-93 01-06-93 Liability 10-19-98 06-01-98 Liability Field & Stark Barbara Swanson NATURE OF CURRENT STATUS OF Employment Settled. Paid $58,865.16 discrimination law in pro -rata judgment and suit against City of defense costs Plymouth and MPRS Alleged violation of Referred to LMCIT for constitutional rights investigation and defense. as the result of Court granted defense seizure of vehicle for motion to dismiss. Cost alcohol violations to defend: $4,055.66 G:\finance\riskmgmtclaimsrpt\decclaun.doc PAGE 3 NEW CLAIMS SINCE LAST REPORT DATE DATE TYPE OF NATURE OF CURRENT STATUS OF REPORTED OF LOSS LOSS CLAIMANT CLAIM CLAIM 11-05-99 06-15-99 Liability Joe Pendy Alleges Police In Suit. Referred to Officer violated his LMCIT for investigation rights by failing to and defense. provide a sign interpreter piror to transportating him to jail 12-15-99 06-02-98 Liability Judith Ann Johnson Alleges that firearms In Suit. Referred to City seized from friend Attorney for defense was actually her property. Demands value of firearms 012-03-99 03-06-99 Liability Richard & Pamela Alleges that In Suit. Referred to Hasbrook Plymouht Police LMCIT for investigation Officers informed and defense fugative that claimant's tip led to his arrest 12-26-99 12-26-99 Liability Quan Cao 77 year old Referred to LMCIT for immigrant without investigation health insurance slipped on ice outside Ice Center and fractured hip 12-27-99 12-27-99 Liability Renee Lofgren Claimant refused to Referred to LMCIT for Age 7 follow directions and investigation was strick by a sled on a sliding hill. Mother feels staff was negligent in not informing her of the accident on a timely basis 10-15-99 Automobile Cherish Nielsen Fire vehicle leaving Settled PD claim for fire scene struck $666.01. Closed file claimant's parked car G:\fmance\riskmgmtclaimsrpt\decclaim.doc PAGE 4 10-19-99 Automobile 12-24-99 Automobile Patricia Casto Janel Schwegman Fire vehicle responding to a call struck claimant's stopped car Settled PD claim for 1,087.44. Closed file Unattended squad car Awaiting submission of rolled into stopped claim vehicle G:\fmance\riskmgmtclaimsrpt\decclaim.doc IPAGE 5 MEMO k CITY OF PLYMOUTH fi 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447= DATE: February 3, 2000 TO: Dwight D. JohnsoCity Manager FROM: Fred G. Moore; E., Director of Public Works SUBJECT: DRAINAGEWAY MAINTENANCE AND NOTIFICATION Councilmember Ginny Black has requested a discussion of our drainageway maintenance and notification procedures. This is scheduled as a topic on the Special City Council meeting for February 8. Our drainageway maintenance is performed by the Street Division of the Public Works Department. With regard to open drainageways or drainage ditches, our maintenance is performed throughout the year depending on other work load and weather conditions. Some winters we can perform this work if we do not have deep snow cover. Generally, if there is deep snow cover it cannot be performed in the wintertime. Sometimes we hire a contractor with the necessary equipment to perform part of the work. Throughout the summer months, before and after rainstorms, we have a program to inspect the open ditch drainage system. Generally, no inspection is required on the storm sewer pipes. Our open drainage system is subject to blockage since a lot of property owners use these areas to dump their yard waste and just naturally most of these drainageways are in open areas with substantial tree cover. A lot of debris is floated into our system with each rainstorm and therefore we need to check to make sure it does not plug a culvert or stornl sewer pipe. As necessary, we need to periodically remove trees or brush and silt which blocks the drainage system. Generally, the silt problem is only immediately adjacent to the outlet of a storm sewer pipe. We are able to clean most of these with a backhoe sitting in the boulevard adjacent to the street with very little disturbance to the surrounding property. We have many drainageways which can go for long distances along backyards or in common open spaces owned jointly within the development. When these require maintenance they generally require more disturbance to the drainageway to do the proper cleaning. Also, work may need to be performed to correct an erosion problem. SUBJECT: DRAINAGEWAY MAINTENANCE AND NOTIFICATION Page 2 J Until a year ago there was no standard practice on notification to property owners when we were doing maintenance work on the drainage system. We have established a practice that if we are doing maintenance on the open drainage system, other than at the culverts or storm sewer pipes adjacent to the street, we notify the adjacent property owners. Attached are several letters which were sent to the property owners last year. The drainage maintenance which we are performing is within public easements established for the system. There are some systems that were developed more than twenty years ago where public easements were not established. If we do not have public easements we contact the property owners for permission to do the necessary maintenance. After discussion by the City Council, the Council may wish to provide additional direction on public notification. C\pw•\Engineering\GENERAL\MEMOS\FRED\I 999Vohnson_Drain V aint.doc February 9, 1999 CITY C PLYMOUTH+ Pin- Name* Address» City», «Staten «Zip* SUBJECT: DRAINAGE DITCH CLEANING Dear Property Owner: One of the maintenance activities which the City performs during the winter months is the clearing of obstructions in drainageways. One of the major obstructions which we must deal with is the voluntary growth of trees in the drainage channels. Over a period of time, these trees will block or greatly reduce the capability of the channel to carry the necessary surface water runoff. You will be noticing within the next several days that the City will be clearing the drainage channel adjacent to the trail along the southerly side of the railroad. This drainage channel turns southerly before it goes under Larch Lane immediately north of 515` Avenue. The area which we will be cleaning is between Pineview Lane and Larch Lane. Periodically, the City needs to clean these channels in order that they will have the capacity to carry the flow of water as designed. Without doing this, there are possibilities that properties upstream will be flooded. In this area we will be leaving as many trees as possible on the side of the drainageway closest to your houses that are above the area necessary to convey the water from heavy rainfall. After the trees are removed, we will determine if siltation has taken place in the bottom of the drainageway which should also be removed. If it is necessary to remove dirt that has silted into the area, this will be done from the trail side of the drainageway. I realize that this undergrowth of trees has provided some shielding to the railroad, but the City must do adequate maintenance to be assured that the drainage ditch will perform as designed with the development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works L:\pw\Engineering\GENERAL\LTRJ\FRED\ 1999\Creekwood_Form.d0c PLYMOUTH .4 Beau tiia(P!ace'ro Live 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHCNE 1,612) 509-5000 Q..... ,. www.ci.plymouth.mn.us February 18, 1999 CITY C PLYMOUTR FirstName» « LastName» Address 1» City», «State» «PostalCode» SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Dear Homeowner: This letter is to inform you that it has become necessary to remove sediment deposits from the end of the storm sewer pipe on or adjacent to your property. It will be necessary to access the end of the pipes across sodded property. A backhoe will remove the sediment in the wetland and trucks will haul this material away. A few trees located near the storm sewer pipe located between 5125 and 5135 Trenton Lane must be removed to facilitate cleaning in this area. All sod that is damaged as a result of construction activity will be repaired when weather permits. Work is expected to begin on Monday, February 22 and should take no more than one or two days to complete. Please contact me at 509-5524 if you have any questions regarding this activity. Sincerely, Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Roger Wenner, Street Supervisor PLYMOUTH A Beau tiju( Place -7-o Lire 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINK OIA. 55.4 1Ld[p82 N z 5C9 5CC0 p ngineenng\(iENtiRALU.TRS L SC e.nin ww.C1.Plymouth.mn.usw larch 2. 1999 CITU C PLYMOUTR Creekside of Plymouth Homeowners Assoc. NHD Property Management 45 7`h Street South, #3010 Minneapolis, MN 55402 SUBJECT: STORM SEWER CLEANING IN PLYMOUTH CREEK To Whom It May Concern: In the near future construction activity is planned to take place in Plymouth Creek adjacent to your development. The nature of the work consists of removing sediment deposits from the ends of the storm sewer pipes located north of Rockford Road, south of Rockford Road, and south of 38th Avenue North. In some instances, small brush and trees will need to be removed in the creek channel or along the banks in order to facilitate sediment removal and heavy equipment operations. All work will be conducted within existing public easements. Except for the area north of Rockford Road, all excavated material will be trucked off site. Any necessary restoration will be completed in the spring. We are requesting that you notify residents within your homeowners association or apartment building so that they will not be alarmed with the construction activity when it does occur. Please direct all inquiries to myself, Darrell Johnson, at 509-5524. Sincerely, 1 Darrell Joh6 on Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Roger Wenner, Street Supervisor l 3tuuc:rlc ":.1L1 -r1 _.:.'C 3400 Di Y,ICUTH 3CU—EVARC "_ MCUTH, MINNESCTA 5 J,,147-1482 • 7='R5EPHONE 612` 609-6000 nyymeenngERUSDNfi'•L '.I •r'1'nplvmCrcec(orm fix N`NW.C;.plymouth.mn.u5 July 20, 1999 FirstName» «LastName» Company» Address 1» City, «State» «PostalCode,> SUBJECT: STORM WATER EROSION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN HARBOR PLACE ADDITION Dear Homeowner: