Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 07-03-1986CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM July 3, 1986 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS..... 1. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, July 7, 7:30 p.m. Regular City Council meeting in the Council Chambers. 2. BOARD OF ZONING -- Tuesday, July 8, 7:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-2) 3. MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH -- Wednesday, July 9, 6:30 p.m. 4. PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION -- Thursday, July 10, 7:30 p.m. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4) FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... 1. ICMA REDESIGNING LOCAL TRANSPORATION SERVICES PROJECT -- Over the last two years, the ity of Plymouth together with eleven other municipalities throughout the nation, participated in a redesigning local transportation services program. The purpose of the program was to share information about community transit and methods used by communities to solve those problems. A final report from the Redesigning Local Transporation Services Project was published in April 1986 in the ICMA Management Information Services Report. A copy of that report is included with this information memorandum. In addition to defining current transit issues and approaches, the report focuses upon transit services in five municipalities around the nation. Plymouth Metrolink is included in the discussion from pages four through six. The fact that Plymouth was asked to participate in this nationwide study, is testimonial to the unique nature of the Plymouth Metrolink program and the Council's determination to initiate these innovative efforts. (I-1) 2. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES -- The Engineering Department has taken steps to resolve two erosion control problems which I brought to their attention. On County Road 15, two properties east of 11714, a new home is under construction with a substantial amount of dirt from the driveway washing on to County Road 15 right-of-way. The Building Inspection Department will talk to the contractor about the erosion on the street from this project. (I-2) 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM July 3, 1986 Page Two From 41st Avenue and adjacent area south of County Road 9, there's a substantial amount of dirt in the street to the south and east of the apartment complex. Both Mayor Schneider and Councilmember Crain have also noted this problem. Sherm Goldberg has contacted Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. and Baton Corporation about cleaning the streets and making sure their erosion control devices are in place and operational. Attached are two letters from Sherm on this subject. Sherm indicates that if erosion control measures have not been accomplished by this weekend, that the City will have the work completed. In hopes of providing a more proactive means of assuring effective erosion control, Sherm Goldberg has supplied the attached June 27 memo. He indicates that in the developing part of the community, developers will be asked to sweep streets in their development at least each Friday, or more often depending upon weather conditions. The City will inspect each site on Monday mornings. If streets are not clean, the work will be ordered by the City and the developer charged for such work. In accordance with Council policy, the developer will be charged double if the City must contract to have the work done. The Engineering Department will also compile a list of developers and their contracts for street sweeping. This information will be placed on a map for easy reference of project locations. John Sweeney, Assistant Engineer, will monitor this program. 3. MINUTES -- The following minutes are attached: a. Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, June 10, 1986 (I -3a) b. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, June 11, 1986 (I -3b) 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS -- The following departmental activity reports for the month of June are attached: a. Planning applications (I -4a) b. Building Inspection activity (I -4b) 5. MINNESOTA SAMPLER -- Each year the Office of State Demographer receives over 6,000 requests for information concerning Minnesota's population. Since many of these requests are for the same or similar information, the Office of State Demographer has prepared the attached publication, Sampler Population Notes. Plymouth is listed on page 5 of the report as ranking 13th under largest cities in the State for 1985. (I-5) CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM July 3, 1986 Page Three 6. