Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Information Memorandum 01-15-1988
i F CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 15, 1988 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 'D,k^ 011-1 � 1. CITY OFFICES CLOSED -- Monday, January 18. Martin Luther King, 7r -.Is Birthday. 2. COUNCIL/STAFF DINNER MEETING -- Monday, January 25, 5:30 p.m. The City Council will meet in the City Council conference to discuss the results of the 1987 residential survey with Dr. Bill Morris and Diane Traxler of Decisions Resources, Inc. 3. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, January 25, 7:30 p.m. Special City ouncil meeting. 4. ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE DINNER MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE M I I - Tuesday, January 26. Annual MLC legislative dinner meeting at the Decathalon Club in Bloomington. Social hour 6:30 p.m. with dinner following. 5. LEAGUE OF CITIES LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE -- Tuesday, February 16 at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel. copy of the conference program is attached. A reception for legislators and state officials will follow the conference at 5:30 p.m. If you plan to attend, please let Laurie know no later than January 22. (M-5) 6. JANUARY & FEBRUARY MEETING CALENDARS -- Meeting calendars for January and February are attached. M-6) FOR YOUR INFORMATION... 1. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION'S GUIDE TO MINNESOTA'S NEW PROPERTY TXX Y - XttacEed to this memorandum is your copy of the 's publication on the property tax system. You have previously seen this document in draft. It clearly illustrates the impact of the state's property taxation system on residential properties. When all the "gobble -de -gook" is removed, the fact remains that suburban taxpayers carry a disproportionate share of the property tax burden. The primary beneficiaries have been and continue to be most outstate cities as well as Minneapolis/St. Paul and some older Twin Cities communities. This guide is being sent to all our legislators and the media. It is hoped that they will take time to become familiar with it. As you run into our legislators, you might ask them to look for this new publication and reflect upon its contents. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 15, 1988 Page two 2. PLYMOUTH METROLINK - DECEMBER REPORT -- displaying our average daily ridership commuter, internal circulator and total November. The second table displays the each service area compared with the target order to have a successful project. Shown below is a table for the commuter/reverse system for each week of year to date averages in which we must achieve in MONTHLY PLYMOUTH METROLINK DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY WEEK BY SERVICE TYPE DECEMBER 1987 Total System SERVICE TYPE Commuter/ Internal Total TARGET 370 Reverse Commuter Circulator System WEEK OF: - 20% - 3% 12/1 - 12/4 415 63 478 12/7 - 12/11 421 31 452 12/14 - 12/18 412 32 444 12/21 - 12/23 350 70 420 12/28 - 12/30 357 51 408 ----------------- MONTH LONG ------------------ ------------- ---------------- AVERAGE 391 49 440 YEAR TO DATE Item Commuter/ Reverse Commuter Internal Circulator Total System YEAR TO DATE RIDERSHIP AVERAGE 374 45 419 TARGET 370 56 432 % OVER/(UMBER) TARGET + 1.08% - 20% - 3% CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 15, 1988 Page three A number of observations are in order.- 1. rder: 1. Internal circulator ridership in December averaged 49 passengers per day, a good increase from last month's average of 32. This average, however, is still below the average established in December 1986, of 56 passengers per day. For the second year, we have failed to meet the year long ridership target. The internal circulator will be the focus of our 1988 system planning. 2. The commuter/reverse commuter portion of the service fell from 398 passengers per day in November, to 391 passengers per day in December. The December 1986 ridership averaged 412 passengers per day. The 1987 target average ridership of 370 was exceeded slightly; ending the year with an average of 374 passengers per day. 3. In terms of our system -wide ridership target of 432 passengers per day, we fell below our goal by 13 with a total system average of 419 passengers per day. DAILY RIDERSHIP AVERAGES BY MONTH FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1984 - 1987 SERVICE TYPE Commuter/ Internal Total Reverse Commuter Circulator System MONTH: 1984 1985 1986 1987 1984 1985 1986 1987 1984 1985 1986 1987 January 330 307 351 429 21 51 40 47 351 358 391 476 February 310 292 350 394 25 50 47 49 335 342 394 442 March 307 311 338 397 25 56 64 53 332 367 402 450 April 301 295 354 365 27 55 44 49 331 350 398 414 May 295 298 332 350 27 36 35 36 322 334 367 386 June 276 314 349 358 41 53 64 54 317 367 413 412 July 277 297 328 345 42 52 62 52 319 349 390 397 August 266 292 328 345 47 57 73 54 313 349 401 399 September 275 322 354 348 32 42 33 33 307 364 387 381 October 276 312 384 365 36 55 40 32 312 367 424 397 November 271 311 396 398 35 57 50 32 306 368 446 430 December 265 320 412 391 39 52 56 49 304 372 468 440 YEAR LONG ---------------------- AVERAGE 287 306 356 374 36 51 51 45 321 357 407 419 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 15, 1988 Page four 3. SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT - DELINQUENT SPECIAL SSE MENTS - Last Monday evening, Councilmember Vasiliou inquired as to the status of delinquent special assessments for the Hennepin Parks. Last August, when the Council approved a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Park District, it also addressed the issue of delinquent special assessments. The conditions require that all delinquent special assessments at the Clifton E. French Regional Park be paid prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued by the City. The Building Inspection Division is aware of this condition. I contacted Greg Mack at the Park District and inquired as to the status of their intention to pay us. He informs me that they have made the specific request to the Metropolitan Council and should have the money to pay the special assessments within the next 30 days. He is also aware of the Council's condition with respect to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit prior to the payment of these delinquent special assessments. 4. VACANCY ON NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL -- Mayor Schneider informs me that because Todd Mosenthalresides in the Wayzata School District, he is not eligible for appointment to the NWHHS Council. The Plymouth representative to the NWHHS Council must reside in either the Osseo or Robbinsdale school districts. In light of this fact, the Mayor did not contact Mr. Mosenthal. He did, however, call Ann Anderson and asked that the vacancy be readvertised in the Plymouth Post. 5. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS -- A revised listing of City Council appointments is attached. (I-5) 6. MINUTES: a. Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit, January 6, 1988 (I -6a) b. Plymouth Safety Committee, January 6, 1988 (I -6b) c. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, Executive Board, December 9, 1987 (I -6c) 7. CITY ATTORNEY BILLING -- The City Attorney's client summary for services performed during the month of December is attached. A detailed listing of the bill is on file in the City Manager's office. (I-7) 8. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICANT -- An application for appointment from Shelley HaTlermann, - 50th Avenue North, is attached for the Council's review. (1-8) 9. 1988 CITY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART -- A copy of the 1988 City organizational chart is attached. (I-9) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 15, 1988 Page five 10. DEVELOPMENT SIGNAGE -- On Friday, January 15, four development signs will be placed at the following locations: a. 3605 Fernbrook Lane. The Plymouth Historical Society is requesting approval of a site plan and conditional use permit. The proposal is to allow the construction of a 24 ft. x 36 ft. storage building. b. Southeast corner of Fernbrook and Harbor Lanes. Beverly Kottas is requesting approval of a land use guide plan amendment. The amendment is to reguide the site from CL (limited business) to CS (service business). c. 3901 Vinewood Lane. Powell Lincoln Mercury is requesting approval of a site pian and conditional use permit amendment. The site plan is to allow for the additional parking of new and used vehicles on the easterly portion of the site once the City vacates the ponding easement. d. East of Fernbrook Lane and 45th Avenue. Goff Homes is request- ing approval of a rezoning and preliminary plat. The rezoning is from FRD (future restricted development) to R-3 (medium density multiple residence). The preliminary plat is for two lots, one to contain up to 107 multifamily units and the other for city park. All four requests will be heard by the Planning Commission at their January 27, 1988 meeting. 11. INVITATION TO PRISM ANNUAL MEETING -- City Councilmembers have been invited to attend the annual dinner meeting of People Responding in Social Ministry (PRISM) scheduled for Thursday, January 21 at the Olivet Baptist Church, 3420 Nevada Avenue, Crystal. A copy of the invitation is attached. (1-11) 12. DEVELOPMENT FEES -- The attached article, "Development Exactions and Fees - Public ee d, Private Rights, Fairness, and the Law" appeared in the September/October issue of the Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal. ( I-12) 13. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Letter from Berkley Fogelsonger, 2310 Kirkwood Lane No., to Mayor Schneider, on the issue of snowmobiles and ATV's in Plymouth. (I -13a) b. Letter from Kathleen Hansmann, 2482 Holly Name Drive, Wayzata, to the City Council, concerning the Len Busch Roses operation. (I -13b) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM January 15, 1988 Page six c. Letter from Mayor Schneider to Randall Nord, 4420 Harbor Lane, in response to Mr. Nord's letters of December 18 and December 28 concerning the Kingsview Heights development. (I -13c) d. Letter to Metropolitan Council Chair Steve Keefe from City Manager, regarding Mr. Keefe's comments on the City's Corp of Army Engineer's permit for wetland filling. (I -13d) James G. Willis City Manager JGW : Jm attachments 0 League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221-0986) 1988 LMC/AMM LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16 Program in brief Location: St. Paul Radisson Hotel, Kellogg Boulevard 8:00 a.m. Registration 9:00 a.m. Opening General Session OThe State of the Cities - 1988" Cities' fiscal concerns will be examined in light of proposals to overhaul the state's property tax system. City officials will hear from state and legislative officials including John Tomlinson, Commissioner of Revenue Senator Douglas Johnson, Chairman, Senate Tax Committee Representative Gordon Voss, Chairman, House Tax Committee Representative William Schreiber, House Minority Leader A panel of city officials will question both lawmakers and the Commissioner of Revenue on their outlook on state -local fiscal issues. Get your questions ready, too! 12 Noon Luncheon "'Cities' Legislative Agenda in 19880 Senator Roger Moe, Senate Majority Leader Representative Robert Vanasek, Speaker of the House 1:30 p.m. Legislative Issue Briefings - Two Concurrent Sessions Levy Limits/Local Government Aid Tax Increment Financing 2:00 p.m. Small Group Strategy Sessions City officials with a special interest in a particular issue will have an opportunity to discuss lobbying strategy and involvement in efforts to secure a favorable outcome for the issue at the legislature. Veterans Preference ` Optical Scan Voting Equipment f Wastewater Treatment Construction Supplemental Grants Fiscal Disparities Return of Excess 2% Police Aid to PERA OVER These informal discussions will put you in touch with League legislative staff and fellow city officials to put together action plans aimed at helping the League win the day for cities on these key local government concerns. 3:00 p.m. City Day on the Hill Shuttle buses will be available to take city officials to the Capitol and return. Plan now to meet with your legislators and let them know where cities stand (together!) on key legislative issues! 5:30 p.m. LMC/AMM RECEPTION FOR LEGISLATORS AND STATE OFFICIALS Open to city officials registered for the conference and to state lawmakers and appointed officials. , N 00 ct r14 SMC) I F•� i rr 1-' N N 1 ' ao i N N WI Ln H Ri C!] cn N rn� N� w W amu' °°r NN allo CC ID •- N N W - r 1 `•'� H U U�" Cr7 OI 2 U 0 Z v ••o �a0 --Nr �J l I 1 w r. c�; a "? o! o M M Q .. x U U H M "o En I P4 w i w 00 I 00 cn j U P4 .� OM U H f-- H Q x z z o a H o P-4 a dc7� p 1 U! a � w C4 i H ! ! H P� z zco u , H� a� C) a, N a PL, H� x x � CD I m wU o •• o ' H pq n U I I t i 00 U, i H W I H U U P:j U U ��i 0w MM 0 (D L� Qww i �O r-4 UOU W 0000 r� H0Cn U O U • a o N M N n U i f• H P� H I x E-4 U d f� F-4 i� 1 co U , H H U �D U W C7 x�U! wcan�OUj a�oU t f i i i 1988 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS A. COUNCIL COORDTNATINC RFPRFCFurerrvrc 1. Independent School District No. 279 Virgil Schneider Annual 2. Independent School District No. 281 Bob Zitur Annual 3. Independent School Districts 270 and 284 aria Vasiliou Annual 4. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Jerry Sisk Annual 5. Planning Commission Lloyd Ricker Annual 6. Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments Maria Vasiliou Annual B. AGENCIES AND HOARDS 1. Special Assessment Committee Continuing Jerry Sisk games G. Willis Lloyd Ricker Fred Moore 2. West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board Anita Vogel Gary Swedberg 1/89 3. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Linda Dieleman 12/31/88 Bob Zitur - Executive Committee 4. Sewer Service Area #1 Advisory Board Continuing Fred Moore 5. Northwest Suburbs Cable Communication Commission 6/1/88 Virgil Schneider Council official James G. Willis (Citizen) 6. Northwest Suburbs Community Access Corporation Helen LaFave Jim Willis 1/89 7. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System Dick arlquist Director No Term Dennis Paulson (Alternate) El City Council Appointments 1/88 Page Two 8. Suburban Rate Authority Fred Moore 12/31/88 Virgil Schneider - Alternate 9. Bassett Creek Water Management Commission 1/31/90 Fred Moore John Sweeney - Alternate 10. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission 1/31/89 Fred Moore Vern Peterson - Alternate 11. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 1/31/90 Fred Moore John Sweeney - Alternate 12. School District 284 Community Education Advisory Council Carol BeacF Mary Patterson 7/1/88 7/1/90 13. School District 281 Joint Powers Agreement Eric Blank No Term 14. School District 284 Joint Powers Agreement Maria Vasiliou No Term Eric Blank 15. Lake Region Mutual Aid Association yle obinson No Term 16. North Suburban Mutual Aid Association Lyle Robinson No Term 17. Fire Training Center Joint Powers Agreement Lyle Robinson No Term 18. League of Minnesota Cities Study Committees 12/31/89 Public Safety and Personnel - Frank Boyles Land Use, Energy, Environment and Transportation - Blair Tremere Revenue Sources - James G. Willis 19. Municipal Legislative Commission Lloyd icker Jim Willis 20. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Study Committees General 12/31/89 Legislation - Frank Boyles Transportation - Frank Boyles Housing - Blair Tremere Met Agencies - Municipal Revenue - Jim Willis City Council Appointments Page Three 1 21. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Contact No Term Virgil Schneider Maria Vasiliou 22. Citizens Advisory Committee, French Regional Park No Term b Litur 23. Wayzata/Plymouth Area Chemical Health Commission No Term aria as iou 24. Minnesota Hazardous Waste Management Board No Term Maria Vasiliou 25. Staff/Council Recycling Committee Bob Zitur Dick Pouliot Helen LaFave No Term Maria Vasiliou Fred Moore Frank Boyles —: 71 L o cx-, MINUTES PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT JANUARY 6, 1988 PRESENT: Nancy Holter, Barbara Roberts, Dale Knutson, Dennis Jacobson, Paul Buharin, James G. Willis, Mark Ryan, Frank Boyles I. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 17, 1987 MINUTES The Committee reviewed the November 17, 1987 minutes. Dennis Jacobson stated that he was not suggesting that a later ride home is needed now, but should be looked at over the long term to see if additional commuter/reverse commuters could be served. With this note, the Committee approved the minutes. II. REVIEW OF NOVEMBER RIDERSHIP STATISTICS The Committee reviewed the November ridership statistics. The commuter/ reverse commuter continues to be on target, while the internal circulator is 20% below its target. Overall we are 3% below our target. From discussion it was clear that the internal circulator must be revitalized in order to improve ridership statistics for 1988. III. FOLLOW UP ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: A. Progress on Commuter/Reverse Commuter Route Changes Schedule istribution - he new routes have been implemented and schedules dlstriu�ted. Riders stated that generally the transition went smoothly, with the exception of the Pineview route where the driver never did announce the change was coming. This inconvenienced riders and may have lost at least one rider. Frank Boyles asked Paul Buharin to followup with the driver. Frank Boyles stated that a number of phone calls have been received from persons using the Medina Ballroom Park and Ride. Revisions are desired to include all routes within the City to get the greatest productivity out of the system. At the same time, we are hoping not to lose persons who use the system from the Medina Ballroom. The Peace Lutheran Church parking lot is being considered as the new Park and Ride lot as a substitution for the Medina Ballroom. B. Status Report on Lot Striping - The lot was not striped as it took a greater time to test the new configuration to ensure that it would work. Having accomplished this, and having received approval from MnDOT. Striping is scheduled for as early as possible in the spring. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS OF CONCERN OR RECOMMENDATION - Members mentioned tat rivers are sti not carrying are car s, nor are drivers consistently punching the cards. In one case, a PACT member PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT January 6, 1988 Page two used his fare card for 3-1/2 weeks. It is clear the system is losing revenues as a result. Frank Boyles will bring these matters to the attention of Jim Johnson. Committee members suggested that it would be appropriate to again solicit PACT members from the County Road 6 and 101 and Fernbrook routes. Flyers will be placed on buses once again for this purpose. V. 1988 MARKETING/PLANNING PROGRAM - The Committee reviewed the proposed planning and market ing activities for 1988. There were no changes to the planning activity recommended. It was recommended that the "All You Can Ride" card promotion be moved from October to March or April. With these revisions, the marketing and planning activities will be included in the 1988 Management Plan. Jim Willis expressed his thanks on behalf of the Plymouth City Council for the contributions of the Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit members and the importance which they plan in this system. He encouraged their continued contributions during 1988. Mark Ryan stated that from the Regional Transit Board's perspective, Plymouth is a successful system which continues to grow in a time when most public transportation systems are losing ridership. The PACT Committee is held in high esteem and is used as a positive example of an effective committee for transit system improvement. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. FB:kec MINUTES PLYMOUTH SAFETY COMMITTEE January 6, 1988 PRESENT: Gary Pouti, Eric Luetgers, Mark Peterson, John Ward, Tim Oie, Russ Elzy, Dan Campbell, Stan Scofield, Frank Boyles ABSENT: Steve Herwig ALSO PRESENT: Dave Drugg, North Star Risk Services; Bobbi Leitner and Judy McMillin I. OLD BUSINESS A. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER MEETING MINUTES The committee approved the December 16 minutes as submitted. Frank Boyles updated the committee on the issue of reflectorized safety vests for Public Safety personnel. Public Safety committee members stated their concern with the committee's recommendation that police officers be required to wear refle!ctorized vests whenever working at or on high volume roadways. John Ward stated that the policy at times could be in conflict with certain public safety objectives (i.e. investigation of suspicious activities). John also stated that an officer's first priority when arrivinq at a personal injury accident is to attend immediately to any life- threatening matters, which may preclude an office from putting a vest on until these matters are under control. John recommended that vest usage be left to an officer's discretion based on the circumstances at the accident scene. The committee agreed to change their recommendation to "recommend" that officers wear reflectorized safety vests at all vehicular accidents on high volume, high speed roadways. Frank stated he would relay the committee's comments and recommendation on safety vest usage to Dick Carlquist for review. Frank reported that he had sent a memorandum to Jim Kolstad on the reoccurring problem with the backhoe window and latch. Frank stated that Jim Kolstad confirmed that the side window latch had been replaced, and that DOT approved safety glass was used to replace the broken window. B. Report on Safety Activities 1. Follow up on Toro trailer modifications and vendor's re-evaluation. Mark Peterson stated that based on discussions with Jim Kolstad on how best to accomplish the modifications for the Toro trailers, they decided it would be most effective to have Dave's Trailer Sales complete the required work. Mark advised that the first trailer had been delivered to Dave's Trailer Sale in mid-December. The trailer modifications are expected to be completed within two to three weeks. Mark indicated he would keep the committee advised on the progress of the modifications and the vendor's re-evaluation of the modifi- cations when completed. PLYMOUTH SAFETY COMMITTEE January 6, 1988 Page 2 2. Convex Mirrors -- Russ Elzy reported that to date, convex mirrors have been installed on three city trucks. He stated, however, other installations have been delayed due to a problem in obtaining the mirrors. Russ will ask Jim Kolstad to provide a status report on the installations for the February meeting. 3. Bury & Carlson Plant -- The committee reviewed the letter sent to Bury & Carlson from Frank Boyles. Frank stated that because the ramp area under the asphalt hopper is concrete, and therefore would be difficult to modify, he would recommend that city vehicle operators be directed to back their vehicles under the hopper and/or use equipment which will fit under the hopper. The testing of strobe lights which are smaller in height will also be undertaken. 4. 26th & Olive Lane - Sight Visibility at Intersections -- Frank advised that the report prepared by Blair Tremere is still under review by the City Attorney. Frank will keep the committee advised on its status. C. Consent Agenda Policy -- The committee reviewed the final draft policy and format. The committee agreed to amend the policy to include both preventable and non -preventable accidents on the consent agenda. The committee also recommended that the safety agenda packets be sent out to committee members no later than eight days before the actual meeting date. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Vehicular & Personal Injury Accidents. The committee reviewed one vehicular and three personal injury accidents. The vehicular accident was determined to be non -preventable. One personal injury accident was determined preventable, one non- preventable, and one personal injury accident deferred for further information. Memorandums to City supervisors will be prepared conveying the committee's findings and recommendations. The committee also reviewed three vehicular glass breakage incidents. Committee review of the above accidents resulted in the following recommendations or items for follow-up: 1) On street parking requirements -- City employees should be reminded to park no closer than 30 feet from an intersection unless work operations require a different procedure. 2) "Speed handcuffing -- To minimize future incident of injury to police officers when subduing an individual, the committee supports the findings of the Police Department's critical incident analysis and recommends that the Department evaluate the appropriateness of providing training to police officers on "speed handcuffing" procedures. PLYMOUTH SAFETY COMMITTEE January 6, 1988 Page 3 III. OTHER BUSINESS John Ward stated concern with public safety personnel being exposed to the Hepatitis B virus through their contact with accident victims or individuals requesting emergency medical assistance. John advised that the Public Safety Department is presently discussing with North Memorial Medical Center representatives the establishment of an inoculation program for public safety personnel. John advised he would keep the committee updated on the progress of the program. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m. -77 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES December 9, 1997 Thorson Community Center 9:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Donahue Mary Anderson Geralyn Barone Bob Zitur Ryan Schroeder Marge Wiley Lee Mehrkens Joan Molenaar Shirley Slater Jerry Dulgar MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Linda O'Brian Bill Dix STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Wilder Vangie Gramstad CALL TO ORDER: MOTION: by Mary Anderson, second by Lee Mehrkens to approve the consent agenda as presented. Motion carried. LONG RANGE PLANNING: The Executive Board and staff went through a two --step process of identifying Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council's stakeholders and questions to pose to these stakeholders. Stakeholders*are those groups or individuals who play an important role in Northwest's operations. The results of this process are summarized on a separate page. CASH/COUNCIL MEETING: Mary Anderson provided an update on the CASH and Councils work relationship concerns and efforts which were being made to improve this relationship. Mary spoke about the adhoc meeting of human service Council Board members and Executive Directors and CASH Board members and Executive Director who met in November. At this meeting it was proposed that each organization should select 2-5 priority issues related to low income residents in an effort to possibly find a common issue that the four groups could work on together. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Board identified housing and transportation as two top priorities. A sub -committee will meet to make these broader recommendations more specific so as to be of a project nature, time limited and more achievable. Dan Donahue stated that CASH should recognize Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council as the planning organization for this area; CASH does not have the same tie with and responsibilities to cities as the Councils do. Dan also stated that CASH should consider contracting more with Northwest Council for planning, in recognition of the Council's planning role. Mary Anderson spoke of CASH's newness and the challenge of decision --making and establishing priorities with such a large board(24). Joan Molenaar spoke of the new McKnight funding and that the issue of transportation was discussed at the,Mcknight sessions. Joan supported transportation as a low income issue. Geralyn Barone also mentioned the need for low-income single parents to have better transportation services. All project recommendations must be specific, such as a housing project might be a Share -A -Home service- re: elderly and single parents exchanging housing. NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES Decembor 9�_ 1987 Thorson Community Center page 2 Mary Anderson spoke of the original joint Council housing study and the housing publication funded by CASH. A joint council housing effort which is a follow-up to the preliminary study, but which CASH decided not to fund, is underway and might be a good joint effort tb pursue. MERIT SALARY INCREASE- VANGIE G_RAMSTAD: Dan Donahue made a recommendation that Patty Wilder be given the authority to determine merit increases following the Employee Pay Plan and staying within the budget for all employees. The Executive Director's salary would stili be reviewed by the board. Geralyn Barone expressed interest in receiving information regarding forth --coming performance reviews so that the Board can provide feedback,/input if they so desire. Performance reviews will be listed under information items rather than action items on the agenda. MOTION: by Bob Zitur and seconded by Joan Molenaar to approve this process of merit increase reviews. Motion carried. COST -OF -LIVING 1qQB SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR STAFF: MOTION: by Bob Zitur and seconded by Geralyn Barone to approve the 3% cost -of -living adjustment for 1988 for staff. The Board mentioned that this increase was in line with other- organizations proposed cost -of -living increases for 1988. Motion carried. NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE: The Executive Committee positions will be up in January of 1988. Dan Donahue indicated he feels that the position should be rotated. Geraly Barone would agree to be nominated for Chair. Mary Anderson would consider the Vice Chair position again but is open to others being considered. Joan Molenaar expressed interest in the Treasurer position. Ryan Schroeder, Shirley Slater, Dan Donahue, and Joan Molenaar were appointed to the nominating committee and will meet prior to the next board meeting to make board position recommendations. 