This letter is to inform you that the City must correct a severe storm water related erosion problem at the end of the storm sewer pipe located in the outlot area behind 555 Glacier Lane. Heavy equipment and trucks will need to be brought into this area so that regrading activities may take place. To facilitate the heavy equipment and regrading activity, some trees and brush located in the outlot area must be removed. The work will commence later this summer and consist of regrading an area approximately 100 feet long lying east from the end of the storm sewer pipe adjacent to 555 Glacier Lane (please refer to enclosed map for locations). This area will be armored with rock for long term erosion protection, and the steep bank lying south of the rock drainageway will be revegetated as well. Access to the site from Glacier Lane is impossible due to the steepness of the bituminous bikepath. Therefore, it will be necessary to access the site along the common property line located between 600 Harbor Lane and 610 Harbor Lane. Because heavy equipment will need to travel through these properties, some sod damage is expected. We will keep the disturbed access area to a minimum and will not exceed a 10 -foot wide strip through these properties. Any landscaping damage caused by City construction activity will be repaired following completion of the project. The project is expected to take no more than one week for completion. Since this is considered a maintenance activity, there will not be any assessments related to this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to meet onsite to discuss the proposed work. I can be reached at 509-5524. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. SUBJECT: STORM WATER EROSION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN HARBOR PLACE ADDITION Page 2 Sincerely, Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician enclosure cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Tom Vetsch, Superintendent of Public Works Gary Smith, Street Leadperson V:.pwtEngtneermg%EROSDNGI LTRS t 999kStorm W tr_Hareor_Form. Joc November 5, 1999 PLYMOUTR Name» Addressl. City>>, «State>> <<PostalCode» SUBJECT: STORM WATER DITCH CLEANING IN CREEKWOOD HILLS 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS Dear Homeowner: This is to inform you that City maintenance crews need to clean a ditch on your property to facilitate storm water drainage. The area that needs to be cleaned is the back yard property line outlined in pink on the enclosed map. It will be necessary to remove vegetation and some trees in the project area. All work will be done within the storm water easement area. We will mark the trees that need to be removed next week and tree removal will begin shortly thereafter. If you have any questions as to which trees need to be removed, I encourage you to contact me so that we may discuss the matter in detail, or meet onsite. Once the trees are removed, it will be necessary to clean the ditch using a backhoe and City trucks to remove the excess material. The tree removal and cleaning will be in an area approximately 20 feet wide. Please contact me at 509-5524 if you have any questions. Sincerely, U Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician enclosure cc: Fred G. yloore. Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner. City Engineer Shane Missa2hi. `Fater Resources Engineer Gary Smith. Street Leadperson L. 7%AEntsn rinq ER01DNG'L'RS`t'+W"': eekwd _DucnC:nq_=orm,4m M!i1il,l`J.' December 7, 1999 Property Owner SUBJECT: STORM SEWER CLEANING GOLDENROD LANE Dear Property Owner: BETWEEN 6030 and 404.6 In the near future storm sewer cleaning is planned to take place adjacent to your home. The nature of the work consists of removing sediment deposits from the end of the storm sewer pipe located in your back yard. Some trees will need to be removed in the easement area in order to facilitate sediment removal and heavy equipment operations. Sod damage will be repaired next spring. We will mark the trees that need to be removed and they will be cut down shortly thereafter. If you have any questions, please contact me immediately at 509-5524. Sincerely, Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Gary Smith, Street Department J r PLYMOUTH -1 Beautijuf Placa'T ivt 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD - PLYMOUTH, t fNf i i'rA , y 2° ? ' F`t R7° `64 -Y to -8000 www.d.plymouth.mn.js December 14, 1999CITY OF PLYMOUTH+ Property Owner SUBJECT: STORM SEWER CLEANING BETWEEN 16300 and 16310 29' AVENUE Dear Property Owner: In the near future (weather permitting) storm sewer cleaning is planned to take place adjacent to your home. The nature of the work consists of removing sediment deposits from the end of the storm sewer pipe located in your back yard. Some trees will need to be removed in the easement area in order to facilitate sediment removal and heavy equipment operations. Sod damage will be repaired next spring. We will mark the trees that need to be removed with paint, and they will be cut down shortly thereafter. If you have any questions, please contact me immediately at 509- 5524. Sincerely, 1 Darrell Johns ` Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Gary Smith, Street Department PLYMOUTH A Beauh u[Place ?v Live 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, M[MNLrSCrA'-W4T"1'WW•G'If 1`9'5000 y, www.d.plymouth.mn,us V December 14, 1999 CITU 0 F PLYMOUTH+ Property Owner SUBJECT: STORM SEWER CLEANING BETWEEN 2910 and 3000 BLACK OAK LANE Dear Property Owner: In the near future (weather permitting) storm sewer cleaning is planned to take place adjacent to your home. The nature of the work consists of removing sediment deposits from the end of the storm sewer pipe located in your back yard. Some trees will need to be removed in the easement area in order to facilitate sediment removal and heavy equipment operations. Sod damage will be repaired next spring. We will mark the trees that need to be removed with paint, and they will be cut down shortly thereafter. If you have any questions, please contact me immediately at 509- 5524. Sincerely, Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Gary Smith, Street Department PLYMOUTH A Beatctit'U Place'Tv Live 3400 PLYMOUTH SOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, fvtP}M r 'PA S d'"'' " L' J 1`i 727 9 5000 a,.. www.b.plymouth.mmus December 20, 1999 Dr. Manferd T. Benson 16205-44 1h Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55446 SUBJECT: STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Dear Property Owner: In the near future (weather permitting) storm sewer improvements are planned to take place adjacent to your home. The nature of the work consists of removing sediment deposits from the creek in your back yard. It is also necessary to grade and stabilize the storm sewer outfall from the end of the pipe to the creek. This will be in the storm sewer easement. Currently, the drainage route does not fall in the easement. Some trees will need to be removed in the easement area in order to facilitate sediment removal, grading, and heavy equipment operations. Access to the property will be from the back property line along the creek. We will mark the trees that need to be removed with paint, and they will be cut down shortly thereafter. If you have any. questions, please contact me immediately at 509-5524. Sincerely, Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer Gary Smith, Street Department N `pwNEngmcenng•EROSDNG\LTRS 1')W)\Bms n_12-20 doc I Agenda Number: 31 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager Heurlburt, FROM: Joe Ryan, Building Official, through AnCommunity Development Director SUBJECT: Building Permit Fees and Inspections DATE: February 2, 2000, for the special City Council Meeting of February 8, 2000 1. BACKGROUND: The matter concerning building permit fees and inspections came as a result of an inquiry made by a Plymouth resident based on a roofing inspection performed at his home during the spring of 1999. On May 7, 1998, our office issued a building permit to Walker Roofing for property located at 10725 390' Ave. N. The building permit fee of $128.98 was based on an estimated value of 6,955 to perform the work. The work consisted of a complete tear off and re -roof of the house and garage. The property owner, Mr. Labeck, contacted our office to arrange for a final inspection of the work performed by Walker Roofing. On May 17, 1999, one of our inspectors was scheduled to perform the requested inspection, however, upon arrival never left his City vehicle. Mr. Labeck contacted our office either that same day or the next following day to find that the inspection he had requested had been approved. Mr. Labeck was not only displeased in that he had taken time off to meet with our inspector, but also questioned how the inspection could have been made without the inspector leaving his vehicle. Mr. Labeck also questioned the type of service rendered by the City for the fees paid for the permit. After learning about the incident, I apologized to Mr. Labeck about the inspection and responded to his inquiries. On June 10, 1999, I arranged another inspection to have an inspector meet with Mr. Labeck to observe the roof installation. That inspection was performed and subsequently approved. 2. PERMIT FEES: The purpose of building permits is to ensure that work complies with the minimum standards of the building code, the purpose of which is to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the residents of the state. The issuance of building permits for the installation of new roofs or for roof repairs are required by State law. The fees collected by the issuance of a building permit are provided for by a table published in the 1997 Uniform Building Code which has been adopted by the City, and is based upon a percentage of the valuation of work being performed. The collection of permit fees is intended to offset the actual costs incurred to administer and enforce the codes. These costs include, but not are limited to: the costs of personnel, supplies and services necessary for checking plans, inspections and administrative services. As part of the building permit issuance process, the City is also responsible for verifying that residential contractors are licensed by the State of Minnesota. 