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARDS -- The following City staff responses to Community Improvement Cards submitted by Council members are attached: a. Park bench at Schmidt Lake Park - Bob Zitur (I -6a) b. Cutting of weeds at Soo Line railroad tracks north and south of Larch Lane - Virgil Schneider (I -6b) c. Illegal flower sales at Highway 101 and County Road 24 (status report) - Maria Vasiliou (I -6c) d. Cars parked on the street at 36th Avenue and Forestview Lane for access to French Regional Park (status report) - Dave Crain (I -6d) e. Dirt in the street and curb southwest of 10915 - 47th Place between homes at 4780 Yorktown Lane - Virgil Schneider (I -6e) 7. COUNCIL INQUIRY FOLLOW UPS: a. Storm Drainage Problem - 56th Avenue North - As previously reported to the Council, Mayor Schneider received a call from Mr. Tom Brothen, 5565 Rosewood Lane, who reported that storm water run off on 56th Avenue was not being caught due to the location of the catch basins on the north side of the street. Sherm Goldberg has met with the developer of Bass Lake Heights, Dick Knutson, who has agreed to install a catch basin on the south side of 56th Avenue. A copy of the Mayor's memorandum on this subject, together with Sherm Goldberg's follow up report are attached. (I -7a) 8. SPEEDING COMPLAINT ON 38th AVENUE AT PILGRIM LANE SCHOOL -- Attached is a letter recently received expressing concern about traffic speeds in the area of 38th Avenue N. and Pilgrim Lane Elementary School. Stationary radar assignments completed on two different days show that 86% of the traffic, i.e., 290 vehicles were travelling at or below the speed limit. We will respond accordingly. (I-8) AGENDA Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals Tuesday, July 8, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. NEW BUSINESS WHERE: Plymouth City Center Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, Minnesota 7:30 P.M. June 10, 1986 A. James Echhorst. Variance from the minimum building side yard setback for property located at 10150 26th Avenue North. (07-01-86). B. Jeff and Eve Christiansen. Variance from the maximum height of accessory buildings for property located at 17100 19th Avenue North (07-02-86). 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission July 10, 1986, 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Visitor Presentations a. Athletic Associations b. Staff c. Others 5. Unfinished Business a. Green Oaks Park - Location of Play Equipment - Report by Paul Fjare of Brauer & Associates b. Parkers Lake Update C. 1987-91 CIP - Action Item d. Plymouth Creek Park Site Planning Discussion e. Bass Lake Dock Update f. 1987 LAWCON Grant Update 9- h. 6. New Business a. New Plats - None 0- C . c. d. 7. Commission Presentation 8. Staff Communication 9. Adjourn *NEXT MEETING - UNLESS YOU ARE NOTIFIED, THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 11. REDESIGNING LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES he rising costs of providing transportation services coupled with falling ridership has prompted many local governments to reexam- ine transit service in their communities. This report focuses on the trans- portation issues with which many of these communities are grappling, and examines some of the alternative approaches being taken to provide efficient and effective transportation services. These approaches explore the pos- sibilities of working with the private sector to deal with transportation problems, and include methods such as contracting for transit services, establishing coordinated programs, and developing traffic mitigation ordinances. Included in this report are case studies of communities that have suc- cessfully used these various alterna- tive service delivery approaches. =I a. Management Information Service VOLUME IS J NUMBER 4 APRIL 19" MIS Reports are published monthly by the Management Information Service, International City Management Associa- tion, 11M G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Copyright ©1986 by the International City Management Association. No part of this report may be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. These reports are intended primarily to provide timely information on subjects of practical interest to local government administrators, department heads, budget and research analysts, administrative assistants, and others responsible for and concerned with operational aspects of local government. MIS Reports are issued as part of a subscription service available to all local governments. A subscription to the Management Information Service includes unlimited access to the MIS Inquiry Service—backed up by the ICMA automated data base; the MIS Bulletin; Info Packets; and other publications. Office of Information Services Donald J. Borut, Director Management Information Service Cheryl A. Fan, Director Dennis M. Kouba, Managing Editor, Office of Information Services Christine Kubo, Editor Daniel A. Nissenbaum, Assistant to the Director Jacqueline Harmon, Program Assistant Publlcatlon Production Dawn Leland, Production Director Rebecca Geanaros, Graphic Designer Susan Gubisch, Production Assistant g:tii• 4 t J �4 y.