1988 ADVISORY COMMISSION WORKPLAN: Comments regarding the workplan included that it was well presented and ambitious. MOTION: by Mary Anderson and seconded by Geralyn Barone to approve the 1988 Advisory Commission Workplan. Motion carried. ADVISORY COMMISSION OFFICER TERMS: MOTION: by Geralyn Barone and seconded by Ryan Schroeder to leave the advisory term as a 2 year term. Motion carried. To change the Advisory Commission office terms requires a revision in the joint powers agreement and new signatures from the cities. Discussion occurred as to why the terms were a part of the joint powers agreement rather than the by-laws. It was stated that in the creation of the human services council the cities felt a need to be sure of all aspects of the organization's operations. ADVISORY COMMISSION VACANCIES: Myrtle Hall will be replacing Fran Gunberg as Brooklyn Center representative. Patty spoke about the on-going need to show recognition of the Advisory Commissioner's through including them on the city's mailing lists and inviting them to various functions throughout the year. The increased interaction would also enhance the Advisory Commissioner's ability to serve ar, a liaison. Jerry Dulqar, Crystal City MariayeT-, mentioned Lf -)e- Idea of having a !3ummor picnic besides the Annual Meeting recognition. The Board seemed favorable on this idea. Dan Donahue requested more recruitment/orientation materials. More packets will be provided to each city. NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES December 9, 1987 Thorson Community Center page 3 ADVISORY COMMISSION REPORT: Linda O'Brian was absent. The staff report includes information on the telephone survey. A pre-test has been completed. The phone survey will take place in two week intervals with results compiled as the reports come in. Staff is currently writing instructions for interviewers. The questions for each city are different. COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM UPDATE: Staff referred the board to the board packet. Monthly reporting forms, an information log and draft of an evaluation card have all been developed during the past month. These reports completed will be included in future board packeta. A food forum is scheduled for January 20. Flyers on this will go out to all Board members. MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION/HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL ADVISORY ROLE: The Human Services Council's have been designated by the County as responsible for coordinating input on Mental Health Services as part of the new Mental Health legislation. This plan will involve input from many groups. A diagram of this coordinated process was included in the board packet. SURPLUS COMMODITIES UPDATE: CASH has submitted a plan to the State which when approved, will list CEAP & PRISM as additional distribution sites, enabling Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to reserve food for them. Due to recent news articles indicating TEFAP cutbacks in 19889 the attendance at and calls for the last distribution were high. ANNUAL MEETING UPDATL: Annual Meeting date is scheduled for January 279 1987. This is the NWHHSC's 15th year anniversary. Various locations and restaurants are being considered with an effort to keep the price affordable so that those who will be paying for themselves will be encouraged to attend. Accessibility, availability, cost, location, menu, size, and other factors must be considered. STAFF REPORT: Staff is working to complete the new agency brochure. MAP consultants are still scouring the street for affordable office space. OTHER BUSINESS: George M. Hanson Company has bid for completing the 87 audit, Jerry Dulgar, seconded to stay with the Geo. M. Hanson Co. for esp cV,jlder Imitted by: Patric Executive Director 3 written to NWHHSC with a moved and Joan Molenaar, the 1987 audit. LONG RANGE PLANNING PROCESS Board Input of December 9, 1987 I. Stakeholders Identified The fifteen cities of Northwest Hennepin County Constituency groups including: The Cities The Councils The citizens(taxpayers) The County The providers(churches) CASH The State Thf,� ftjndor,. low-income people elderly individuals individuals with disabilities people in crisis volunteers The surrounding communities Other human service councils The Advisory Commission The Executive Board The private sector United Way Met Council II. Questions that we need to pose to the stakeholders to elicit from them a response about the future role and function of NWHHSC in the next 5 to 14 years. 1. What are their expectations of us? 2. What are'the needs of the population they serve? 3. What are the resouces they have to work with staff, financial 4. What services are seen as needed that are not already provided? 5. What level of service is desired and what level of resources is needed to support this level of services? 6. What areas are seen as duplicating efforts? 7. How are programs perceived in terms of effectiveness? 8. What do they expect to accomplish as an agency. How could NWHHSC help their agency accomplish its goals? 9. To what extent is the general public aware of the role of NWHHSC currently? To what extent are other agencies aware of the role of NWHHSC? 10. What could NWHHSC do to better communicate its role and issues of human services to the general public? 11. What client services will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years and how can NWHHSC serve those needs? 12. Should NWHHSC be involved in evaluating new and existing services in the the fifteen cities of NWHHSC in an effort to determine if programs are serving a viable need and providing services effectively. LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-0543 Page 1 January 7, 1988 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y City of Plymouth MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB *110 General 6,504.75 441.62 111 Prosecution - Court Time 6,607.25 117.98 111A Prosecution -Office Time 3,503.75 53.71 1024 Codification 97.50 109.70 1883 Robert Middlemist 6th Addition 142..50 2577 Claims 45.00 3281 Project 455 322.50 13.50 3729 Dunkirk Lane 18.75 3845 Neutgens, K. M. 360.00 4.50 3888 Police Officer Negotiations 1,567.50 41.90 3984 Parker's Lake Park - Eminent Domain 375.00 4598 Perl Land Registration 705.00 21.50 *5134 Solid Waste Transfer Station 37.50 _ tMVFP JA N 8 198 1 108T s: TOTAL $6,946.37 $6,725.23 $3,557.46 $207.20 $142.50 $45.00 $336.00 $18.75 $364.50 $1,609.40 $375.00 $726.50 $37.50 1� • Page 2 January 7, 1988 CLI ENT SUMMARY City of Plymouth MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB TOTAL 5195 Suburban Hennepin Regional 82.50 $82.50 5248 Project 648 - Eminent Domain 127.50 $127.50 5314 Van 494 Land Registration 135.00 $135.00 5322 Project 762 - Eminent Domain 412.50 286.90 $699.40 *5438 Plat Opinions 322.50 $322.50 5439 Holiday Plus 232.50 $232.50 5475 Host Development Land Registration 232.50 $232.50 5495 1988 AFSCME Negotiations 575.00 $75.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL: $21,907.00 $1,091.31 $22,998.31 *Retainer (Credit) - 864.75 TOTAL DUE: $22,133.56 Application Received by Ci Ly on: Personal Information COfT1fT11Lt� ��Comnission(S} r,ppl ied for. SC��ir)10E - nn 2nd Choice - CITY hoic,e CITY OF PLYMOUTH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION OR COMHITTEE Name: --aVF Age: Home Phone: Home Address: Number of Children: - Ages (of those living at home): Lived in Plymouth since: \�� Property (other than residence) owned in Plymouth: ,\A 1:� N,1�-_- Occupation Present employer: N , v Work Phone: Z �:,7 Position. Title: Education Course Work Taken Beyond High School Name of Institution To/From Degree/Credits Area of Emphasis CX% N�,44 kv��V- uksv- 42( Previous Experience List other civic experience participation, name of city, t you have had including name of organizations, position held and accomplishments: 0 dates of a Lig other relevant experierice -7-- 0pinion Questions C What do you believe you could contribute to the community if commission or committee? Why? � L How do you be leve u woul benefit if appy appointed to a City ittee or commission? As a commission or committee member, what issue's) mi civic responsibility and personal/professional interests? cS _ k- N \ %, Vin I, /1 CNC cause conflict between Would your employer object to your involvement on a commission or board? If yes, explain. Date available: Available for commission/committee meetings on the following evenings (circle) MonTues Wed Thurs` Fri Signed• Date: The selection process will vary according to the number of applicants and openings and may not include interviews with all candidates. z 0 I~ Q N 0 CC 0 2 D 0 J CL LL 0 0000 0) W rn T— J N u s x W J c p e I u L O n O h 0. 1 2 J L V LVj G O GO c W m u S /1 N e CL N ✓.5 9 yy■JJ t J W ... r I C w I q � u 0 h G 1 V O. L ybV +. r n O V ? r u p a i wLK G d V p YZ!IIaaV..r VI cL C Li~cr c c o C C O C. O C i v 4.0u • U y� C Y Z V U ��1 r �� W O► = _u � nVi V y� ++ O U .Ci v n Cyy O P y V N O r r r 1 J T. L V ✓ L U •- I c p e I u L O n O h 0. 1 2 J L V LVj G O GO c W m u S /1 N e CL N ✓.5 9 yy■JJ t J W I C � � E V v D CL —a { —a ! V Y L 1`v t— I— u T O J r I C w O1 r x L p w V yyOJ/ C V d h G 1 V O. L ybV +. r n P 'o C LJ q 9 �L7 � u p a i wLK G YZ!IIaaV..r VI cL e g n � 0 W C i v 4.0u • U N ��1 r �� W _u � r y� Y7 N O r r }• 1 J T. L V ✓ L U t C I ZG CC C C c J }a} L v V 7 W C ✓ o t y V r V O O T 6 C C=1✓ .Zi w h H~ Y Y o ~ Z M ayL./II LL Q L J .� N q <~�' C L V Y L . C+ aWe u v 4 tY. w ; pV COOV q U y r•� vavuuuyv � a 1 I C � � E V v D CL —a { —a ! V Y L 1`v t— I— u T O J r I C w I r x L p w V yyOJ/ C V d h G 1 V O. L ybV +. r n P 'o C LJ q 9 �L7 � u p a i wLK G YZ!IIaaV..r VI cL e g n � 0 C C yaV/ C ✓ 666 C i v 4.0u • U N ��1 r �� 7 L C _u � r Y7 V ✓ L U C C c }a} L v I 7 r p V 8• [pp. JV C w L �. V .Zi w h H~ Y I- C C LyZ ✓ ? � i I Y O Y✓ O O F '•"� LL Q L J N q <~�' c v e L V1�A ✓ v .V. h u V a�iY3 ; pV COOV I C � � E V v D CL —a { —a ! V Y L 1`v t— I— u T O J r I C w I r x L p w V yyOJ/ C V d h G 1 V O. L ybV +. r n P 'o C LJ q 9 �L7 � u p a i wLK G YZ!IIaaV..r VI cL C C 4 �•� V C C yaV/ C ✓ 666 C i v 4.0u • U ��1 r �� _u � V Ac u7 O V <CC~�n l �` _ 1_ L h V ✓ y I � V C P q Y y V > O Y C ( g C C L C q t ►; w q Y r G V Y M V p � W L y T V 6 n C y 6 C V w O M 61 z W N I` � u J �. C. u .J -• L- L. .r O �W {ZC e. v yl V C] 4 1N w h L f.! > - to i O ". N O C •+ N � � r .Ni Z L yVW/ M W ✓ > Df. C L L W C L. q w D. O O C N C W LCi g Y q✓ C Y U I .V„ g C U V V C O ✓ V V Vr V V w L V o: V .. 00 r N• ter, -�� i I� Co oc w U � -I- ct wQ xHU Q U H W a; � � u a ct P:l �E:aH P-4� U O z gra O �C� O P4 U x �c cz PQ a z a z z P4 u w Pa U P-+ C I C) C� L4 c z W t -q c` 1 '� a. Uw + N Z CT l t r"� o * N .� ,.a QOz o� zc3,R9 o LQr- U �n W as va � u, a a: En '+' tpipp N Ot U W F-4 U ' W U Cii bA H G � L , ouoU 0 In �CD C2 CY)cn a0o cn tiN Ca C 7 O P4W • U 0 U i C? CD D HW O �o UQLr1 �c U) N N _ _ oo �� -' 20- N 'U o.`�NoM W �--+ N N �- Cf) oc O [� 1 A.-If,7Hvilr�l�olt PRISM ANNUAL MEETING AND DINNER We cord c.att y invite you to join ups ass we cetebta to anotheh yeah o4 coo peAat i.ve sehvice and min.iztty at our Annum. Meeting on Thurvsday, January twenty-4i)ut, nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, at Otiv e t Bapti6t Church, 3420 Nev eda Avenue Nonan in CAystat. We wilt begin at seven-thi Ay p.m. with horns d'oeuvres and time to hoci.ati.ze. ainneA wilt be 6ehved at eight p.m.; 4ottowed by a shont program. We hone you wilt join out cetebtat io n and meet the PRISM ctehg y, to cat dig ni- taAi.e s, the PRISM AtaJ 6 and it6 BoaAd o A Vitectm 6 . B.Qeneta A. Quinn Executive DiAectot 0 Judith B. La6tahe Board P,%"ident RSVP: 529-1350 by January 1'8, 1988 A $7.50 donation (at the door) to coven dinnetc experu n witt be gteatty appreciated. N 5 11 w Y C T 36th Ave No. _y L 1 R 34th 0 0 i e i n A )o= onvet i vUst Chtwc s RSVP: 529-1350 by January 1'8, 1988 A $7.50 donation (at the door) to coven dinnetc experu n witt be gteatty appreciated. a �� � rl - ou AL El I 1 REN `V -rE- LAW (Li Butterwort Volume 3, Number 11 h Legal Publishers Sep ternber/October 1987 DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS AND FEES PUBLIC NEED, PRIVATE RIGHTS, FAIRNESS, AND THE LAW David C. Sellergren THE PROBLEM AND RESPONSES Development fees are one of the hottest fiscal and legal issues in land use today. With budget shortfalls and cuts in federal aid programs,' local governments across the coun- try are looking more and more toward private financing of new public improvements, making the provision of im- provements a requisite for approval of subdivisions and other land uses. Development fees or exactions" are spearheading this drive toward private financing. They take on different forms, but generally they involve require- ments of land dedication, fees in lieu of dedication. or fees charged for the impact new development presumably will have on public services and facilities. The exactions are levied on the assumption that new residential and com- mercial developments generate increased public service requirements. Developers, surprisingly, at times seem to be among the strongest proponents of development fees, but for de- fensive reasons.' The exactions are regarded as an appease- David C. Sellergen is chair of the Land Use and Development Department of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. Mr. Sel- lergren is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School and holds a master of laves, environmental la,..v, from The Nation- al Law Center, George Washington University. He has lectured extensively and has been an instructor in land use lawn at Ham - line University School of La -,v. lvlr. Sellergren has practiced land use, local government, and environmental law in Minnesota for fifteen years. He has participated in the exactions debate in its mane forms on nearly a daily basis. "Ar. Selleroren acknowvledges the assistance of Craig A. Zuelke, who added invaluable polish to a practitioner'S thoughts. Mr. Zuelke is currently a student at the Uniw-ersity of Minnesota Law School and a graduate fellow at the Hubert H. Humphrey Insti- tute of Public affairs, working toward a dual law, and master of plannill"decree. ment to a potentially antidevelopment public and as a means of getting the necessary public facilities for their projects. Municipalities support development fees, since they encourage responsible development and help pro- vide needed infrastructure for their communities. Ideally, the use of exactions can create a win-win situa- tion for all parties involved. Yet, the exactions are subject to abuse. With reckless application, development fees can create a no-win situation for all parties involved. This article will discuss the incidence of development fees, the limits, if any, a municipality is under in imposing them, and the need for a conscientious awareness in their administration. Exactions are based on the simple philosophy that new development should "pay its own way," arguably an equit- able standard. If a subdivision or commercial development induces growth; that requires additions or improvements to public services and infrastructure, then the developer should make contributions toward meeting the costs of the improvements. After all, the development will presum- ably benef it from the improvements. A simple philosophy, however, does not preclude controversy. Much litigation around the country has found its way into the case books over the question of ascertaining the relationships between the size and type of a development and the needs that it will generate. Certain kinds of munici- pal needs are easily identified with a subdivision, such as f ARTICLES AND FEATURES IN THIS ISSUE Development Exactions and Fees — Public Need, Private Rights, Fairness, and the Law 161 Case Rotes 1:4 162 needs for interior streets, street lighting, sanitary sever, storm sewer, water, and side%valks. Identifying T ther needs, however, can be much more problematical. hese other needs may include: parks and recreation, storm %nater holding areas and ponds, natural amenities, "pri- vate open space, extra width for major thoroughfares, trail systems, public transportation shelter areas, scenic views, school sites or charges for a site, fire station sites or charges, and library sites or charges. At the heart of the controversy are the fees that have been levied against developers for off-site improvements. The demonstrated need in such cases is often very tenuous and can camouflage the true motives of some municipali- ties. Fiscal constraints sometimes tempt local governments to transform development fees from regulatory tools into simply means of raising money or obtaining S revolved e capital improvements. Litigation in Florida and Utah around costly impact fees that were, in part, designated to subsidize capital facilities not related to the particular subdivision." The Price of Exactions Some municipalities' practices of charging exactions have generated criticism on other grounds, mostly having to do with the incidence of the fees. By making develop- ments more costly, the process of providing reasonably priced housing or fostering needed commercial tax base and jobs is potentially slowed.6 This is especially true for a particular community if demand for residential or office Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal Volume 3. Number 11, September/October 1987 MANAGING EDITOR Timothy C. Brantner ADVISORY BOARD OF EDITORS Robert P. Boblett Robert Boblett Associates, Inc. Leland ). Frankman Attorney at Law ,liinnrautc� Heal Ialuic 1.cju• Journal (ISSN ()271;-762H) is lnil�lishccl 11%. 