3. INSPECTION PROCESS Part of the inspectors' responsibility is to inspect permitted work to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the state building code. They also communicate with contractors, builders and citizens about observed problems, and the means by which those problems can be resolved. Once construction has been completed, and the work has been given a final inspection, it is reasonable for us to expect that the work has been done within the scope and provisions of the State Building Code. As part of this process, our inspectors are not only expected to conduct their inspections within the requested times provided, but to also greet the property owner and actually observe the work performed. Even though the building code contains provisions for roof ventilation, roof drainage, roof covering materials and application and valley flashing, only a final inspection is required. Our inspectors are not equipped with ladders to inspect roof installations. Climbing roofs may also cause damage to asphalt shingles during both the cold winter and hot summer months of the year. Our inspection process consists of a visual review of the roof by walking around the perimeter of the house from ground level. Although required, most contractors and residents who obtain permits for re -roofing projects do not contact our office to arrange for final inspection approval. Although we can technically void these permits due to expiration, we first attempt to inspect these properties to close our records. Typically, inspections are usually made during the winter months when construction activity tapers off. This represents yet another problem, in that it is difficult to observe any roof having snow covering it. 4. CONCLUSION The City of Plymouth is not mandated to adopt the formal fee schedule contained in the 1997 building code and thus, the City Council may adopt any form of fee schedule desired. In 1999 alone, our office issued 665 building permits for residential roofing projects. The average valuation of those permits was equal to $5,372.00. The average permit fee generated was equal to $127.94. The total fee revenue generated by the City for these permits alone was equal to $85,080. The City Council could choose to adopt a lesser fee schedule for residential roofing projects, but should consider the overall impact it may have on the total amount of fee revenue generated by the issuance of these permits. Agenda Number: +, TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Community Foundation / _ DATE: February 3, 2000, for City Council meeting of February 8, 2000 1. ACTION REQUESTED: No action is recommended. 2. BACKGROUND: Councilmember Brad Brown has suggested that the City explore the possibility of establishing a community foundation. Foundations such as The Wayzata Foundation and The Golden Valley Foundation have been in existence for some time and each provides numerous gifts to their communities. As examples, The Wayzata Foundation is currently involved in a park capital improvement program, while the Golden Valley Foundation contributes each year to social service agencies which Plymouth funds through its general fund. Park Director Eric Blank indicates that Plymouth established a foundation about two decades ago during the period that David Davenport was mayor. However, the foundation was later disbanded due to the fact that contributions made directly to the City were fully tax deductible to the donors, and need for a separate foundation was unclear at that time. The Minneapolis Foundation may be the oldest and most well known area foundation. It was established in 1915 and today has $450 million in assets. Its purpose is to raise money to create a permanent endowment, invest that endowment, and give the earnings from it back to the community through grants, loans, public policy and education projects. The Minneapolis Foundation has a unique program called the Metropolitan Philanthropy Program which invites communities surrounding Minneapolis to participate in the Foundation for an administrative fee. A community without a community foundation could affiliate as a Community Fund of The Minneapolis Foundation. A Community Fund is a component of The Minneapolis Foundation, but has its own Advisory Committee from the local community. The Advisory Committee reviews possible projects and initiatives for funding, facilitates fundraising, and recommends grants from the Community Fund. Additional information on this program is attached. 3. DISCUSSION: The City Attorney has reviewed the issue of City involvement in establishing a community foundation. He has advised that Minnesota Statute 465.715 prohibits cities from creating new corporations whether for profit or not for profit (which Page 2 includes foundations) unless there is a specific statutory authorization to do so. This legislation was passed several years ago and prevents the City from being involved in establishing a foundation or becoming an affiliate of an existing foundation. The City Attorney indicated that there have even been some recent legislative attempts to take this a step farther and impact existing foundations. Individual council members or other residents of the community could pursue establishment of a separate or affiliate foundation, but it would not be legal for the City to be involved in doing so. 4. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City not pursue establishment of a foundation. Ms. Laurie Ahrens November 17, 1999; Page 2 It is these beliefs, purpose and commitment that helped create the Metropolitan Philanthropy Program. The Board of Trustees wanted to reach out to all the communities surrounding Minneapolis to give the citizens in your community the same opportunities to meet their charitable goals as those connected to Minneapolis. People should be able give where they live. The enclosures will give you more information about The Minneapolis Foundation and the Metropolitan Philanthropy Program. If at any time you would like to discuss this concept in more detail please call me at 612 672-3827. Until that time please keep our purple folder of information. Sincerely, Katheen c e ng Community Philanthropy Officer P. S. Please be on the lookout for our annual report, which will be mailed to you shortly. Thanks! ra Ms. Laurie Ahrens November 17, 1999; Page 2 It is these beliefs, purpose and commitment that helped create the Metropolitan Philanthropy Program. The Board of Trustees wanted to reach out to all the communities surrounding Minneapolis to give the citizens in your community the same opportunities to meet their charitable goals as those connected to Minneapolis. People should be able give where they live. The enclosures will give you more information about The Minneapolis Foundation and the Metropolitan Philanthropy Program. If at any time you would like to discuss this concept in more detail please call me at 612 672-3827. Until that time please keep our purple folder of information. Sincerely, Kath een C. 'c e ng Community Philanthropy Officer P.S. Please be on the lookout for our annual report, which will be mailed to you shortly. Thanks! 2 1997-98 Financial Highlights Total assets: $400 million Growth in assets over past fiscal What we do year: 3846 Five-year annualized rate of return: 16% The Minneapolis Foundation, the oldest foundation in Minnesota, Number of charitable funds: encourages and facilitates charitable giving in the Twin Cities 450 region. It is composed of hundreds of separate charitable funds • Total gifts to Foundation: S44 and supporting organizations—ranging in size from $10,000 to million 35 million—created by four generations of caring citizens to • Grants awarded: S 19 million benefit our community and state. • Loans made: S2.7 million For more information about The Minneapolis Foundation, please visit our web site at mplsfoundation,org or call Gayle Thorsen, vice president, communications at 612/672-3832, gthorsen@mplsfoundation.org Grants and loans in St. Paul: S 3 As one of the largest community foundations in the nation, our million three main services are to: 1) raise money to create a permanent Grants and loans in Greater endowment for our community, 2) invest that endowment and Minnesota: $774,000 3) give the earnings from it back to the community through grants, loans, public policy and education projects and convening Supporting Organizations activities. Emma B. Howe Memorial Most of our grantmaking relates to human services, education, Foundation health care and the arts and humanities. Our donor advised Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi funds, supporting organizations and special projects have broad LLP. Foundation for Education, Public Health and Social Justice geographic reach while our discretionary grantmaking is focused LoanTech on the Twin Cities region. Greater Wayzata Community Foundation Our donors Our donors include individuals, families, businesses, communi- ti 5` of our Ca ties and nonprofit organizations. They can create several types 404. ' yam of charitable funds at the Foundation tailored to their individ- ual giving preferences. And they can establish those funds M I N N E 'A PO L I S with many different kinds of assets, including securities and F o u'N n e r 1 o N real estate, by making a gift now or remembering the Founda- tion in their wills. Since 1915 www.mpisfoundation.org For more information about The Minneapolis Foundation, please visit our web site at mplsfoundation,org or call Gayle Thorsen, vice president, communications at 612/672-3832, gthorsen@mplsfoundation.org Finance and Administrative Services The Minneapolis Foundation will provide or arrange for the provision of all bookkeeping, accounting and auditing services that are necessary for the community foundation or fund. The Minneapolis Foundation will provide for financial planning, budgeting, cash flow management, tax compliance and