• 1, Recent MIS Reports 4/85 Small Scale Wastewater Treatment 5/85 Fair Labor Standards Act 6/85 Local Development Corporation: A Tool for Economic Development 7/85 Managing Resort Communities 8/85 Sign Ordinances 9/85 Using Information Technologies in Local Government 10/85 Electronic Mail: A New Communications Alternative 11/85 Participative Management in Local Government 12/85 Police and Fire Work Scheduling 1/86 Guidelines for Employee Development and Training Programs 2/86 Strategies for Local Enterprise Development 3/86 Annexation Agreements Redesigning Local Transportation Services THE BACKGROUND AND ISSUES In response to the rising cost of operating fixed -route public transportation and falling transit ridership, many communities are beginning to reexamine the ways trans- portation services have traditionally been provided, and are seeking alternatives which are more efficient, cost- effective, and geared to the needs of potential riders. This process involves examining community needs and potential markets; assessing service delivery options— both traditional and innovative—to see which make sense for a particular community; and identifying, developing, selecting, and coordinating resources to meet the identified needs and selected options. In the late nineteenth century, private companies began to operate the first mechanized, fixed -route transit systems in this country. Due to technological advances during the early years these transit systems became increasingly popular. After a drop in transit ridership during the Depression, ridership rose to its highest level ever during World War II, as gas rationing and a shortage of materials for manufacturing cars limited travel by personal automobile. The end of World War 11 brought major changes to many aspects of American life—including individual mobility patterns. Automobile production rose rapidly, and there was a new demand for resident -owned, single- family housing outside of urban areas. Highways were built to accommodate automobile usage and provide fast, easy access from city to suburb, suburb to suburb, and city to city. This increased automobile usage, and dramatic increases in transit fares due to inflation and higher operating costs led to a drop in mass transit ridership. In addition to these problems, American bus opera- tions, which were privately owned, tended to be over- capitalized (as a result of strong transit operations assuming control of financially troubled ones) and over- regulated by cities through franchise agreements. Private operators began to request that local govern - This month's report was developed by Janice E. Tevanian, Project Manager for 1CMA's Redesigning Local Transportation Services Project, with contributions by Ken Orski, Project Consultant. The two-year project was funded by the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) and conducted by 1CMA. This report discusses the program findings. ments either buy out or subsidize the transit operations. As public agencies began to assume these private operations, the federal government began to provide some financial assistance designed to improve services to increase ridership. By the late 1970s, the federal government was offering loans; technical assistance; matching grants to promote, plan, and implement mass transit; and grants for management, training, and research. Operating costs were increasing at such a rate, however, that federal government money was being used to maintain bus service levels instead of expanding and improving services. In this way, the federal government unwittingly began to spend billions of dollars to support the capital and operating costs of local transit. Currently, there is much discussion of sharp cut- backs in Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) spending. This is of great concern to local government officials who are responsible for providing transpor- tation service because most communities are operating systems heavily subsidized by UMTA and could not continue to provide them without UMTA financial support. Community officials are prompted to reexam- ine transportation service delivery approaches, and to find ways to provide the service much more efficiently and, ideally, without subsidy. Several questions that are frequently considered include: Why provide community transit service? Why is transit ridership so low? How can community transportation services be improved? Why Provide Community Transit Service? Most communities have traditionally offered fixed - route, fixed -schedule bus service to assist those without transportation alternatives, and to alleviate automobile congestion. To discontinue these transit services in a community represents a significant policy change. Local 2 Management Information Service policy makers have generally been unwilling to make such a policy change since transit is perceived as an essential service to many citizens. Furthermore, to discontinue transit service is likely to increase traffic congestion in commercial areas due to increased auto- mobile use. As long as local policy dictates that transit service should continue, it is up to local administrators to provide it as efficiently and effectively as possible. When the cost of providing a service in the traditional manner becomes prohibitively high, administrators need to consider alternative service delivery approaches. Why Is Transit Ridership So Low? Today, some administrators are coming to realize that current fixed -route, fixed -schedule transit was designed for pre -World War I1 land use patterns. This mode was designed to carry people two or three miles through a heavily traveled corridor into a central business district (CBD). The end of World War II brought major changes in this pattern. Automobiles became readily available, and enabled families to purchase homes outside of the urban centers and yet still be able to get to work conveniently. No longer was all commercial activity confined to the central business district. Shopping areas and businesses began to appear