13utterworth Legal PublislWrs, 2811 i::tsl I ifttt 51rcr:=. St. Paul. {Minnesota 55101-19154. 'iclr.IAlone: (6121227-4200, Sui)scriptiun price is 57:,.00 Iter one year. Lullyright (c) lE1ti7 by till ttarwc)rlh Legat Publishr:rs, is Publishing (USA) Inn. All rights reserved. - \�;:L, 3 Minnesota Regi Estate Late Journal space in its region is clastic and other not hiked communities exac- homes and offices available at pr1c f� tions. Developers/builders can either swallow the costs, refuse to build in that particular market, or pass the costs on to the buyer. In most instances, the costs are passed First, on financing cumulative effect not at first apparent. improvements through exactions can be inefficient. Financing an improvement or dedicationat three points over com- bination of a land development loan prime rate and a home mortgage at 11% is more expensive than through the typical lower rate associated with munic- ipal bonds. Second, the higher home prices caused by the exactions result in additional increased costs th includingnt a higher sales commission, an increase i mortgage and points related to the mortgage, and value an in- crease in property taxes caused exaction-fee-inducedd' costs of the home. Finally, the high limit the number of potential buyers, especially lower- and moderate -income families. There isthen, an d on exclusion housing impose element in front-end exactions developments. Another serious problem that may result elinfrastructurefrom ck- less use of impact fees to finance new public is the inequitable treatment of nevti' and Dew frasXtrutctureng ethrough New residents who finance a � � help retire the debt of existing impact fees may also infrastructure through general revenue assessments. This double payment may again arise in the replacement of existing public facilities. New residlonwill before the new replacement of existing infrastructure infrastructure (which they paid for in the exaction process) wears out. Current residents, meanwhile, will enjoy the added tax and exaction revenue of new development and the lighter burden it brings for making public improvements." New homeowners may be able to recoup msome o however, costs of the exactions if they sell their unity. Likewise, cur - new renters will not have this oPphe ad antages private rent homeowners may enjoy financing of public improvements bring, but current rent- ers may be hit in a different way. When exactions are passed on to the buyer, prices for existing housing also rise, since the demand for the cheaper, existing housimeowners may ngand rental units increases. a asent buh�uiTent renters may sim- ence favorable capita g ply experience higher rents. The the ting then, are indirectly bearing some ofcosts new development." Legal Constraints on Imposing Exactions Municipalities do not have free reign to impose exac- tions on developers. To the contrary, they must comply with significant legal constraints. First, both the federal C L September/October 1987 and state constitutions limit the reach of local govern- ments. The "taking clause,"9 which reads "nor shall pri- vate property be taken for public use without just com- pensation, has been used to nullify several exactions. In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,'° the United States Supreme Court ruled that a condition placed on a building permit violated the taking clause because the condition did not further the public purposes the permit requirements served. The Nollans wished to build a house on some coastal property they owned but were required to dedicate a public access easement along their shorefront before a building permit would be granted. In its opinion, the Court assumed that the California Coastal Commis- sion's objective of preserving public access and the charac- ter of the shoreline was legitimate but ruled that the condi- tion did not rationally further that objective. The condition was not substantially related to a governmental purpose that would justify a denial of the permit. The condition, then, amounted to a taking of Noilans' property without just compensation. Similarly, a federal decision, Parks v. Watson," invali- dated a city's demand for dedication of a geothermal well in exchange for the city's vacation of a platted street because the demand violated the "taking clause." The condition — dedication of the well — was not rationally related to the benefit conferred — vacating the platted street. Parks also exemplifies how exactions, if unevenly applied, can be successfully challenged as violations of the "equal protection" clause.,, The condition requiring dedi- cation of the well was a distinction made between the developer seeking vacation of the street and other develop- ers who had received vacations, and it was "totally unre- lated to the city's statutorily defined interest in determin- ing whether to grant the discretionary benefit [street vacation]."" Also related to the equal protection challenge is the charge in some cases that development fees are unconstitutional taxes, in that they are used for general revenue purposes but not uniformly paid by residents of the community." A second general constraint on the imposition of development fees is the enabling legislation or statutory authority for exaction activity. A municipality may use the police power to protect the health and welfare of its citizens as an instrument of the state, but it first must be granted the authority to do so." Doth municipalities and counties in Minnesota have the statutory authority to charge exactions from developers. Municipalities have the authority to require land dedication for certain public uses and land dedication or fees in lieu of dedication for certain other uses. The reach of municipal exaction authority is limited, however, to the subdivision of land and does not include development in its many forms that does not require a subdivision.f" County exaction authority is not restricted to subdivision developments or to an enumer- 163 ated list of public uses but is limited to requiring Iand dedication. Counties are not specifically given the fee i., lieu of dedication option." Beyond these limitations, however, the broad scope of these statutes makes challeng- ing municipal and county exaction statutory authority a difficult endeavor. A third constraint on the municipality that may pro- vide grounds for challenging an exaction is the validity of the local ordinance. Since the legislation just cited is enabling legislation only, there also must be a valid local ordinance on which the exaction is based. For example, the Bloomington City Code, states: it is hereby found and declared that, as a general rule, it is reasonable to require an amount of land equal in value to ten percent of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdivided, be dedicated or reserved to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, open space, or trails." Municipalities that attempt exactions supported only by their "policies" or administrative devices are inviting a challenge. The local ordinance cannot by ultra vires, that is, it cannot be unreasonably beyond the scope of the enabling legislation; neither can it overreach. Developers have chal- lenged local ordinances as being so vague that they invite arbitrary action. Generally, though, challenges of this nature are unsuccessful due to the courts' recognition of municipalities' need for flexibility in financing their pub- lic improvements.19 A fourth constraint, requiring development fees to be applied reasonably to land use activities, is the most fertile source of challenges. A finding of unreasonableness is also a precondition to a finding on the constitutional issues. Most states, including Minnesota, determine reasonable- ness through a rational -nexus test. Rational -Nexus Requirements A subdivision exaction designated to meet some need entirely within the subdivision will, in theory, create a corresponding direct increase in the quality of facilities serving that need in the subdivision. The subdivision has a need for the exaction, and the exaction provides a benefi' to the occupants of the subdivision. If the exaction subsi- dizes public services and facilities beyond the boundaries of the subdivision, however, the need for the exaction and the benefit it supposedly will confer to the subdivision are less direct. The exaction, then, is more open to attack as a taking. The answer to the question of whether an exaction is a valid use of the police po%ti,er is determinative of whether the exaction is a "taking." Courts have assessed the validi- ty of exactions using, predominantly, two standards. The first standard, articulated in Pioneer Trost & Savings Bank 164 v. Village of Mount Prospect,' finds the subdivision exac- tion legal only if the burden cast on the subdivider is "specifically and uniquely attributable to his activity."" This test has a two -prong requirement. A municipality must show that a new development causes the need for public improvements and that the improvements confer benefits directly to the developer and his property.23 The "specifically and uniquely attributable" test was a shift from earlier cases, which had approved nearly any exac- tion by stating that it was the price to pay for the "privi- lege" of subdivision.' The second standard, established in Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls," adopted the two prongs of the "spe- cifically and uniquely attributable" test but relaxed the burden of proof associated with it: "[T]he words 'specifi- cally and uniquely attributable to his activity' are not so restrictively applied as to cast an unreasonable burden of proof upon the rnunicipality which has enacted the ordi- nance under attack."2- Under this approach, a municipality need not show that an exaction meets a need solely attrib- utable to a particular development or that it confers ben- efits directly to the particular development that it was exacted from. The cumulative impact of new growth over several years could form a reasonable basis for the subdivi- sion exaction: "[A] municipality might well be able to establish that a group of subdivisions approved over a period of several years had been responsible for bringing into the community a considerable number of people mak- ing it necessary that the land dedications of subdividers be utilized for school, park, and recreational purposes for the benefit of such influx. )*27 This second approach, known as the rational -nexus test, was adopted by the Minnesota supreme court in Collis V. City of Bloomington." In Collis, developers challenged the constitutionality of state enabling legislation and a Bloomington ordinance that required dedication of parks and playgrounds or fees in lieu thereof as a condition of subdivision approval. The Minnesota court traced the two lines of cases establishing standards for analysis of the validity of subdivision exactions and found the test articu- lated in Jordan to be the more workable one." The Minnesota supreme court recognized the worst in the "taking" problem in CoIIis, stating: A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land for fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would be to allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of the police power to become grand tlieft.w The court upheld the enabling statute, however, since the statute authorized dedication of only a "reasonable por- tion" of land for its stated purposes. The court found the $.reasonable portion" to be dedicated to mean 'that portion 3 Minnesota Real Estate Low Journal of land «-hick the evidence reasonably established that Bloomington needed to acquire for the purposes stated as a Ile result of approval of the subdivision."" With that inter- ` pretation, the statutory requirement and implementing regulations in question were upheld as being in com- pliance with the state and federal constitutions. The en- abling statute was amended to include the Collis language in 1980." In adopting the rational -nexus text, the Minnesota su- preme court chose an easier and more realistic, albeit broader, test than the specifically and uniquely attribut- able standard. The "reasonable relationship" (rational - nexus) standard of Jordan is, according to the court, "of necessity, a facts -and -circumstances test, but it is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which may bear on a municipality's needs for certain kinds of facilities and the relationship of a particular subdivision to those needs.' '3 Knowledgeable local government decision makers and attorneys know the complexities and tradeoffs involved in subdivision exactions, so the test elected by Minnesota and most courts now is better than those used in the past. It encourages recognition of the incremental burden occa- sioned by growth. It puts on the municipality the burden of proving a relationship between local exactions and public needs attributable to subdivision development but also bili i in establishing the nature of the permits some flexr ty relationship. THE EVOLUTION OF THE RATIONAL-NEXUS TI�� �A� TEXT AND THE PROPOSE LEGISLATION The 1987 Minnesota legislative session witnessed the introduction of a bill that would give municipalities the authority to levy street access charges on new develop- ment. The