other administrative services. Fund Development Services The Minneapolis Foundation will assist with: Joint seminars to local attorneys/planners and other advisors Complex gifts (e.g., charitable remainder trusts, real estate) Prospecting and facilitating gift opportunities Meetings with prospective donors Communications Services The Minneapolis Foundation will assist with: Developing joint marketing materials and the annual report Press releases, stationery and visual identity, web site exposure or link Grantmaking Services The Minneapolis Foundation will assist with developing grant policies and procedures that are mutually acceptable, For an existing Community Foundation, The Minneapolis Foundation will provide $5,000 per year on a one-to-one matching basis, in each of the first two years of the partnership, to assist with unrestricted grantmaking. For a Community Fund, The Minneapolis Foundation will provide $5,000 per year in each of the first two years for unrestricted grantmaking. Grant decisions are made by the community foundation or community fund advisory board. Convening Services for Community Foundations The Minneapolis Foundation will assist in conducting conferences and public meetings on issues of importance to the Community Foundation. The Minneapolis Foundation will provide $5,000 per year in each of the first two years for convening. Fees The standard TMF administrative fee (currently 1%) for existing Community Foundations: or Fee waived until a Community Fund reaches $100,000 Certain out of pocket expenses (printing, design, attorney's fees) may be charged to the Community Foundation or Community Fund Investment Partnership blended fee, currently 55 — 65 basis points annually Staffing Staff liaison is the Community Philanthropy Officer Other staff are available as needed 2 The Metropolitan Philanthropy Program of The Minneapolis Foundation Building Charitable Capitalfor Your Community... QUICK FACTS The Metropolitan Philanthropy Program Objectives Promote the creation and growth of community-based philanthropy to benefit our region and its residents. Enhance access by suburban and area communities to The Minneapolis Foundation's expertise and infrastructure in development, investment, grantmaking and convening. The Affiliation An existing community foundation will affiliate with The Minneapolis Foundation as a Supporting Organization. A community without a community foundation will affiliate as a Community Fund of The Minneapolis Foundation. Governance Existing Community Foundations will continue to elect directors and officers in the manner defined by their Bylaws and will continue as the governing body. A Community Fund is a component of The Minneapolis Foundation, but has its own Advisory Committee appointed by the local community. The Advisory Committee will review and discuss possible projects and initiatives for funding, facilitate fundraising, and recommend grants from the Community Fund. Investments Assets will generally be invested in The Minneapolis Foundation Investment Partnership, a diversified portfolio that has achieved a competitive rate of return over many years Investment Philosophy The Minneapolis Foundation strives to preserve capital, and to preserve long term purchasing power: to have returns which match or exceed the set payout, fees and inflation. The Minneapolis Foundation strives for consistent and absolute returns, and to earn the highest possible return given the risk tolerance of the trustees. Investment Strategies Equities will be 60.5 % to 84.5% of fund assets. Fixed income obligations are 18.5% to 36.5% Asset Classes and Targets Core Equities: 37.5 Aggressive Equities: 15.0 Venture Capita: 5.0 International Equities: 15.0 Intermediate Bonds: 17.5 Global Bonds: 5.0 Real Estate: 5.0 over, please) The Metropolitan Philanthropy Program of The Minneapolis Foundation Building Charitable Capital for Your Community... QUICK FACTS The Metropolitan Philanthropy Program Objectives Promote the creation and growth of community-based philanthropy to benefit our region and its residents. Enhance access by suburban and area communities to The Minneapolis Foundation's expertise and infrastructure in development, investment, grantmaking and convening. The Affiliation An existing community foundation will affiliate with The Minneapolis Foundation as a Supporting Organization. A community without a community foundation will affiliate as a Community Fund of The Minneapolis Foundation. Governance Existing Community Foundations will continue to elect directors and officers in the manner defined by their Bylaws and will continue as the governing body. A Community Fund is a component of The Minneapolis Foundation, but has its own Advisory Committee appointed by the local community. The Advisory Committee will review and discuss possible projects and initiatives for funding, facilitate fundraising, and recommend grants from the Community Fund. Investments Assets will generally be invested in The Minneapolis Foundation Investment Partnership, a diversified portfolio that has achieved a competitive rate of return over many years Investment Philosophy The Minneapolis Foundation strives to preserve capital, and to preserve long term purchasing power: to have returns which match or exceed the set payout, fees and inflation. The Minneapolis Foundation strives for consistent and absolute returns, and to earn the highest possible return given the risk tolerance of the trustees. Investment Strategies Equities will be 60.5 % to 84.5% of fund assets. Fixed income obligations are 18.5% to 36.5% Asset Classes and Targets Core Equities: 37.5 Aggressive Equities: 15.0 Venture Capita: 5.0 International Equities: 15.0 Intermediate Bonds: 17.5 Global Bonds: 5.0 Real Estate: 5.0 over, please) Finance and Administrative Services The Minneapolis Foundation will provide or arrange for the provision of all bookkeeping, accounting and auditing services that are necessary for the community foundation or fund. The Minneapolis Foundation will provide for financial planning, budgeting, cash flow management, tax compliance and other administrative services. Fund Development Services The Minneapolis Foundation will assist with: Joint seminars to local attorneys/planners and other advisors Complex gifts (e.g., charitable remainder trusts, real estate) Prospecting and facilitating gift opportunities Meetings with prospective donors Communications Services The Minneapolis Foundation will assist with: Developing joint marketing materials and the annual report Press releases, stationery and visual identity, web site exposure or link Grantmaking Services The Minneapolis Foundation will assist with developing grant policies and procedures that are mutually acceptable, For an existing Community Foundation, The Minneapolis Foundation will provide $5,000 per year on a one-to-one matching basis, in each of the first two years of the partnership, to assist with unrestricted grantmaking. For a Community Fund, The Minneapolis Foundation will provide $5,000 per year in each of the first two years for unrestricted grantmaking. Grant decisions are made by the community foundation or community fund advisory board. Convening Services for Community Foundations s The Minneapolis Foundation will assist in conducting conferences and public meetings on issues of importance to the Community Foundation. The Minneapolis Foundation will provide $5,000 per year in each of the first two years for convening. Fees The standard TMF administrative fee (currently 1%) for existing Community Foundations; or Fee waived until a Community Fund reaches $100,000 Certain out of pocket expenses (printing, design, attorney's fees) may be charged to the Community Foundation or Community Fund Investment Partnership blended fee, currently 55 — 65 basis points annually Staffing Staff liaison is the Community Philanthropy Officer Other staff are available as needed INCORPORATING YOUR COMMUNITY SPIRIT In 1996, a group of civic leaders in Mid- dletown, Conn., sat down to assess their safer, more secure, and pro- ductive way to collect money in the community," says Michael Burns, a partner at Brody & Weiser, a Branford Conn.) consulting firm that works with nonprofits. If you want to start a com- town's future. Middletown, with a population of 46,000, had several problems, from an ailing downtown to poor school performance by kids from low-income families. So they decided to start a com- munity foundation. A founda- tion, they reasoned, would be a good way to channel chari- table donations directly to lo- cal nonprofit organizations that could address the town's needs. The bet has paid off. Launched last year with a 125,000 matching grant from Middletown's Liberty Bank, the Middlesex County Com- munity Foundation now has close to $500,000 for operat- ing expenses and endowment pledges of $125,000. The foun- dation, whose focus now in- cludes all of Middlesex County, has made grants to an after- positioned for local donors who school program in Middletown may not have the expertise to and the public library in near- select the best recipients and by Portland. manage their gifts. For exam - FLUSH CLIMATE. ple, if a donor wants to $10,000 forCommunityfounda- give tions date back to the early early childhood education, a part of the century, and in the community foundation will flush climate of the 1990s, manage the gift in perpetuity many smaller communities, and channel grants derived from rural Oceana County, from the endowment's invest - Mich., to Dalton, Ga., have set ments to nonprofits that fit up their own. They are ideally the donor's wishes. "It's a CENTER www. R nti z THE COLUMBUS 61451-4OC FOUNDATION wwNicolumb foutltlatlon.c 136 BUSINESS WEEK / NOVEMBER 2, 1998 s munity foundation, seek out advice from similar organiza- tions in other towns. A good place to get a handle on such organizations is the Council on Foundations in Washington. Next, you'll need to recruit a core group with ties to local business and nonprofit com- munities. Chances are they'll become the foundation's first board. You'll need to analyze the community's fund-raising