in suburban areas. Public transit, however, has not been effectively adapted to these land uses. As a result: Fixed -route bus service is expensive to provide. Fares do not cover even fifty percent of most systems' operating costs. Farebox revenues are low because ridership is low. And ridership is low because transit is designed to adhere to certain prescribed routes—routes that are often not con- venient for most commuters. Furthermore, the costs of providing transit are continually increasing. There is congestion in CBDs. This happens because commuter trips to the CBD often originate miles away, in areas too sparsely populated to justify sending fixed -route buses. This forces CBD employ- ees to commute to work in their cars. There is congestion at suburban shopping malls and business parks. This happens because the fixed - route transit trip is oriented toward the CBD, and again, people usually must drive to work or to shop in suburban areas. How Can Community Transportation Services Be Improved? The traditional response to the increasing costs of transit services and falling ridership has been to cut back service, to increase fares, and to market the bus system. Some local government administrators are now responding in different ways. Many are planning trans- portation services around new travel patterns that have emerged from new land uses. Instead of trying to attract riders to fixed -route service that may be inconvenient, managers are shifting to more flexible forms of transit that meet the needs of a community's various transpor- tation markets (e.g., commuters, students, shoppers). Administrators are finding that involving the private sector can be a highly effective approach to identifying, addressing, and planning for community transportation needs. APPROACHES Many local governments have found that the private sector can be a valuable partner in solving community problems. These communities have reassessed local transportation needs, identified existing and potential local resources for meeting those needs, and developed public-private partnerships to coordinate resources effectively. There are at least three approaches that have been successful for communities: 1. Contracting out to private providers for services. 2. Cooperation between public and private sectors in a community including coordination of existing transportation resources. 3. Ordinances mandating traffic mitigation activity by employers (e.g., ridesharing, vanpooling programs designed to reduce the number of automobile trips). Contracting for Services In communities where fixed -route, fixed -schedule service has been assessed and determined to effectively meet the needs of commuters, private transit operators can often provide service at a significantly lower cost than if the community operated the service itself. Many communities such as Plymouth, Minnesota (see case study) and Naperville, Illinois contract for fixed -route, fixed -schedule service. Public transit in Phoenix, Arizona, is contracted out to private providers except for service to the elderly and handicapped—a service comprising less than one percent of the total transit budget. Phoenix budgets $30 million for the transit services, but operates almost none of the transit system. Included in the Phoenix system is a dial -a -ride service for areas where population is not dense enough to provide fixed -route, fixed -schedule service efficiently and a citywide Sunday dial -a -ride service. Both of these services are provided by a taxi cab company using taxis and small buses. The city of San Diego, California contracts for an extensive service that provides demand - responsive commuter transportation to fixed -route buses (see appendix for San Diego's request for proposal for the feeder service). ��I 4 Considering Contracting as a Transportation Service Delivery Option Needs Assessment • What markets are being served? • What potential markets exist? • What types of services are necessary to satisfy the needs of these markets? • Which services are appropriate for contracting? • What are the benefits of contracting? • What are its disadvantages? Inventory of Resources • Who are the potential private providers? • How Is an Inventory of alternative service providers conducted? Determining Regulatory and Institutional Barriers • What regulatory barriers to competition exist? • What political barriers exist? • Is there institutional resistance to change? • What regulatory and/or legal reforms are necessary? Selection and Development of Transportation Approaches • Selecting the right contractor. Establishing specifications and a bidder's list. • Preparing a bid solicitation with appropriate Incentives. • Evaluating bids and awarding a contract. • Providing for contract monitoring and performance evaluation. Addressing and Resolving institutional and Implementation Issues • Union objections. • Local regulatory impediments. • In-house reluctance. A contractual arrangement can provide a number of advantages to a community. Private transportation companies often provide transit dispatching, mainte- nance services, and parts and hardware inventories. Private providers may also save a community the extremely high cost of labor. Under competitive circumstances, a community may choose from bids submitted by several