charges would be based on a calculation of the number of household trips that a new development would be expected to generate. Developers would be assessed the street access charges on top of their building permits and would have up to ten years to pay them. The fees, in effect, would be treated "in the same manner as taxes on real property for which the building permit was issued and would be subject to the same penalties and interest as city taxes on real property."" This bill presents a classic exam- ple of an impact fee. Developers would be assessed charges for the impact that their projects would reasonably be expected to have on existing city streets and highways. Impact fees presently are not recognized in the Minne- sota statutes. They differ from the traditional development exactions in that they are not tied to the subdivision proc- ess and are not based on the necessity of acquiring land for public iniprovemens; rather, impact fees are based on the need to generate revenue for making the capital improve- ments presumably necessitated by a particular develop- September/October 1987 ment. As previously discussed, a municipality can adopt subdivision ordinances requiring the dedication of land for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds, and similar utilities and improvements. A munici- pality also can require the dedication of land or fees in lieu of dedication for "the public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space, or storm water holding areas or ponds.'"' There is no mention of a fee -in -lieu -of - dedication option in the county enabling statute, but the statute in one respect is broader than its counterpart for municipalities. A county is limited neither to subdivision regulations nor to an enumerated list of permissible public uses but may establish standards for "the preservation and dedication of streets and land for other public purposes and the general design of physical improvement. Like the county enabling legislation, the proposed im- pact fee legislation goes beyond the subdivision limitation — a development other than a subdivision may be asses- sed charges for the impact the development has on the city arterials and collector streets and highways. The proposed legislation still does not give municipalities the authority to require nonsubdivision developments to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The proposed legislation broadens municipal power but limits the power to cover only the impact the new development has on city streets and highways. The general "other public purposes" lan- guage of the county enabling legislation is absent. At the same time that the street impact fee bill, if adopted, will extend a municipality's power to impose fees on new development, courts across the country are requiring development fees to face an increasingly rigor- ous rational -nexus test. The courts have both strengthened and clarified the test. Although the burden of proof was reduced from the "specific and uniquely attributable" test under the Jordan standard, the rational -nexus standard has not simply been treated as a password for development fee ordinances. The need and benefit prongs of the test are being construed to require a stiffer demonstration from the municipality re- garding the basis for its impact fee ordinances. In states like Florida and Utah, where the test is being applied in its strictest form, municipalities must show that a particular development creates a need for expanded public infra- structure. The impact fee, then, must be roughly pro- portional to the generated need. After the need require- ment is met, the impact fee must be shown to benefit the development from which it was exacted. In Contractors & Builders Assn v. City, of Dunedin," the Florida Supreme Court held that impact fees for new developments are permissible when (1) it is established that expansion of public facilities is reasonably required as a result of approval of the development, (2) the fees col - 1G -J lected "do not exceed a pro rata share of reasonably antici- pated costs of expansion," and (3) "the use of the money collected is limited to meeting the costs of expansion."" The need for expansion is generally not disputed, espe- cially if the fee requirements are basad on the expansion of conventional public services or facilities, such as roads.`, Disputes often occur, however, in determining the fair amount of costs new development should bear in relatior. to the benefits received. The Utah Supreme Court, in Ban - berry Development Corp. v. South Jordan City,'° a case which considered park dedication requirements and water access charges, provided a comprehensive list of criteria a municipality should consider when determining the equitable balance between expansion costs and the ex- pected benefits that expansion would generate. The sever. criteria a municipality must consider in setting the reason- ableness of the fee requirements are: (1) The cost of existing capital facilities; (2) the manner of financing existing capital facilities ...; (3) the relative extent to which the newly developed properties and the other properties in the municipality have already contributed tc the cost of existing capital facilities ...; (4) the relative extent to which the newly developed properties and the other properties in the municipality will contribute to the cost of existing capital facilities in the future; (5) the extent to whi& the new-ly developed properties are entitled to a credit be- cause the municipalities requiring their developers or own- ers to provide common facilities ... that have been provided by the municipalilty and financed through general taxation or other means ... in other parts of the municipality; (6) the extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing the newly developed properties; and (7) the times -price differential inherent iii fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times." Michael Stegman, writing for the Urban Land Institute, has summarized the basic requirements for the rational - nexus standard as it exists now in the majority of states. Tc satisfy the rational -nexus test, a development fee ordi- nance must have (a) clear facility need standard, (b) fair allocation of facilities costs, and (c) accountability in the use of the fees collected. Infrastructure standards servin€ new development must not be higher or lower than ex- isting standards, and the costs for the new infrastructure must be carefully documented. The allocation of infra- structure costs must be based on a formula that does not shift the entire burden of new public facilities onto new development. Also, the fees cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies in public facilities, or to make net•, development pay twice by financing replacement of ex isting facilities v,,hile also paring for the expansion of thL facilities. Accountability and use of the fees must be bases on the creation of specific funds earmarked for the need: that give rise to the fees in the first place, and on pro-'risiom that contain time limits for spending the collected fees anc giving refunds if the spending deadlines are not met.12 I66 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the Future of the Rational -Nexus Requirement On June 26, 1987, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Nollan v. California ni make the tal Commission." This decision has the potential rational -nexus standard an even stricter test. The issue of whether the Nollans would benefit from the condition placed on their building permit was not addressed; the question of whether the condition met a need created by approval of the Nollans' building hurt it was the focus of the Court's attention. In public ruled five -to -four that the condition of granting a p did access easement on the Nollans' beach -front property not substantially further the governmental purposes of protecting the public's ability to see the beach, assisting the public in overcoming the "psychological barrier" to using the beach created by a developed shorefront, and prevent- ing congestion on the public beachs." The �urt ould have without deciding, that the coastal commission denied the Nollans' building permit outright if the denial would have substantially furthered the governmental pur- poses and if the Nollans would not have been denied the economically viable use of their land. Justice Scalia, writ- ing for the majority, noted however: 1'Tlhe lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to something other than what it was. In short, un1ess the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the de- velopment ban, the building restriction is not a valid regula- tion of land use but "an out-and-out plan of extortion. In this decision, the burden of proof necessary to sup- port a nexus between a condition placed on a development approval and the public need or burden the development creates is raised almost to the level of the "specifically fCourt fano uniquely attributable test. In its opinion, looked at the elements of the taking clause, noting that land use regulations do not constitute a taking when they "sub- stantially advance legitimate state interests and do not deny an owner economically viable use of his land. Next, the majority assumed the commission's purpose was legitimate and conceded that the condition would be sus- tained if reasonably related to furthering this purpose. The condition, however, did not meet this reasonable nexus. In deciding what constitutes "reasonable," the court took the same approach used in the majority of states (referring to the rational -nexus test), citing Collis and Jordan." Writing in dissent, Justice Brennan characterized the standard used by the majority as "a precise quid pro quo of burdens and benefits."' He considered the "precise accounting system in the case "insensitive to the fact that increasing intensity of development in many areas calls for far-sighted, comprehensive planning that takes into account both the interdependence of land vises and the cumulative impact of develol)inent."44 Finally, Brennan 3 Minnesota Real Estate Lai%, Journal asserted that he hoped the "decision is an aberration, and that a broader vision ultimately prevails."'. The Nollans Avon by a bare majority, five -to -four, and the majority opinion was severely criticized by the dissen- ters for using an uncharacteristically demanding standard to judge a police power action. Consequently. ultimately ncarry in ins to be seen how much weight Nollan future development exaction disputes. olats p may be - come an aberration, but whatever direction ny take, its exacting standard will be ammunition for those seeking greater restrictions on a municipality's ability to levy development exactions. The Street Impact Legislation and the Rigorous Rational -Nexus Requirements The "need" prong of the rational -nexus test could argu- ably be met by an ordinance based of e Nolproplan decision. Minne- sota impact fee legislation, in spite the In Minnesota, need is determined by looking se ufar which rela- tionship between the development an the exaction is being levied. In Middler lst v. Ci ng d Plymouth,tY Of 51 a recent case in which a de per ll an exaction requiring the dedication appeals n otlot for a that county road, the Minnesota court of pp noted "some uses, such as freeways, major arterial highways, or area -wide sports facilities, may have such dedication negligible gmay relationship to local developments ev el berequired of a particular not as a matter of , subdivision."52 At the other end of the spectrum, d traff rela- tionship between new development andincreased for on a community's roads and highways, particularly large developments, is reasonable and well supported. d Between these two poles, however, the proportion the new development generates, and consequently the pro rata share of the costs it should bear, is more difficult to establish. Under the proposed legislation, communities must establish a procedure for calculating theimpactaeach is expected to generate on city collector ial streets and highways. This impact based y str ets multiples of a calculated household use rate for c and highways." The street access chargee household may a at °� exceed local $750 for each multiple °S method of determining impact ordinance based on this would arguably be reasonable and would, therefore, with- stand judicial scrutiny. An ordinance fulfilling all the requirements set by the proposed legislation would most likely fare equally as well' under the "benefit" prong of the test, despite the fact that the legislation makes no demand that the fees within a certain radius of the development, other than within the city limits." Benefits of the fees are not req t? ed to fall in the project that generates them alone. development possibly would not feel the benefits of the September/October 1987 fees as directly as other persons if the fees are spent in an area of the city away from the project. In Honiebuilders & Contractors Assn, Inc. v. Board of County Com- missioners,x- the appellants argued that an impact fee was "invalid because of the disparity betv,,een the people .%,ho benefit and the people who pay." This is a common mode of attack against impact fees, the court noted, but it is generally rejected. The Florida court held that the fees do not have to be used exclusively or ovenvhelmingly for the benefit of the development.' In Call v. City of b'l'est Jordon," the appellant argued that a dedication ordinance was invalid because the fees would not be put toward uses solely for the benefit of the development but would be enjoyed by the public at large. The Utah Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that it is sufficient if the improvements constructed with the fees imposed bore a reasonable relationship to the needs created by the subdivision." The proposed Minnesota legislation is specific in re- quiring municipalities to demonstrate the use or benefits for which the fees will be used. The fees are to be ear- marked for a special fund that will be expended for the costs imposed on city streets and highways by the project."° The benefit to the development would also have to be demonstrated through the adoption of a city wide trans- portation plan.61 One would be hard pressed to shoe, then, that there is not a reasonable relationship between the expenditure of the funds and benefits conferred on one's project. A local ordinance properly preceded by reliable traffic studies and a transportation plan based on the pend- ing legislation could pass the muster of a court using a rational -nexus standard. Given national trends to rigorous analysis, however, municipalities that take such action must be very careful and must anticipate legal challenge. An ordinance meeting the rational -nexus test is not free from attack as an unconstitutional tax, however. The tax challenge has been a popular means of attacking impact fee legislation. In Homebuilders & Contractors Assn, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners,61 the appellant main- tained that an impact fee for roads was in reality a tax. The court ruled otherwise, distinguishing Homebuilders & Contractors Ass'n from an earlier case, Broward County v. Janis Development Corp.,", in which such a fee was held to be a tax. In distinguishing the two cases, the court noted that the subject of the fee (roads) was not important, but the fact that the ordinance involved in Janis lacked specific restrictions on the use of the generated funds and that the money generated from the fees "far exceeded" the cost of needs caused by the new development gave the ordinance a general -revenue raising quality. The court in Home - builders & Contractors Ass'n held that these features dis- tinguished the fee in Janis from a regulatory act and made it more descriptive of a tax."' The tax argument was again raised in a consolidated appeal, in Russ Building Partnership 1'. San Francisco.' 