b to gauge who may be able provide seed money. In Dal- ton, Ga., where the Communi- ty Foundation of Northwest Georgia was started in Se tember, local businesses d0- nated $200,000. The founda tion's goal is to have a $100 million endowment in 1 years. It plans to tap othe companies such as Shaw I dustries, a major carpet m er, and it hopes to encourag individuals to make gifts via their wills. You will, of course, have to incorporate the foundation by filing with the Secretary of State for your state, which en- tails a $100 to $500 fee. In do- ing so, organizers should draft a mission state- ment that outlines grant priorities and ways to in- volve the commu- nity. The founda- tion also must secure a 501(c)(3) letter from the Internal Revenue Service, a key step that confers tax-exempt status and allows tax de- ductions for donors. Including 500 for the IRs filing, the tab for the entire process can run to $2,500, and that's as long as you find a lawyer, perhaps a board member, willing to work for free, says He- len Monroe, a nonprofit consul- tant in San Diego. It may take just a day to incorpo- rate, ouL sering tax-exemptcu status can take up to a year. Once it's up and running, a community foundation usual- ly reaches a crossroads: fly solo or affiliate with a more established community foun- dation. With affiliation, a start- up's endowment goes into the same pot as the parent foun- dation's grants. It also pays a monthly fee to the parent, which takes over the back - ase room operations. Still, your to foundation may need a staff. Many in Indiana secure a matching grant from such foundations as Lilly Endow- ment in Indianapolis (317 924- 5471) to pay for staffers. Setting up a foundation is a fine way of turning your 0 neighbors' civic impulses into r concrete results. The process In is not easy, but the payoff is ak- easy to see—right in your e backyard. Lawrence Strauss Agenda Number: TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager FROM: Edward Goldsmith, HRA Superviso ough Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Discussion of Livable Communities Goals DATE: February 3, 2000 for the Special City Council Meeting of February 8, 2000 1. BACKGROUND: The State Legislature adopted the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act MLCA) in 1995 to encourage developing communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan region to: include a full range of housing opportunities for affordable and life -cycle housing; implement compact and efficient development; interrelate development or redevelopment and transit; and interrelate affordable housing and employment growth areas. Each year since then, the City Council, with support of the Planning Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has elected to participate in the MLCA's Local Housing Incentives Program in order to be eligible for the following assistance specified in the Act: Funding from any of the accounts in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund for the development of housing to meet the City's adopted housing goals, implement compact and efficient development and development interrelated with transit and jobs, and for funding to assist in cleaning polluted sites in the city; Funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED), and the Minneapolis -St. Paul Family Housing Fund; and More favorable consideration from the Metropolitan Council when it is deciding on regional investments and policies affecting Plymouth. As a result of this participation the City has benefited from a total of $3,165,561 from the following federal, state; Metropolitan Council, and philanthropic grants: 225,000 from the Metropolitan Council for the Shenandoah Woods Apartments; 70,000 from the Metropolitan Council for the Rehabilitation of homes in the Tiburon community; 2,085,000 from the MHFA for. Shenandoah Woods Apartments; 40,000 from MHFA for the two accessible homes for the disabled on Garland Lane; 590,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Shenandoah Woods Apartments; 21,061 from DTED for investigation of the asbestos contamination at the Village of Bassett Creek tax increment development site and development of a remediation plan; and 134,500 from the Family Housing Fund for Shenandoah Woods Apartments; All of this funding either specifically required participation in the Livable Communities Act programs or granted significant preferences in funding for such participation. Without such preferences it is unlikely that this funding would have been approved. In addition from 1996 through 1999, inclusive, the City and the Plymouth HRA, through a variety of local, state, and federal programs, have provided direct assistance to approximately: 70 new affordable rental units -- Bassett Creek Commons (46) & Shenandoah Woods Apts. 24); 20 renovated affordable rental units -- At The Lake Apts.; 22 new affordable units for first time homebuyers -- Village At Bassett Creek (20) & Plymouth Housing Alliance & West Hennepin Community Builders Accessible Homes (2); 24 low- and moderate -income first time homebuyers -- HRA First Time Homebuyer Program MHFA mortgage programs; 88 low- and moderate income homeowners with home repairs and rehabilitation -- HRA Home Rehab Program (36) & Shenandoah Townhomes (52); and 14 renovated accessible low-income group home units for the handicapped -- Hammer Residences. In addition to these assisted units the private sector produced an additional 162 units of affordable homeowner housing, for a total of 182 affordable ownership units. During this same period a total of 110 units of rental housing was produced at the Bassett Creek Commons (46) and Shenandoah Woods Apartments (64). The affordable rental units comprised 64% of the total number of these units. This represents almost double the City's rental housing goal of 35%. A total of approximately 1,747 homeowner units were produced during this same period. The affordable units comprised approximately 10% of these units. This is almost one-half of the City's goal of 21% and indicates the need to concentrate more effort in this area. This participation required the City to negotiate with the Metropolitan Council the affordable and life -cycle housing and housing density goals adopted by the City Council on December 5, 1995. The goals were negotiated based upon the Metropolitan Council's benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development, housing and density indices for the City, and the City's own city-wide data. As part of the City's Housing Goals Agreement with the Metropolitan Council, the City agreed that as it further developed its goals to carry out the housing principles enumerated in the MLCA and the Agreement it would "make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks." A copy of the 1995 Housing Goals Agreement is attached. The following table identifies these 1995 goals, plus new multifamily density goals that are being proposed as part of the City's 2000 Comprehensive Plan revision, as well as the data used in negotiating the goals: 2 No new comparable data available Estimate based on sample of projects Proposed replacement density categories for 1995 multifamily category 2. DISCUSSION: Since the original housing goals were adopted in 1995, it has become apparent that the multifamily goal of 10 units per acre is not realistic or appropriate for all attached housing types. There has been an increased demand in Plymouth for attached single family housing, which does not fit into either the single family detached or 1995 multifamily density categories. By incorporating low, medium and high multifamily residential densities, the City will have realistic housing goals that are in keeping with the current market in Plymouth. These goals will encourage a more efficient use of the available land and respond to the development densities identified in the Land Use Guide Plan. In order to revise these goals the City will need to re -negotiate the Housing Goals Agreement with the Metropolitan Council. Although the Metropolitan Council officially adopts these agreements only once a year in January, Metropolitan Council staff has assured us that the revised goals can be incorporated into the new Comprehensive Plan, subject to Council approval. The Housing Goals Agreement clearly recognizes that there are market forces and resource availability that impact the ability to meet these goals. None the less, these goals have been established to guide the City in making its best efforts to meet these goals in guiding development within Plymouth. The goals that are proposed, as well as those previously adopted, meet the requirements of the City's Housing Goals Agreement with the Metropolitan Council. Attachment: 1995 Housing Goals Agreement Mpy_r i.tl r Ya...wvw s.mrtRy mo'mu,.a 3 Plymouth Goal For New Development Metro Council Index for Plymouth Metro Council Benchmark for the Northwest Suburbs Plymouth Data All Housing 1995) Plymouth 1990 to 1995 Development Trends Affordability: Ownership (80% of median) 21% 42% 67%-77% 33% 8% Rental (50% of median) 35% 15% 35%-41% 25.8% Life -Cycle Multi -family Housing Types 34% 39% 34%-35% 25% Owner / renter mix 75% / 25% 74% / 26% 72-75% / 25-28% 92%/8% Density Single -Family Detached 2/acre 1.8/acre 1.9-2.4/acre 1.99/acre 1.84** Multifamily (1995 goal) 10/acre 8/acre 10-11/acre 10.75/acre 6.79** Proposed multifamily (2000): Multifamily— Low*** 4.5/acre Multifamily — Medium*** 9/acre Multifamily —High*** 12/acre No new comparable data available Estimate based on sample of projects Proposed replacement density categories for 1995 multifamily category 2. DISCUSSION: Since the original housing goals were adopted in 1995, it has become apparent that the multifamily goal of 10 units per acre is not realistic or appropriate for all attached housing types. There has been an increased demand in Plymouth for attached single family housing, which does not fit into either the single family detached or 1995 multifamily density categories. By incorporating low, medium and high multifamily residential densities, the City will have realistic