providers. Often communities allow private providers to pocket farebox revenues over a specified amount to provide an incentive for quality services and increasing ridership. A contract arrange- ment is appropriate if it saves money for the community and generates profit for the private operator. In communities where there are only one or two bidders for the contract, negotiations between the community and Local Transportation 3 the operator are often necessary to establish mutually beneficial terms. Coordination and Cooperation Coordination and cooperation are two distinct components of planning and providing comprehensive transportation services. Both involve the private sector. Coordination involves conducting an inventory of existing and potential transportation operations in a community, and determining how operations can complement each other while improving the public transit system in the process. Examples of private transportation operations that exist in many communi- ties include taxi cabs, airport/hotel shuttles, carpools and vanpools, and employer-sponsored shuttles. Community officials can identify, for example, ways to use taxi cabs to feed into fixed -route, fixed - schedule bus systems, or ways that hotels can jointly sponsor an airport shuttle. A comprehensive system, however, cannot be implemented until the second com- ponent—cooperation—is introduced. Community offi- cials must open channels of communication with employers, hotel managers, developers, and other ap- propriate members of the private sector. Examples of comprehensive, cooperative efforts are transportation management organizations (TMOs) and the use of transportation systems management (TSM). TMOs are organizations designed to facilitate the process of joint decision making by opening channels of communication between the public and private sectors. TMOs usually encourage employers to implement pro- grams such as ridesharing for employees. They will also recommend action that can be taken by the local govern- ment, such as improved use of traffic signals. This type of action works to improve local mobility problems, allowing the community to grow and flourish. TMOs usually involve a policy making board comprised of community employers, local government officials, and local transportation experts. Hartford, Connecticut (see case study), for example, has a TMO which involves representation from a local ridesharing company, while Bellevue, Washington has a TMO with representation from the transit authority of metropolitan Seattle. While a TMO is the entity that makes policy and oversees progress in meeting transit goals, TSM refers to the implementation approaches. TSM is the process of coordinating the existing transportation modes, both public and private, for the purpose of achieving a community or regional comprehensive transportation program. TSM is conducted with land use planning and development in mind. For example, if a community has plans to build an airport or a hospital, TSM requires consideration of issues such as, which transportation modes will efficiently carry people back and forth to the facility, whether land must be designated for future on- site transit terminals or bus bays, or what air quality impact the additional vehicle trips will have. Local governments that have involved the private sector in 4 Management Information Service initial planning phases have had the best success with coordination and cooperation. Ordinances Communities are drafting ordinances designed to enlist the support and assistance of their local business communities. Ordinances may require that larger employers implement flexible work hour or ridesharing programs, that developers contribute land for transit activity, or that developers pay fees for transit system improvements. Pleasanton, California, for example, has adopted an ordinance, developed in conjunction with private sector employers, designed to outline courses of action employers can take to reduce the number of vehicle trips during peak commuting periods (see case study and appendix). SUCCESS STRATEGIES Through extensive research conducted during the past three years, ICMA and UMTA have identified a number of local governments that are testing alternative meth- ods of providing community transportation services. The goal of these communities is to provide transpor- tation that efficiently serves as many citizens as possible. This goal applies both to jurisdictions providing local services and to communities that are served by regional transit districts. Contracting For Community Transit Services Some' communities that are part of a regional transit district are rethinking their service arrangements. Often, these communities are not satisfied with the levels of service received for their financial contributions to the system. Community-based transit is seen as a way of improving system responsiveness, accountability, and service quality. Smaller service districts can be more flexible in adapting to changes in local demand and can offer residents a larger role in making decisions about services. Furthermore, smaller systems may be more easily tailored to fit community needs. Often regional systems concentrate service on downtown -oriented trips and largely ignore circulation needs of outlying