167 where office space developers in California recentl}° cha longed a development fee levied to offset increased publi transportation costs associated %with their developmen'. The California court followed an earlier case, Tern;in_ PIaza Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco,- where a_- impact :impact fee ordinance was distinguished from a tax. T court, in Russ Building, concluded that fees that do nc, exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service of tl regulatory activity for which the fee is charged, and whic are not levied for general revenue purposes, have bee-, considered outside the realm of special taxes.6" The cou, noted that the fees levied against the developer were nc compulsory but were exacted only if the developer volur, tarily chose to create new office space."" A court following the decisions in Florida and Califc: nia would most likely find ordinances based on the pent' ing Minnesota legislation to be regulatory enactment rather than taxes. The Minnesota legislation calls for five-year capital improvement plan that includes cost est: mates of city arterial and collectors streets and highways.' The estimates, in effect, set a cap on the amount of revenu that can be generated through the fees. The legislation als, limits the spending of the generated revenue to the cost imposed on the city, streets and highways by the project. Under the legislation, a city could not receive street acces charges in an amount greater than the cost described in th five-year street and highway improvement plan.', POTENMAL POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATION Calculating the impact of a building will have on th road system of a municipality is not an exact scienc: There are problems with determining an adequate numb£ of parking spaces, let alone determining the number c household trips generated by a particular developmen Household trips may be too simplistic a way of assessin this impact. A building may be rated as generating a certai number of household trips, but due to out -migration in tf: community, a net increase in the number of househoi trips may not occur as a result of the new development.-,,- the evelopment.'=the projection for the growth of vehicular traffic in tr. community for the five-year period of the improveme: plan is overestimated, a city may collect more funds tha are actually required. Arguably, a city may want to set i cost estimates for capital improvements as high as pass ble, so that it can collect the greatest amount of impact fe= possible. There is no provision in the legislation requirii the city to spend the funds within a certain time period c to return unspent funds." Without such a provision, asce taining whether fees are being spent for the benefit of development would be difficult. A developer, arguahl could challenge the fees as not being reasonably related the costs imposed on the city streets if the city funds are n spent within a certain period. 168 Despite these weaknesses, the pending enabling leg- islation has several positive features. The legislation is fairly specific in its requirements of local impact fee ordi- nances. The required capital improvement plan with cost estimates, the detailing of the formula used in setting the fee, and the limitation of the spending of the fees to costs reasonably attributable to the development serve to protect the developer's interest and make the fees as equitable as possible. Such specific requirements may help the parties avoid costly litigation. Another positive point of the legislation is the require- ment that the developers be given the opportunity to pre- sent evidence relating to the determination of the charge." This requirement provides another check against arbitrary action by the municipality. In the face of these require- ments, a city, in fact, may be hard pressed to enact a road impact fee ordinance that would fully comply with the proposed legislation.75 CONCLUSION A deii-1i'k'a trend is emerging in judicial decisions to- ward a more rigorous test of rational, factual basis for exactions, particularly if they are either for off-site lands or for fees for capital facilities. But even with the more rigor- ous tests, no-win situations for developers, and conse- quently, for local communities, can easily occur. The developer of land for housing must deal with a variety of factors beyond the subdivision ordinance, in- cluding watershed districts, flood plain zoning, shoreland management, ordinances, critical areas ordinances, natu- ral resource protection ordinances, the land use implica- tions of federal and state air and water quality programs, and environmental review on both the federal and state level. All of the processes and demands of this system are another form of regulatory subdivision exaction. The costs ultimately appear in the form of hard dollars, which are passed on to the home buyer. Thus, when a determination is made on whether a particular dedication or cash require- ment constitutes a taking, and focuses exclusively on a particular statute, the legal system addresses the question from a myopic viewpoint. The test for a "taking" should consider all of the factors just listed; the law, however, pigeonholes the analysis. Furthermore, in a specific factual situation, municipal- ities may often be relieved of their burden of proving the reasonableness of their exactions due to the economic pressures on the developer.' A municipality's demands may be clearly an illegal taking, yet the developer is con- strained by the need for approval, strict deadlines, and the cost of litigation. In another context, where a developer does have time to litigate, an out-of-court solution to major differences over exactions is highly unlikely without the key ingredients of (1) a sophisticated planning department, city attorney, and manager; (2) large and flexible budgets; 3 Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal (3) city council sense of fairness: and (4) absence No one wo � d bene- borhood pressure to avoid settlement. fit. Ultimately, the cost of the litigation would be parsed on the either to the consumers of the homes general taxpayers in the community. What is needed, then, in addition to stricter criteria for determining reasonableness, is a general f isreason- ableness.that A benefit of the exactionsrequirements forces everyone to think about all of the needs and conse- quent costs associated with growth. Municipalities are far from getting "free" public improvements through exac- tions. Indiscriminate use of exactionsnot only can u�ent residents rden and new residents but also can burden c the vitality of the community by slowing the provision of new homes, a larger tax base, and jobs. An awareness and consciousness of the incidence development with anent be created. Used in a spirit of reasonableness, tion paid toward direct and indirect costs, exactions can goal, valuable tool in the land developmentprocess. then, is to figure out the most efficient and economic way to deal with the burdens occasioned by growth. ENDNOTES .. 1. See, e.g., McGrath, Twin Cities Deficits Reflect U.S. Trend as Municipalities Face Federal Aid Cuts, Minneapolis Star and Tribune, July 14, 1987, at 1A, col- 5. 2. The terms development fees and exactions are used interchangeably throughout the article. 3. Stegman, Development Fees for Infrastructure, URBAN LAN'o, May 1986, at 1178. 4. But see Bosselman & Stroud, Mandatory Tithes: The Legality of Land Development Linkage, 9 NOVA L. J. 381, 407-8 (Spring 1985) (new development does not create demand or growth, but is product of it). 5. See, e.g., Brow and County v. Janis Dev. Corp., 311 So.2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) (impact fee struck down, in part because money generated far exceeded also oLaffertymeeting y. Payson brought about by new development); City, 642 P.2d 376 (Utah 1982). 6. Porter, Exactions - An Inexact Science. URBAN LAND INSTITLY-M, Jan. 1983 at 34 ("Ironically these actions, which raise the cost of new development are coming just when affordable housing and economic development are gaining widespread support from public officials"). 7. Stegman, Development Fees: In Theory and Practice, URBAN LAND INSnTu-M, Apr. 1987, at 4-5. 8. Id. at 5. 9. U.S. C,ONsT. amend. V; M.S.A. CONs-r. 1974, art. 1, § 13. 10. 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987). 11. 716 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1983). 12. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; MINN. STAT. § 462.358, subd. 2b. 13. Parks, supra note 11, at 665- 14. See. c'_g., CO 11 v. City of west Jordan, 606 I .2d 217, 220 (Utah 1979). 15. 713) e.g..Subdivision Exactions. A ItC►'It,tiv of judicial Standards. 25 W Ani i. U.) • 01- URIJAN & C0-%-n,.-mi,. LA%v 269. 280 nn. (i(>-ti2 (1(18:I) (hereinafter c:iteo as "Subdivision Exactions'"). September/October I987 16. MINN. STAT. § 462.358. subd. 2b: Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers. electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improve- ments. In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable por- tion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision. 17. MINN. STAT. § 394.25, subd. 7 (specific controls pertain- ing to other subjects incorporated in comprehensvie plan or establishing standards and procedures to be employed in land development including, but not limited to, subdividing of land and approval of land plats and preservation and dedication of streets and land for other public purposes and general design of physical improvement). 18. Bloomington City Code § 16.09, subd. 2B. 19. Development Fees: Standards to Determine Their Rea- sonableness, UTm L. REv. 549, 559-60 nn 75-79 (1983). 20. Subdivision Exactions, supra note 15, at 282 nn. 70-74. 21. 22 111. 2d 375; 176 N.E.2d 799 (1961). 22. Id. at 380; 176 N.E.2d at 802. 23. Subdivision Exactions, supra note 15, at 284, n. 90. 24. Id. at 283, n. 79. 25. 137 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. 1965). 26. Id. at 447. 27. Id. 28. 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976). 29. Id. at 26. 30. Id. 31. Id. (emphasis added). 32. The author participated in the drafting of the 1980 leg- islation in an effort to balance competing public and private positions on the issue. 33. Collis, supra note 28, at 26. 34. S.F. 1084, 75th Leg., Reg. Sess. (1987). 35. MiW. STAT. § 462.358, subd. 2b. 3 36. Id. § 394.25, subd. 7 (emphasis added). j 37. 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976). 38. Id. at 320. 39. Cf. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 55 U.S.L.W. 5145 (U.S. June 26, 1987) (where "need" for public - access easements was not substantially related to public pur- poses served in building permit requirement): Parks v. Watson, 716 F.'?d 646 (9th Cir. 198:3) (where "need" for dedication of geothermal well was not rationally related to granting of street vacation). 40. 631 13.2d 899 (Utah 1981). 169 41. Id. at 904. 42. Stegman, Development Fees: In Theory and Practice, URBAN LAND 1NSTrrLrm.., APR. 4, 1987, AT 3, 4. 43, 107 S. CT. 3141 (1987). 44. Id. at 3146-50. 45. Id. at 3148. 46. Id. at 3146. 47. Id. at 3149. 48. Id. at 3160. 49. Id. at 3161--62. 50. Id. at 3162. 51. 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). 52. Id. at 194 (rational -nexus standard adopted in Collis was reaffirmed; subdividers could be required to dedicate land as result of cumulative impact of subdivision type developments on municipal services; application of dedication requirements only to subdividers and not to other developers and uneven application of dedication requirements among subdividers do not necessarily deny subdivider equal protection under law, since differences in application of dedication requirements may be reasonably related to particular needs generated by particular subdivision). 53. Traffic engineering consultants disagree on a regular basis, however, about the extent to which nonresidential uses generate, intercept, or divert vehicle trips. Thus, there are a number of questions that will arise in arriving at the use rates and that could easily rise to the level of legal challenges. 54. S.F. 1084, proposing to enact § 471.573, subd. (3)(2b). 55. See, e.g., City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802, 807 (Tex. 1984) (court ruled that benefits of exac- tions must be considered along with need for them, otherwise city could place park so far from particular subdivision that residents would receive no benefit). 56. 446 So. 2d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). 57. Id. at 143. 58. 606 P.2d 217 (Utah 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 614 P.2d 1257 (Utah 1980). 59. 606 P.2d at 220. 60. S.F. 1084, proposing to enact § 471.573, subd. 3. 61. S.F. 1084, § 471.573, subd. 2. 62. Supra Note 56. 63. 311 So. 2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975). 64. Supra note 56, at 144. 65. 234 Cal. Rptr. 1 (Cal. App. 1987). 66. 223 Cal. Rptr. 379 (Cal. App. 1986). 67. Supra note 65, at 5. 68. Id. 69. S.F. 1084. 70. Id. 71. Id. 72. See, e.g., Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. 1976) (court stated that showing that subdivision created need for public infrastructure can be contravened by evidence that, prior to opening up of subdivisions, municipality had "acquired sufficient lands for school, park, and recreational purposes to provide for future anticipated needs including such influx, or that the normal growth of the municipality would have made necessary the acquisition irrespective of the influx caused by opening up of the subdivisions"; by analogy. court's reason - int; could be extended to situation where new developments do not have greater impact on road systems other than that occa- sioned by "normal growth" of community) (citing Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 137 N.W.2d 442,447 (Wis. 1963)). C -C; scut: Ot�leti= c- �e ar 14c;, ' Q,^ . S l�'i- `' ^ " ��G',,'c �� �', t� r'_- t�.+_ C.._ {?_� Fil'o 1E:1^ty a i � r �� la i1C �' -i Fez i., �,� c_• � �� uc of oU_� co�»r_uT^itoy by s- o T,.,ol�_`' es �.nc __`�'�v s 1 �� �io:._e is loca..ted on tie tr dear' c gid. street of � � ire ^_,� 2 rc� _.�Te, -r:c �i;.�. ��:orc+eYlin this �'.. Ll?'C'.Gt 4 ?^C... tiLe V- C:'.-«.� ��? (I i..i.` l:.i.'l= .: �. y'v .e01l C_....ne ,a�ye 1 L. I -_ % ! oY.'ll�i..+: iJy our Glt�r• j -e „s �.� c �_- :-..o b71 �. e s w-.�..�i ori er c� e o:," w,zr, s-cruc , trees , co pletly desVroT�_.�r 1U c.se ----c,1 's '_o. tiC contirxued US1 `�` �t^�.LuS: � 71y It i1V_ i1Cc �.�y•�,Ir 'Q'I� trS' r,E:S .. 'L "'7�.7,c1i'l• j c,C t ,{' r.o 1CC' "S`; vrC`-2° after G o1- Tecle si sicns-� eo o,oeC. Y.rerQ 1�1`�c d .t t�i� c_ _- ;i�,� ;-, ,T r n c n C1�, S"�.?