housing goals that are in keeping with the current market in Plymouth. These goals will encourage a more efficient use of the available land and respond to the development densities identified in the Land Use Guide Plan. In order to revise these goals the City will need to re -negotiate the Housing Goals Agreement with the Metropolitan Council. Although the Metropolitan Council officially adopts these agreements only once a year in January, Metropolitan Council staff has assured us that the revised goals can be incorporated into the new Comprehensive Plan, subject to Council approval. The Housing Goals Agreement clearly recognizes that there are market forces and resource availability that impact the ability to meet these goals. None the less, these goals have been established to guide the City in making its best efforts to meet these goals in guiding development within Plymouth. The goals that are proposed, as well as those previously adopted, meet the requirements of the City's Housing Goals Agreement with the Metropolitan Council. Attachment: 1995 Housing Goals Agreement Mpy_r i.tl r Ya...wvw s.mrtRy mo'mu,.a 3 CITY' OF PLYMOUTH HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The City of Plymouth supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle. 4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing, transportation and employment. GOALS In 1996, the City of Plymouth will revise the Housing Element of its Comprehensive Plan. As part of the planning process, the City will assess the housing needs of the community and identify specific actions needed to achieve the goals identified by the Plan. The goals set forth in this agreement, as shown on Exhibit A, attached, will be refined and adjusted as necessary before the City submits the Housing Element to the Metropolitan Council for its review pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and to fulfill the requirements for an action plan pursuant to the Livable Communities Act. In further developing its goals to carry out the above housing principles, the City of Plymouth agrees to continue to consider the benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. A: Affordability: 1. Rental Units: Plymouth will work toward expanding the share of its rental housing affordable to low and moderate income families. Plymouth will work to make 35 percent of its new rental housing affordable to families earning no more than 50 percent of the regional median income In addition, a significant portion of these new rental units should be affordable to very low income households: The limited availability of land for development will be a significant barrier to constructing new, affordable rental housing in Plymouth. Another significant barrier is the economic and tax climate that makes new construction of any new rental housing very difficult. Since_ 1990, it is estimated that only 8 percent of new housing built in Plymouth is rented, even though vacancy rates are very low. Of the new units built since 1990, about 26 percent are affordable at 50 percent of median incom6. All of these units are in Plymouth Towne Square, a senior housing project owned and subsidized by the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA.) An additional 31 percent of the new units are affordable between 50 and 60 percent of median income. These units include units at Plymouth Towne Square and a 64 -unit tax -credit project for families, Lakeview Commons. A total of City of Plymouth Housing Goals Agreement December 5, 1995 57 percent of new rental units built since 1990 in Plymouth are affordable at the 60 percent of median income level or less. In addition to new construction, the expansion of affordable rental housing may be accomplished through additional section 8 existing housing certificates or vouchers, or other creative efforts by the City to make existing rental housing in Plymouth more affordable. Recently, the City conditioned its approval of the refinancing of a City revenue bond issue, in exchange for a guarantee of affordable rent levels within the complex. In this project, 21 units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters. below 60 percent of median income during the 40 -year life of the bond safe. This an example of local efforts that can increase the number of affordable units without building new ones. Recognizing that rent levels are high, the HRA has also pursued and gained HUD approval for "exception rents" for-. its section 8 program, which has made more Plymouth housing accessible for program participants. The City and its HRA will continue to explore ways to expand affordable housing through use of its CDBG funds and other programs. 2. Owner Occupied: There are severe limitations for construction of new affordable ownership housing construction in Plymouth. Recent experience of the City has been that only 8 percent of new housing built in the 1990's is considered affordable at 1995 values. The City's goal is to increase the construction of new affordable units from 8 percent to 21 percent, which is equivalent to the percent of the city's owner -occupied housing that was built in the 1980s which is affordable today. In 1994 according to Metropolitan Council data, 42 percent of Plymouth's homesteaded housing was valued at $115,000 or less. This is in contrast to the benchmarks of 69 percent for all developing area suburbs and 77 percent for all communities in the Northwest Minneapolis planning sector. In 1995, based on the City's own data, 33 percent of the City's housing was valued less than Sl 18,000, the Metropolitan Council's housing affordability benchmark value for 1995. Plymouth has a smaller proportion of affordable owner occupied housing than other Northwest planning sector communities for a number of reasons. According to Metropolitan Council data, only 26 percent of Plymouth's owner occupied housing was built before 1970, compared to 46 percent in the sector as a whole and 36 percent for developing communities. Of the Plymouth housing built before 1970, 58 percent is affordable in 1995. Of the housing built since 1970, however, only 25 percent is affordable. Affordability is strongly related to the age of the housing stock. Recent changes in the housing market have also influenced the housing affordability statistics for Plymouth. Of the units built in the 1970's, 40 percent are affordable (valued less than $118,000) in. 1995. Of the units built in the 1980's, 21 percent are affordable in 1995. Of the units built in the 1990's, only 8 percent are affordable. There were no significant changes in the city's planning and zoning practices since the 1970's that would account for this reduction in affordability.. (New environmental regulations adopted in 1995 have not come fully into effect.) Density and lot size requirements are similar, and the City has increased the use of Planned Unit Development to provide development flexibility. There has. however, been an escalation of land prices and a surge in demand for larger, more expensive (S148,000 and above) single family homes. The strong market for existing housing in the City has meant that the values of existing units have been steadily increasing. For example, increases in residential values from 1994 to 1995 were in the 4 to 9 percent range, with an average increase of about 5 percent. In Minneapolis, the average appreciation in residential values was near zero. 2 City of Plymouth Housing Goals Agreement December 5, 1995 Plymouth will do what it can to influence housing costs, recognizing that since 1991 only approximately 40 percent of new construction ownership housing in the region has sold for $115,000 or less, a level affordable to households at approximately 80 percent of regional median income. Because land costs in Plymouth make single family detached homes at this cost almost impossible to develop, most of the new affordable ownership units will be attached housing, i.e., townhomes and condominiums built at higher density to reduce per unit costs. The limited availability of land for development will be a significant barrier to constructing new, affordable housing in Plymouth. There is currently about 1,100 acres of vacant land planned for residential uses within the City's urban service areaf. Of that, about 875 acres (80 percent) has' already been subdivided or has been approved for development. Only about -225 acres remain, of which about 60 acres (one fourth) is wetland or floodplairf. And, the remaining property is in small tracts (average less than 2.5 acres of upland in size) .that are not attractive to larger -scale developers. In addition to new construction, an important element of the City 's affordable ownership housing efforts will be to encourage retention of its existing supply of affordable housing, as this housing will be impossible to replace. The City, through its HRA, has also implemented programs to make existing housing more affordable, such as providing subsidies to first time buyers to bring purchase prices to within an affordable range. As of September 1, 1995, Plymouth had assisted 167 low -and - moderate income households with its home rehabilitation loan program and 55 households with its First Time Homebuyer program. B: Life -Cycle: 1. Diversity: Plymouth currently has substantial diversification in its housing stock. It recognizes that the new construction housing market and increasing life -cycle housing demands may mean continued development of multifamily housing, especially townhomes and condominiums. For the period 1996 through 2010, the City will make every effort to maintain the non -single family detached share of its housing as at least 34 percent of its housing stock, the level of diversification found in developing suburbs and suburbs in Plymouth's geographic area. If necessary to accommodate this diversification, Plymouth may make land use and/or zoning changes to ensure that there is enough land for continued multifamily housing development. As noted above, most of the vacant land within Plymouth's urban service area has already been subdivided or received development approvals. A review of approved lots and developments indicates that about 43 percent of the units currently approved, but not yet built, are multiple family units. And, of the vacant land that does not yet have development approvals, over half of the property is planned to allow dwellings other than single family detached units. 