communities. Several local governments have withdrawn from regional transit districts, and are redesigning services to be efficient and responsive to community needs. Johnson County, Kansas and Plymouth, Minnesota are examples of communities that have withdrawn from regional systems with a downtown orientation (Kansas City and Minneapolis/St. Paul, respectively), and both communities have contracted out to private providers for service. /Plymouth, Minnesota. Plymouth, Minnesota is a rapidly developing suburb about 15 miles west of the Minneapolis/St. Paul central business district. Plymouth's 36 square miles contains a strong mix of commercial/ industrial facilities which account for 15,000 jobs. Plymouth's population has increased from 18,000 to 40,000 in the last 15 years. Plymouth has excellent access to major area road- ways to and from downtown Minneapolis and between suburbs. The majority of the 15,000 persons working in Plymouth do not live in the community, and their primary commuting route is to and from Minneapolis. Most Plymouth residents own two or more vehicles, and this fact, combined with the low development density, number of street miles, and the size of the community, make it difficult to effectively serve the community through a traditional line haul/fixed-route transit service. In 1981, the Minnesota state legislature authorized 22 eligible suburbs receiving low levels of regional transit service to initiate transit demonstration pro- grams, utilizing up to 90 percent of the property taxes that would normally go to the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). Because no Metropolitan Transit Commission service was being received in exchange for Plymouth's annual contribution of just over $1 million, the city decided to utilize the Metropolitan Transit Service Demonstration Program, commonly known as "Opt Out," to provide the funding needed to improve transit services within the city. Plymouth was the first municipality to exercise the option, implementing the $285,000 "Plymouth Metrolink" system. Council mem- bers recognized that the lack of an effective trans- portation system placed Plymouth at a competitive dis- advantage with other developing metropolitan area suburbs seeking to attract the same residents and businesses. Plymouth Metrolink is jointly administered by Plymouth's assistant city manager and the director of planning of the private carrier which operates the service under contract with Plymouth. Since Plymouth Metro- link was a demonstration project, the city of Plymouth entered into a contractual agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) which sets forth the performance requirements of the system for ridership, the costs per trip, and the costs per passenger; and establishes the mechanism for reimbursing system costs. Plymouth Metrolink consists of three distinct transit services: commuter, reverse commuter, and internal circulator. The commuter and reverse commu- ter system operate as a time actuated pulse -feeder system. Four 25 -passenger minicoaches circulate on fixed routes through Plymouth residential neighbor- hoods, collecting passengers bound for a park-and-ride lot on the eastern border of the city. Arriving at the park-and-ride lot within two minutes of each other, pas- sengers on the minicoaches transfer to downtown bound, 50 -passenger express coaches. In the evening, i 4 the full-sized coaches feed the minicoaches that carry commuters back home. The reverse commuter service is provided using the same vehicles as the commuter serv- ice. In the morning peak hours, the full-sized coach traveling outbound from Minneapolis carries indi- viduals living in Minneapolis, but who work in Plymouth, to the park-and-ride lot. Those passengers are transferred to the minicoaches which circulate door- to-door through Plymouth's commercial/ industrial center before initiating their second morning pick up of commuter passengers. The commuter and reverse com- muter services operate during morning and evening peak hours on normal business days. The internal circulator service operates almost hourly on a fixed route which travels from major commercial facilities within and adjacent to the city through residential neigh- borhoods and to public service facilities. The internal circulator uses one of the 25 -passenger minicoaches between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. when it is not in use for commuter and reverse commuter services. This service is offered seven days per week, except holidays. The Minnesota Department of Transportation evaluated the Plymouth Metrolink system for the calendar year 1984. It found that: Ridership on the internal circulator exceeded the project targets by 32 percent. Ridership for the commuter/reverse commuter service exceeded targets by 11 percent. Local Transportation 5 The percentage revenues received for both the internal circulator and commuter/reverse com- muter services exceeded projections by 146 percent and 63 percent respectively. The program's successful ridership record had a negative effect on the project's total costs. The larger number of riders required the addition of two buses to the program—one to serve a route which was added to Plymouth Metrolink, and the second to convey the additional passengers from the park and ride lot