^£'et • �:1 t� �•i ►,:-)1 S C:i' tYlE .L� r 1teC 5Y10� fall decreases ve��iclr- c�:;_;.- w�_cs• _`liiC- eI.r - s d; fifere1�t; `;si�� Z cont^.cted 'C,r i c �7 .___� o" t c _w' �u 'ca cv�c c._iscussec: ^rot ier entrance Qve �zue• be nr cer y � t - 1-e assured ne f i iil .ten;✓ ✓_. .. LY lrw_-�'�_ , r.. V�1 C.., .��.._ a.�.�•: •. i is_ t�i't s ,out c. Orbe c'-�F c-1: ec -o L t ,1 ,� ccitc.c Lei_ '�'oI�it�?r, caL_nci 1eL�ber f r1 0,10 -for ,.,- f,�. .�-C' !'�;, � e S�7t "'E: tc�: ,Ta' ty':7, t 11S letter ^1 _ _ Y r �� z Ce In. one -,e cce= :rc�? L�ct�:iryry, c ,llin< � .ie. w o ce s z P . "l - : la i. �. _`i 1�.. ` c o� .� moi_ _'r }^ �� r T?; t _out'.L-s, ,- co_xceri-. rer— ding of the i e T ne� `-bca .. �" .{ 1 1j r �-+ n -'^ i r [: �; }'t ©TeT ? C: ^ :'1 Z (-%.- r� ? ?r� �-1+, G'1 o^ .n r:. �.^ '�` less Li?'1 - 1^ �_ 15 J our ..1 (_]_s • S o,, r, i y'1c E L._1 _ L , 1 iACt. � 1tc1 � contl?'�l.�e to run u.1 cr.0 cti.ok. �='?,T•yaor :j, ,. t a l� �e _1 �.nc i:?tc �,i1e eye u �:�nds. �,� they to uE.- st,-yce t , rc s, siic! t ,cir bo2:,C_crs` have lived 'here for 11 yen..- s, as tl._c .proble.••.s Esc: -I rt,e-c, -I-le c..ccreases. =:here there were once c-lec.-r o 'eE sC , E, r^'' i `vG-7 L, a, t_�e:Cc a e: only`.'i� trc^sG'iS and destroyed trees cmc, scrubs. T have r�o�.ie my best _°e_oarti � tze�sc � ctikris-pies c.s e�e11 as tie ulterin�n; of Plymouth Creel- b-, nei be",7 1 c ter datC 7 11by, pis '.F�,,lanki s -' Ive �,tte_,ded- 'toi,Tr Leetiti-- n,, -s, :�1 ,1tcG lrCC�ccrub. and feed t''�E C�G'C1'E:c^S- in flocs of ► ildlife, 1Ora.l nos11..z_; .for you_ yelp; ur-Ld, atteritioz? to this ever increasing, nro cler. ; t 1c d e strUct.ion of n turc.l re soLxce s and. the quiet tranquillity o-' our 1f tnis i s not addressed 1 i�r ill be forced to move to ty re sr_.e ct s and rz'ote ct s t1ie se re sour- ce s b7T re strictinr.. sno tY-r~�obi11e s o f� le _ally elir?i natin.W tlzer:�_. Please feel free to contr-,.ct me directly re-ardin_ t1iis situatioi-i or inform rae of any community r►_ectin,,•s ^ cti v` ties re ~ard inn t ie sazie . 111hank-you es-0ectful1 2310 I�ir _TvCod-Jc-=' Plymouth, *L,Ar c sot'n (612) 55; 024.1 tt,l -i � 1 � (ORS. KON \LZL) if ZNSO)ANII 2482 HOLY NACDC 6KIUG, U3ayL\T�, (rlNT1eSOTA X539, Plymouth to examine hours for Holiday Plus by Ann Andersen Should the Holiday Plus Store in Plymouth be allowed to become a 24-hour shopping facility? That will be the question before the Plymouth City Coun- cil on Monday, Dec. 14, when it considers the request by the business, located at 444.5 Nathan Lane, to extend its hours. Holi- day Plus currently is open from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sunday. The store's restaurant would not become a 24-hour operation, according to the request. The issue was on the council's agenda Nov. 23, but Jerry Sisk suggested that the item be deferred until Dec. 14. "I'm not comfortable that we have an adequate amount of information before us," he said. Mayor Virgil Schneider said he was concerned about the ex- tended hours of lighting and its impact on the neighborhood. "Let's visit the site with the lights on and the lights off." The Planning Commission in November voted 4-2 to recom- mend denial of the request by Holiday Pius. Members pointed out that the limited hours for the business were intended to reduce the site impact, in- cluding noise and lights, upon the residential neighborhood. Also, approving the request could set an undesirable prece- dent for other commercial uses, commission members noted. Roger Eggen, who lives at 9905 51st Ave. N., told council members -that he, sees .the -issue as one ofhonesty and fairness. He said homeowners were assured originally that the store was not designed to replicate the other Holiday Plus operations, but now the request is for 24-hour service. This would make it a regional shopping center rather than a neighborhood center and not a permitted use, Eggen added. A spokesman for Holiday Plus has pointed out that the city does not regulate hours for shopping centers ( Four Seasons, for ex- ample) and this should apply to Holiday Plus. He said the city should be uniform in applying regulations. The Holiday Plus request first came before the City Council in October, at which time the city attorney was asked to provide an opinion on the matter and that the issue be referred to the Planning Commission for,,.•-'' public hearing. January 11, 1987 Mr. Randall R. Nord 4420 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN 55446 Dear Mr. Nord: a, _ _rt 'Y M CITY O) PUMOUTR I submitted your December 18, 1987 letter and your December 29, 1987 letter containing questions about the Kingsview Heights development to the City Manager. He had the questions reviewed by various staff members including the City Attorney, the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. The responses that the City is able to answer, because the City is the appropriate agency, are reflected below. There are some areas which are not within the control of the City and in those instances we would recommend you contact other qualified parties including the developer, various builders, an attorney, or representatives of other established homeowners associations. We received a copy of a January 4, 1987 (sic) letter to you from Harstad Companies; they have responded to some of the questions raised in your December 18, 1987 letter. A copy is attached. 1. Harstad Companies indicated that the city had inspected and approved the trail construction and the grading and finishing of the outlots throughout the development. Please indicate who performed the inspection(s) and when they were done. Also, what was the criteria for acceptance of the property? The mass grading of the site is done in accordance with plans approved by the City and the work is performed by the contractor working for the developer. The registered engineer hired by the developer provides status reports and requests for reduction of the financial guarantees held by the City as the grading is completed. This practice is used on all residential developments and it was used here. City engineering personnel periodically verified the completion of work as certified by the developer's engineer. The developer's engineer is James Merila of Merila and Associates in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. 2. Were there any deficiencies noted during the inspection process? If so, please itemize and note when and if they were reinspected. A review of the City Community Development files (file number 85039) indicates there were instances of grading problems brought to the City's attention, but not necessarily during formal inspection. The City Engineer contacted the developer's engineering firm and directed the corrective work prior to release or reduction of the financial guarantee submitted by the developer. The records are public information and are contained in the Community Development Department files which may be inspected during business hours. r�n T 34 VV Fpm 1U i N _Cin_ D. J; .E. �i.`._, ✓; `�, :C �I �� `. =_ \'E) C� Mr. Randall R. Nord January 11, 1988 Page two 3. Are the current trails built according to the same specifications applied to City owned trails? If not, what are the main differences? The private trails installed in this development were not necessarily built to the same specifications as City trails. The trails were paved but since the City did not do the work it is not readily apparent how those installed private trails differ from City trails. 4. Have all property delineation posts been installed as per the plat drawings for both outlots and home lots? Are they required to be there permanently? It is important to distinguish between "property delineation posts" and iron property monuments. State law and City Code require that all subdivisions delineate the corners of all lots, including outlots, with iron monuments which are placed by a registered surveyor. The locations are not only repre- sented on the approved plat but also are required information on the indiv- idual lot surveys submitted by builders for building permits. These iron monuments normally remain, although they often are buried by sod; on occasion, however, during the construction of a home or subsequent to the occupancy of a home, the monuments can be removed. The "delineation posts" you refer to are probably those posts that the plans for the various common open area show. Not all of those delineation posts have been constructed to date, because not all of the common open areas have been fully developed with the play equipment and other amenities that were called for. The developer intended those posts to further designate the boun- dary between the common open areas and the private lots. They are not neces- sarily required to be there permanently but since they are shown on the plan, we will expect that they are constructed along with the other equipment and amenities. 5. Is Harstad Companies responsible for fixing trails that have been damaged by construction equipment? The owner of the trails is responsible for their condition. You should check with Harstad Companies as to whether they are responsible for damage done by construction equipment which may have belonged to someone other than Harstad. 6. Is Harstad Companies or the City responsible for clean up of debris currently in some outlots (i.e., building materials, dead tree limbs, compost, etc.)? The owner is responsible for the maintenance and sanitation of the outlot. You should check with Harstad Companies to determine the degree of responsi- bility for debris that has been deposited during the development and construc- tion periods. Failure, over time, to keep the common area maintained could result in the City exercising steps outlined in the Homeowner Association agreements whereby the City would arrange to take care of the problems and assess the costs back to the Homeowners Association. 7. Is Harstad Companies or the City responsible for drainage problems, both resulting in covering of the trails with mud, and washout of sod on homeowners property, from poor grading on outlots? Mr. Randall R. Nord January 11, 1988 Page three The City is not aware that the grading of the outlots was inconsistent with the approved plan, thus resulting in these problems, The drainage problems that may exist should be reviewed with the builder and/or developer, Harstad Companies, to ascertain the actual reason for the problem. Documentation verifying that improper grading was performed can be sent to the City Engineer who may be able to assist in identifying the problems that the City can assist in correcting. 8. while Harstad Companies indicated the outlots had been graded, seeded and had received trees per plan, their present condition is not acceptable. Most seed has washed away and the outlots are certainly not movable due to a consider- able amount of washout and ruts. Also, trees are not per plan (quantity and location). Will the City require these items to be corrected? The City will require the developer to complete the landscaping, i.e., the trees, which were shown on the approved plan. Restoration of disturbed areas to their natural state or to an approved landscaping state also is something required of the developer. Lack of such improvements or failure to install such improvements properly will result in the City requiring those items to be corrected. 9. Is the City willing to re -inspect the outlots with a small group of homeowners and a representative of Harstad Companies? The purpose would be to develop a list of the specific areas of concern noted in the above questions and to come to an agreement as to who is responsible for correction and to agree on a schedule. The City inspects sites when the developer has notified the City that required improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. This has not occurred on all of the common areas in this development. Thus, some of the outlots have not been inspected initially because the work is yet to be completed. It would be in order to develop a list of specific areas of con- cern and to agree on a schedule of the completion of the amenities called for on the plans approved by the City. That should lead to the actual completion of the required work so that the City could inspect it. The City could meet with representatives of the homeowners and of the devel- oper to inspect those areas which have been certified as complete and where there may be a dispute as to the degree of completion. Otherwise, it would be more productive for representatives of the Homeowners Association to assure themselves that they are aware of the approved plan f or which the City is holding the developer accountable; this will assure a sound understanding of what is required, versus what is desired. 10. What legal recourse do the homeowners have relative to the performance, or lack of performance, of the Harstad Companies in correcting problems noted in the above questions? An attorney should be consulted as to what legal avenues are available for individual homeowners and for the Homeowners Association relative to perform- ance of the developer in correcting the problems that have been noted. The City requires a performance agreement and a financial guarantee or the hedwork that is required per the approved plan; that guarantee and eventually released when it has been verified that the work is done. Mr. Randall R. Nord January 11, 1988 Page four 1 1. To what extent will the City enforce maintenance of the outlots (i.e., will the City allow outlots to go dormant?). I referred to this in Question #6; failure of the Association to maintain ing pthe vate open space and common amenities c � theresult Association C1ty The approved plans corrective work and assessing the cost t some for this development included common areas which hadactive vane recreation; that areas were intended to be left in a natural state, many homeowners have referenced prior to the purchase of land in this develop- ment. Any changes to the approved plans would be usedrequire apublic where one might pro - and approval by the City Council. Thatprocess would pose to let an otherwise designated active open area go "dormant." 