2. Owner/Renter Mix: The City cannot directly control whether housing is rented or sold to an owner -occupant. The City will work to maintain an owner/renter mix of 75/25 percent, through its land use controls, approvals process and participation in housing development programs. Significant rental housing does exist in Plymouth, most of it built at a time when state and federal -tax laws were more favorable to construction of rental properties. Very few rental units have been built in Plymouth since 1990 (283 units of a total of 3,666 units, or about 8 percent.) The City has recently approved development projects for rental housing, including a market -rate rental project 200+ units) which has not been built due to factors outside of the City's control. City of Plymouth Housing Goals Agreement December 5, 1995 Preserving the quality of the existing rental housing stock in Plymouth is a top priority. The City's housing maintenance code and the active Plymouth Apartment Managers Association are evidence of the City's commitment. C: Density: Plymouth will establish density goals for new development that attempt to equal or exceed the current gross density of development: approximately 2 units per acre of upland for single family development and 10 units per acre of upland for multiple family development, These goals recognize the amount of wetlands, shorelands and wetland buffers that affect the remaining property to be developed in Plymouth. Detailed policies and regulations needed to achieve the goals will be developed as part of the Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance revisions that are planned for early 1996. The Metropolitan Council has estimated the density of single family detached units in Plymouth at 1.8 units per acre, including road rights-of-way but excluding wetlands. Comparable data from the City's own GIS is not available, because we exclude rights-of-way from the residential land use category. However, by estimating the amount of road rights-of-way within residential areas, we have estimated the density to be about 1.99 units per acre, based on an estimate of the amount of road rights-of-way within residential areas. Because of the large number of wetlands in the City, the gross density including wetlands) is less; about 1.86 units per acre. Comparable data is not available from other cities included in calculating the benchmark, but it appears that based on City data Plymouth is within the benchmark. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council estimates the multiple family density in Plymouth at 8 units per acres. The City GIS data shows the density to be about 10.75 units per acre. Again, this is within the benchmark range of 10 to 11 units per acre. Plymouth recognizes that it may be desirable to increase densities in some areas to reduce land cost for new construction, to use public services more efficiently, to increase the feasibility of transit, and to generally promote compact and efficient development. Plymouth also recognizes that increasing protection of natural resources, particularly wetlands, may require limiting the intensity of development in sensitive areas. Efficient use of the land must be balanced with environmental protection. Increased environmental protection is one factor that has led to a decrease in density of new residential development in Plymouth in recent years. Another factor is that as Plymouth's land has been consumed for development, sites with more wetlands or difficult soil conditions that were initially skipped over are now being developed. Data from a sample of recent single family, multiple family, and mixed residential developments approved in the last several years shows that the net densities of these developments has been less than the city-wide averages: 1.84 units per net single family acre and 6.79 units per net multiple family acre. Of the available, vacant land within the urban service area, fully one-fourth of the area is wetland or floodplain. It is also divided into small tracts, making efficient subdivision more difficult. The City adopted a wetland buffer ordinance in early 1995, and all new developments will be required to comply with these new restrictions. Increasing densities, or even maintaining the current city-wide average will be very difficult as these remaining sites are developed. 0 City of Plymouth Housing Goals Agreement December 5, 1995 To achieve the goals set forth in Exhibit A, attached, the City of Plymouth will make its best efforts to increase the availability of affordable and life -cycles housing and maintain the level of diversity of housing types already present in the community. However, the City cannot control the. housing market in Plymouth and can only produce small amounts of housing through its HRA. It can, however, influence housing production and can proactively work to achieve its goals through its use of official controls, public service requirements, local approvals process and the use of available housing assistance programs. The new housing contemplated in this agreement will occur on land yet to be developed within the existing MUSA boundary. There has been no decision by either the City of Plymouth or the Metropolitan Council on the extent, timing or location of any MUSA expansion. This agreement does not imply that such an expansion will take place. The proposed goals do not apply to land outside the MUSA boundary, because the City does not have an urban land use plan for that area. The City is now engaged in a land use planning process for the area outside the MUSA. The City will develop housing goals for that area if MUSA expansions are proposed upon completion of the planning process. The City of Plymouth elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION - Mayor Date City of Plymouth Housing Goals Agreement December 5, 1995 Affordability Ownership (80% of median) Rental (50% of median) Life -Cycle Type (Non -single family detached) Owner/ renter mix Density Single -Family Detached Multifamily cd\plan\me mos\5059\hsgagre2.doc Exhibit A Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Proposed Benchmarks and Goals City of Plymouth METRO METRO PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTH COUNCIL COUNCIL DATA 1990 TO 1995 GOAL FOR NEW CITY INDEX BENCHMARK, ALL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT, FOR NORTHWEST HOUSING TREND 1996-2010 PLYMOUTH SUBURBS 1995) 42 %1 67-77% 33% 8% 21% 15% 1 35-41% 25.8% 35% 39% ' 34-35% 25% 34% 74/26% 72-75) / 25/28) % 92/8% 75/25% 1.8/ acre 1.9-2.4/acre 1.99/ acre 1.84** 2/acre 8/acre 10-11/acre 10.75 acre 6.79** 10/acre 0 No new comparable data available Estimate based on sample of projects Background Data CITY OF PLYMOUTH HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT November, 1995 M 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% HSGVAL.XLS Affordability of Homesteaded Units by Year Built Pre- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 1950 1959 1969 1979. . 1989 1995 Year Built Homestead Units by Value and Year Built 3500 3000 2500 2000 O 1500 1000 Z 500T...`. 0 rn m d om n rnao a w om rn c OmcD 7 m r` o Year r' 00 O rn C) 0 D 148,000 + 118,000-147,999 69,501-117,999 0-$69,500 Value n 118,000+ 0-$117,999 I HSGVAL.XLS City of Plymouth 1995 Assessed Value, Homesteaded Property by Year Built Total 560 4% 4491 29% 3428 22% 7023 45% 15502 100% Summary Percentages: AN Homestead Units in City Affordable' Units Other Units All Homestead Units Year Built 0-$117,999 Pct. 69,501- Pct. 118,000 - Pct. Pre -1950 506 3% 96 Year Built 0-$69,500 Pct. 117,999 Pct. 147,999 Pct. 148,000+ Pct. Total Pct. Pre -1950 147 1 % 359 2% 50 0% 46 0% 602 4% 1950-1959 28 0% 689 4% 141 1 % 59 0% 917 6% 1960-1969 6 0% 813 5% 678 4% 502 3% 1999 13% 1970-1979 292 2% 1374 9% 1039 7% 1488 10% 4193 27% 1980-1989 75 0% 1075 7% 1236 8% 3022 19% 5408 35% 1990-1995 12 0% 181 1% 284 2% 1906 12% 2383 15% Total 560 4% 4491 29% 3428 22% 7023 45% 15502 100% Summary Percentages: AN Homestead Units in City Affordable' Units Other Units All Homestead Units Year Built 0-$117,999 Pct. 118,000+ Pct. Total Pct. Pre -1950 506 3% 96 1 % 602 4% 1950-1959 717 5% 200 1% 917 6% 1960-1969 819 5% 1180 8% 1999 13% 1970-1979 1666 11% 2527 16% 4193 27% 1980-1989 1150 7% 4258 27% 5408 35% 1990-1995 193 1 % 2190 14% 2383 15% Total 5051 33% 10451 67% 15502 100% Percentages: All Homestead Units built by Decade Affordable" Units Other Units All Homestead Units Year Built 04117,999 Pct. 118,000+ Pct. Total Pct. Pre -1950 506 84% 96 16% 602 100% 1950-1959 717 78% 200 22% 917 100% 1960-1969 819 41% 1180 59% 1999 100% 1970-1979 1666 40% 2527 60% 4193 100% 1980-1989 1150 21% 4258 79% 5408 100% 1990-1995 193 8% 2190 92% 2383 100% Total 5051 33% 10451 67% 15502 100% 9 hsg type City of Plymouth New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995 Total 2752 914 3666 75.1% 24.9% 100.0% 900 800 m 700 600 500 d- 400 w 300 200 100 0 New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995 Multiple Family 25% Single Family 75% New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995 rn rn rn rn rn Ln rn rn rn rn rn rn Year 10 EMultiple Family I 13 Single Family Single Multiple Year Family Family Total 1990 386 220 606 1991 439 58 497 1992 631 196 827 1993 675 62 737 1994 376 269 645 1995 245 109 354 Total 2752 914 3666 75.1% 24.9% 100.0% 900 800 m 700 600 500 d- 400 w 300 200 100 0 New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995 Multiple Family 25% Single Family 75% New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995 rn rn rn rn rn Ln rn rn rn rn rn rn Year 10 EMultiple Family I 13 Single Family new rental City of Plymouth New Rental Housing, 1990-1995 Project Affordable at 50% of Median Affordable at 60% of Median 60% of Median Total Plymouth Towne Square 73 24 97 Lakeview Commons 64 64 Fernbrook Townhomes 72 72 Lancaster Park 50 50 73 88 122 283 25.8% 31.1% 43.1% 100.0% New Rental Housing, 1990-1995 11 City of Plymouth Vacant/ Ag Land in MUSA Availability for Development sum. avail land Floodplain Total Land (not incl. Upland Area Wetland Acres wetlands) Acres All Vacant/ Ag Land in MUSA 2119.88 436.13 52.12 1631.63 Land not Available for Development Residential Approved Projects/ Lots of Record 875.36 183.73 10.03 681.6 Approved Commercial/ Industrial Projects 128.91 8.55 0 120.36 Other Unbuildable Land Area 62.18 18.87 2.03 41.28 Subtotal 1066.45 211.15 12.06 843.24 Land Available for Development 1053.43 224.98 40.06 788.39 All Vacant/Ag Land in MUSA Wetland Acres 21% Floodplain not incl. wetlands) 2% Upland Acres 77% 12 Land Available for Development r Uplan_ Acres 75% Wetland Acres 21% Floodplain not incl. wetlands) 4% land by LUGP City of Plymouth Land Use Inventory, 1995 Land Available for Development in MUSA Total Floodplain Land Use Guide Plan Land not incl. Wetland Upland Classification Area wetlands) Acres Acres Commercial 498.37 10.78 60.06 427.53 48.5% Industrial 312.23 16.22 19.84 276.17 31.3% Residential 228.51 12.84 47.06 168.61 19.1% Other 10.13 0.22 0.73 9.18 1.0% Total 1049.24 40.06 127.69 881.49 100% Residential Land Available in the MUSA 7, 6% 1% O Floodplain (not incl. wetlands) Wetland Acres I O Upland Acres 13 Land Available for Development in the MUSA 500 s; 450 400 s M 350 300 g O Upland Acres g AcresWetland P 250 Q a Floodplain (not incl. wetlands) 200; 150 100 50 Commercial Industrial Residential Other Land Use Guide Plan Designation Residential Land Available in the MUSA 7, 6% 1% O Floodplain (not incl. wetlands) Wetland Acres I O Upland Acres 13 existing density City of Plymouth Land Use Inventory, 1995 Estimated 1995 Density Multifamily DUP 14.33 Minus Equals Estimated Estimated 0.32 Land Area Wetland Upland Add ROW Net Land 1/2/1995 Net Gross Land Use Acres) Acres Acres Est. Area Units Density Density Single Family 364.35 835.96 76.06 759.90 49.39 809.29 8,700 SFD 6558.59 483.06 6075.53 MHP 5.78 0.00 5.78 6564.37 483.06 6081.31 547.32 6628.63 13,650 2.06 1.92 Multifamily DUP 14.33 1.52 12.81 TWIN 22.62 0.32 22.30 TH 178.19 1.03 177.16 CONDO 215.87 32.59 183.28 MFR 404.95 40.60 364.35 835.96 76.06 759.90 49.39 809.29 8,700 All Residential Uses 7400.33 559.12 6841.21 596.71 7437.92 22,350 Area of City in ROW: 18.2% Percent of Single Family: 9.0% Percent of Multfamily: 6.5% Net Density- land area excludes wetlands, includes ROW Gross Density-- land area includes wetlands, includes ROW 14 10.75 9.83 3.00 2.79 t density examples City of Plymouth Sample of Recent Development Projects Residential Density Number of Units Density Single Multiple Gross Project Name Family Family Total Units Acres Wetland Net Upland Gross* Net** Savannah 46 46 40.89 6.53 34.36 1.12 1.34 Autumn Hills 50 50 40.30 6.59 33.71 1.24 1.48 Forster Preserve 22 22 10.86 2.7 8.16 2.03 2.70 Heather Run 127 127 82.84 16.42 66.42 1.53 1.91 Soo Line West 118 118 71.78 17 54.78 1.64 2.15 Single Family Only 363 363 246.67 49.24 197.43 1.47 1.84 Harrison Place on Bass Creek 60 60 22.7 9.4 13.30 2.64 4.51 Parkers Lake-- Rottlund Villas 108 108 11.77 0 11.77 9.18 9.18 Lakeview Commons 64 64 4.84 0 4.84 13.22 13.22 Plymouth Towne Square 99 99 5.44 0 5.44 18.20 18.20 French Ridge 70 70 28.70 5 23.70 2.44 2.95 Multi Family Only 401 401 73.45 14.40 59.05 5.46 6.79 Westbranch 87 62 149 106.7 10.57 96.13 1.40 1.55 Soo Line East 132 90 222 116.63 22.6 94.03 1.90 2.36 Rockford Glen 52 92 144 36.20 8.72 27.48 3.98 5.24 Mixed 271 244 515 259.53 41.89 217.64 1.98 2.37 Overall 634 645.00 1279.00 579.65 105.53 474.12 2.21 2.70 Gross Acreage includes all land area including road rights of way, wetlands, buffers, parks, open space, etc. Net Acreage includes all land area except wetlands. Agenda Number: f TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions and Topics DATE: February 3, 2000, for City Council meeting of February 8, 2000 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion establishing dates and topics for upcoming study sessions. 2. DISCUSSION: Attached are City calendars for February, March, and April. Two possible dates for future study sessions are April 4 and April 18; however, the Council may also be able to identify earlier dates other than Tuesdays. I recommend that the City Council establish dates for the following special meetings: Update City Council Goals and Priorities. The City Council has previously indicated a desire to update its goals and priorities for the remainder of 2000. Several major items on the 1999-2000 list are near completion, and an update of the Council's goals and priorities would be timely. Joint meeting with Plymouth Charter Commission. In late 1999, the City Council received the recommendation of the Charter Commission that special elections not held on regular election dates be held by mail ballot. The membership of the Charter Commission has significantly changed since that recommendation was made, but the Commission has recently reaffirmed its position on this issue. The City Council had also previously extended an invitation for a joint meeting with the Charter Commission which has been accepted. The Charter Commission has requested the following two issues be placed on the agenda: 1) Special election by mail ballot and other voting alternatives; 2) City Council's request for the Charter Commission to study the issue of amending the Mayoral term from two to four years. If a Tuesday is not selected for the joint meeting, the Council may wish to consider a Thursday, which is the regular meeting night for the Charter Commission. Mondays pose conflicts for several Charter Commission members. The following additional items remain on the pending study session list: Strategic review of police department - current trends and future plans (Bildsoe) Discuss citizen involvement and process for capital projects (Black) City Council salaries (Johnson) Page 2 Photo Speed Radar System (Harstad) City half -cent sales tax (Harstad) Quarterly utility billing (Harstad) Discuss next phase of City Center improvements (Bildsoe) EQC membership composition (Black) Consider Plymouth history book for 50' anniversary on 5/18/05 (Tierney) OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS February 2000 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM EQC, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -Medicine Lake Room 00 PM - 7:00 PM FIRE & ICE FESTIVAL, Parkers Lake 6 7 8 00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING VARIOUS TOPICS, Oublic Safety Training Room 9 10 11 12 00 AM - 4:00 PM - JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, LarReserve, 3155 Empire 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION , Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRAC - Council Chambers 13 14 00 PM COUNCIL MEMBERS MEET WITH MEDICINE LAKE CITY COUNCIL, TOPICS: speed hump and related street nil trail issues In the area, Medicine Lake City Hall 15 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON CO. RD. 101 PLANS, Council Chambers 8:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers (NOTE SPECIAL START TIME) 16 17 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, Public Safety Training Room 18 19 00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY UNCIL, Bass Lake Room this meehng only) 20 21 22 i °w BUSINESS COUNCIL, 23 7:00 PM PACT - Hadley Lake Room 24 25 26 President's Day - Citya Offices Closed 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 27 28 29 Jan 2000 Mar 2000 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 31 700 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers Modified on 2/3/2000 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS March 2000 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Feb 2000 01 APS 2000 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 28 29 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 7:00 PM EQC, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -Medicine Lake Room 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY UNCIL, Medicine take Room CAUCUS NIGHT STATEWIDE PLANNING170mpmmisSION,Council Chambers 700 PM PRAC - Council lChambers 12 13 14 15 5:00 PM JOINT CITY UNC411PLANNING MISSION OPEN HOUSE ONCOMP' PLAN, Council Chambers 16 5:00 PM JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION OPEN HOUSE ON COMP. PLAN, Council Chambers 17 18 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 19 20 21 22 7:00 PM PACT - Hadley Lake Room 23 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM — REVERSE COMMUTE JOB FAIR, PI mouth Radisson Hotel /CYonference Center 24 25 oo PM YOUTH ADVISORY UNGL, Medicine Lake Room 700 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ouncil Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 26 27 28 P:30 AM tI) M BUSINESS CWNGL, HoMCOMMISSION 29 7:00 PM PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES, Council Chambers 30 31 Modified on 2/3/2000 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS April 2000 Sunday Monday Tuesday I Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Mar 2000 May 2000 S M T 1 2 534S S1 2 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 10117 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Daylight Savings enS" v' set ahead 1 00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY NGL, Med dine Lake Room 7:00 PM EQC, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 00 PM REGULAR OUNCIL MEETING, ouncil Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION , Council Chambers 7:00 PM PRAC - Council Chambers 5:00 PM THRU SATURDAY PLYMOUTH FINE ARTS 16 17 18 19 IPassover begins et sunset 20 7:00 PM HRA - Medicine Lake Room 21 22 00 PM YOUTH ADVISORY roUNCIL, Medicine Lake Room Good Friday 7:00 PM PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, Public Safety Training Room 23 Easter 24 25 30 AM LOCAL BUSINESS COUNCIL, R."—H1W 00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 26 7:00 PM PACT -Hadley Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 27 28 29 7:00 PM YOUTH TOWN FORUM (Tenative) 30 Modified on 2/3/2000