12. How are taxes for outlots in the Will taxes increase when outlots plans on file with the City? development apportioned to the homeowners? are fully developed per Harstad Companies The determination of taxes for outlots can be discussed with the City levied against Asses- sor, Mr. Scott Hovet. The apportionment of the to xesthe Association, as owner of the outlots which constitute the h commonly on on y owned space, is set forth in the covenants and bylaws of the Assoc ity Assessor will also be able to address whether there is anythe pact oapproved for by an outlot when it is fully developed with amenities per p PP the City. 13. From your experience in dealing with other Homeowner Associations, what are the liabilities associated with trails and outlots. Do you recommend liabil- ity insurance? Thisq uestion can best be addressed by your legal counsel or boyta ofher insurance advisor. You may also contact representatives o of the current Associations as to their experience presidents enclosedave orotherpcontacts. list of Homeowner Associations and their p 14. if the Association desires, can the outlots be divided and deeded or sold to adjacent homeowners? You should carefully review the legal aspects of this The Association ,f asyour Association covenants and bylaws with ow owner, e may from this an entity separate from the individual , Y action. Further, participation by all owners and/or all adjacent owners may be required. The City would be involved in two ways: first, the divisiontofhe could would require approval by the City Council before property conveY ed; second, the Planned Unit Development plan for he eentirea Pe owect would have to be amended since the outlots osize and number o pof lots in the basic to the approval of this development. entire development were a direct function of the amountand designenitywof omeon open space and amenities. To diminish that common private major consideration. Mr. Randall R. Nord January 11, 1988 Page five 15. Is there any regulation in City Ordinances that requires home builders to dis- close the existence of a Homeowners Association to potential home buyers? The City does not have a specific regulation that requires builders to dis- close the existence of a Homeowners Association to potential home buyers. The City Ordinance does require that the plat filed at Hennepin County contain the notation that the development is part of a Planned Unit Development. The City Ordinance does indicate that Planned Unit Developments with private common open space and amenities must have a Homeowners Association to own and main- tain those features. The City requires developers to file the homeowner association covenants and other documents with Hennepin County in conjunction with the plat, and normal title searches by title companies and/or attorneys will disclose that proper- ties are included in associations. 16. Does the City or any other governing body need to approve changes to the existing bylaws of the Association? Can the Association legally be dissolved? The City does not approve changes to existing bylaws of the Homeowners Association. The City does require that the Association documents filed at the County provide that, as owner of the common open space and amenities, the Association can be assessed for improvements and/or maintenance the City is required to perform in the absence of such work by the owner. The process of dissolution should be discussed with proper legal counsel; the homeowners collectively would continue to be responsible for the common open space and amenities. 17. Currently there are 8 lots in the development that are not listed as part of the Association in the legal description ( Article 29 Section 2.1) of the by- laws (copy attached). Is there any way legally to retroactively add these lots to the Association? The eight lots that were apparently not included in the Association due to the timing of the filing of the Association document versus the filing of the plat, can be added to the Association with the consent of the owners. There may be other ways to achieve this which should be explored with an attorney. The legal requirements pertaining to this issue are not City requirements. 18. Can the outlots legally be deeded to the City? If so, would the City want to take over responsibility for maintenance of the trails, mowing, etc.? The Homeowner Association documents, in Article IV, indicate this can be done subject to written approval by members entitled to cast 66 2/3% of the votes of each class of membership and a like percentage of the first mortgagees. Whether the City would want to assume the responsibility for maintenance of the trails, mowing, and so on, is a policy decision that only the City Council can make when and if presented with a formal proposal. The common open space and amenities of this development are not part of the ofCity the elide is otrails s plan and they were expressly designed for the b t Mr. Randall R. Nord January 11, 1988 Page six development. The City Council would be considering whether the entire community should assume additional open space amenities which may be of little benefit to citizens beyond this subdivision. 19. Does the City require home builders to plant boulevard trees? The City does not require home builders to plant trees in the City boulevard, i.e., that area between the curb of a public street and the actual right-of- way/property line. 23.(sic) What is the street cleaning schedule for Kingsview Heights? The City street cleaning is scheduled for the entire community annually, normally in the spring. Developers are responsible for street cleaning during the development and construction phases where those activities create dirt tracking and potential erosion. The following are additional questions from your December 29, 1987 letter. 1. Who has Jurisdiction over the pond (i.e.: the City, DNR, Homeowners Associa- tion, etc.) regarding such issues as water level, water quality and general maintenance? The owners of the property which contain the pond are responsible for the property and the general maintenance; the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for the water level; and the City is generally responsible for the quality of the water. 2. Can homeowners whose property abuts the pond develop the shoreline as they see fit or rust the controlling agency from Question 11 approve any plans first? The pond capacity has been calculated to provide the storm water storage for this area as defined by the City storm water drainage plan and by the specific engineering plans for this development. The developer provided an easement for the pond across all the property. No one, including the owners, is authorized to do any work within this easement area including development of the shoreline without specific approval of detailed plans by the City and the Department of Natural Resources. 3. Last spring the level of the pond was lowered 8" - 12" by someone - does the City know who did it and why? . Last spring the City and the developer cleared pipes and culverts which were plugged with silt and debris. The cleaning allowed the water to flow and thus the pond level was lowered. 4. The action in Question #3 resulted in a very low water level (and unsightly shoreline) by late summer. What action can homeowners take to prevent this from happening in the future or to bring up the water level if it does get too low? Mr. Randall R. Nord January 11, 1988 Page seven The water level cannot be artificially raised. It is at its appropriate level (when the pipes are clean) and that level relates to the required storm water drainage. The actual level of the pond may rise with varying amounts of rain and runoff; those "higher" levels, however, will be temporary and the pond will eventually settle to its normal design level. The homeowners could consider establishing a natural area for a portion of the pond which would account for this storm water fluctuation. This can be reviewed with the City Engineer. I plan to attend your committee meeting on January 20, 1988. I urge you and your fellow committee members to become familiar with the approved plans for Kingsview Heights and to maintain an open communication with the developer, Harstad Companies. Many of your concerns are of a legal nature and are beyond the scope of the City Codes and Ordinances. You should consider obtaining the services of an attorney to advise you at this important stage of establishing the Association. Thank you for your inquiries. members of your Association. Sincerely, Virgil Schneider Mayor cc: City Council City Manager File I look forward to seeing you and to meeting the other Enclosures: Homeowner Association List :January 4 letter from Harstad Companies Harstad Companies January 4, 1987 Mr. Randall R. Nord 4420 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN 55446 Dear Mr. Nord, I received your letter of December 18, 1987 from the 143 families that live in Kingsview Heights 1st and 2nd Additions, I will try to respond to the questions asked in that letter. However, there may be some legal questions that I am unable to answer or some questions that may require the City to answer. No comment should not be interpretted as not wanting to respond but an inability to. 1) Will Harstad Companies agree to fix trails that have been damaged by construction equipment? Yes. 2) Do existing trails come with a written warranties? How long have they been in? Who installed them? The trails are warrantied by the contractor for a period of one year, they have been in approximately one year. They were installed by Valley Paving. 3) Will Harstad Companies agree to reseed and re -grade outlots that have eroded and become so rutted that they can not be mowed? Also, will you correct those areas where trails are covered with mud every time it rains so it does not happen in the future? Yes. 4) Will Harstad Companies agree to clean up debris in many of the outlots (ie: tree stumps, construction materials, etc.)? Yes. 5) Will Harstad Companies agree to lower the elevation of outlots H to make it easier to mow and play on? Harstad Companies has to comply with the existing grading plan as prepared by our engineers and approved upon by the City of Plymouth, Engineering Department, therefore, I cannot comment on this question at this point in'ti.me, however, 1900 Silver Lake Road • New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 • Phone 636-3751 REALTOR r Page 2 I will discuss it with our engineers, and the City. 6) Will Harstad Companies agree to re -inspect outlots with city engineers and a small group of Homeowners to develop a list of the specific areas of concern noted in the above questions and come to an agreement on a schedule for correction? Yes. 7) If the Association elects to install playground equipment per your plans, can we have the opportunity to approve the type and location of the equipment? Also, when would you propose to install this equipment? The equipment and the location have been agreed upon by City and ourselfs. I have no objections to discussing the relocation and the type of equipment, but this must be agreed upon by the City. There should be no additional costs involved in this process. 8) Will Harstad Companies be willing to allocate all or a portion of the funds previously dedicated to playground equipment to the Homeowners Association? How much is currently budgeted for the installation and purchasing of the equipment? Would you provide us the equipment uninstalled so we could sell it? Harstad Companies has a legal obligation to install the agreed upon playground equipment as per the development contract, at the agreed upon locations as shown on the development plans. If the Homeowners Association elects not to install the playground equipment Harstad Companies has no obligation to spend these monies. However, if we were to give those monies to anyone we believe that it would be to the City's Park Department in that they were monies allocated for park and recreational uses. 9) What is Harstad Companies intent for development of outlots L and M? What schools district do these fall in? Harstad Companies haS received preliminary plat approval for nine lots on L and M. However, at this time there is no sewer available to these lots, it is our intention to go before the City for final plat approval. I believe these lots fall into Robbinsdale School District. 10) Does Harstad Companies have any planes to erect monuments at key entrances to the development as found in better developments throughout the City? (ie: Swan Lake) Are current plans do not call for these monuments to be constructed, therefore, I can not comment on this at this time. 11) How many miles of trails are currently installed? 4,662 linear feet or .9 miles. Page 3 12) How many acres are contained in each outlot? Eastside 2,252 Valley Paving West 2,140 4,662 Linear Feet Outlots A - 4,199 Sq. Ft B 20,191 Sq. Ft. _ C - 31,473 Sq. Ft. D - 23,820 Sq. Ft. E - 56,892 Sq. Ft. F - 6,000 Sq. Ft G - 7,140 Sq. Ft H - 64,455 Sq. Ft. I - 5,240 Sq. Ft. J -192,366 Sq. Ft. K -142,410 Sq. Ft. L - M - N - 14,400 Sq. Ft. Total 364,826 13) From your experience in dealing with other Homeowner Associations, what are the liabilities associated with trails and outlots? Do you recommend liability insurance? No Comment. Sincerely, Kenneth G. Briggs Land Development KB/mn It January 7, 1988 Mr. Steve Keefe Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th & Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 PP11',1!D SUBJECT: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFERRAL FILE NO. 14376-1 Dear Mr. Keefe: Your response to the City's Corp of Army Engineer's Permit for Filling is disturbing. I appreciate that the Metropolitan Council "will not at this time respond negatively" to the City's application. Thereafter, however, your letter appears to take a direct, and unfair, ,jab at Plymouth. You may not be aware that we were required by the Minnesota State Supreme Court to buy the land in question from a developer at a cost of $1,000,000. The Court's action established a very poor precedent, one which is going to haunt other municipalities in years ahead. After the Court reached its decision, however, the City was required to acquire the developer's land, including the wetland portion. I can assure you we have no objection to leaving the vast majority of the land in wetland state. We believe, however, that the Court's decision, for better or worse, indicated that there was development potential on the land. Our application mirrors the same filling contemplated by the developer several years ago. His permit was approved, but subsequently expired. Because of your personal interest Plymouth in order that we can visit you have visited the site you condemnation of our proposed action, Yours truly, es G. Willis Ci y Manager JW:kec in this matter, I invite you to visit the site together. I believe that once might not be quite so harsh in your 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 4, 1988 District Engineer ATTN: Henrik. C. Strandskov Regulatory Fi3rictions Branch 2135 rz . c . Post Office and Custom Iiot:5e St. Paul, PIN 55101-1479 RE: Metropolitan Council Referral Fil-e No. 14376-3. .U.S. Arm1, Corps of Engineers Permit CENCS-CCS-•RF (R7-1154-23 ) Application for Permit to Discharge Fill Material Into a Wetland by City of Plymouth Dear Mr. Strandskov : Thank you very much for forwarding the proposed application for Metropolitan Council review. A review of our wetland maps shows that the area propose -1 for the discharge of fill is a reed canary grass -wet meadow(wetland) , adjacent to a DNR regulated wetland. The requested acti�Jity appears to encroach only slightly on the wetland :system that traverses this part of. Plymouth. For that reason, the Metropol .i tat - Council will not at this time respond negatively. However, it is disturbing that the City of Plymouth, as a wetland owner, uses ho same rhetoric that developers have used for decades :.:hen proposing to eliminate wetlands; that is, "we, cannot afford to leave this valuable property as wetland". The Council urges the Corps to monitor the activity in this area very carefully because of the manner in which the City of Plymouth appears to be approach- ing this wetland system. Sincerely, L Steve Keefe Chair SE : sa cc: City of Plymouth ;1n E_qu;41 ,)pv. •tur:;;y E—t,lo'ie'