to downtown. The addition of the two buses cost the project $25,516 more than antici- pated. This in turn, increased the subsidy per pas- senger from $2.30 to $2.60. Subsidy per passenger for the total project had been projected at $2.53. The total cost of the Metrolink service is about $300,000 per year, thus allowing Plymouth to receive direct transit services from funds which had been dedicated to supporting a regional system with no direct benefit to Plymouth taxpayers. Based on these findings, MnDOT approved the opera- tion of Plymouth Metrolink for calendar year 1985. In 1985 ridership increased 14 percent system wide, and MnDOT has approved the extension of Plymouth Metrolink for 1986. There are several factors that contribute to Plymouth Metrolink's ability to meet community transportation needs. These include: e Service/vehicle match. Low density suburban One of Plymouth's 25 -passenger Metrolink minibuses. The system provides cost-effective service tailored to meet local commuter needs. 6 Management Information Service development requires non-traditional means of reaching the customer. The 25 -passenger mini - coaches are matched to ridership volumes and residential streets. • The competitive edge. While personalizing the service, the 25 -passenger vehicles compete with the automobile more effectively than traditional buses by offering modern commercial aircraft -like interi- ors, comfortable seating, air conditioning, and stereo. • Combined strategies. The completion and usage by Plymouth Metrolink of the high occupancy vehicle lanes on a major thoroughfare to and from down- town Minneapolis has enabled Plymouth Metrolink buses to actually beat single occupancy auto- mobiles in the race to and from downtown. • The advantages of smallness. The smallness of Plymouth Metrolink makes it possible to resolve operating problems or revise routes on passenger requests within a week of identification of the prob- lem or request. • Passenger involvement. Ten regular Plymouth Metrolink riders serve as the Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit (PACT). This group is the primary feedback link between the transit adminis- trators and transit users. As such, PACT plays a critical role in identifying operational problems and identifying potential marketing opportunities. This committee constitutes an early warning system allowing transit administrators to address opera- tional problems before they result in lost ridership. • The drivers. Daily transit usage is a very personal experience to riders. As such, a rider's day can be affected by his or her experience on the bus. If the bus is late or the driver is impersonal and uncaring, riders will opt for another means of transportation. Plymouth Metrolink drivers are asked to take great interest in their work and their passengers, and are a strong promotional force in support of the system. Johnson County, Kansas. Today, Johnson County, Kansas, once just a "bedroom" suburb of Kansas City, is a thriving business and commercial center with a popu- lation of 300,000. Fifty-six percent of employed Johnson County residents work within the county, and in the last ten years, employment in Johnson County has increased 150 percent. With the fastest growing population in the Kansas City metropolitan area, Johnson County has the highest per capita income and the most highly educated population. Until 1981, Johnson County, like seven other area suburban jurisdictions, contracted with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) for bus services. This was done through annual purchase of service agreements. By mid -1981, Johnson County officials had become dissatisfied with the quality of the KCATA service and concluded that the county could obtain transit service at a lower cost from a private operator. They proceeded to solicit bids for seven express and local lines into Kansas City, and obtained four bids: three from private operators and a bid from KCATA. The latters bid of about $1.2 million was considerably higher than bids from the three private bus companies, which ranged from $720,000 to $890,000. The lowest bid averaged about $1.32 per bus mile, compared to KCATAs bid of $2.68 per mile. The county estimated that it could achieve a net annual savings of about $115,000 by contracting with the lowest private bidder, even though this meant foregoing federal subsidies. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidding private firm, and in the first year of contract operation, the cost of service declined by 50 percent or $503,000. However, since federal transit dollars were no longer used after the change over, the net savings to the county amounted to $17,000. This arrangement continued until 1985. During that period ridership declined by 30 percent to only 700 daily riders, and county officials once again became dissatis- fied with the transit arrangement. They concluded that the system contained numerous flaws which included: Gradually deteriorating condition of vehicles. This gradual deterioration of the vehicles occurred due to a lack of county staff to monitor the program and because service was provided through a series of four, one-year contracts. Without a long-term con- tract, the operator had no incentive to invest in new equipment. Inadequate intra -county and reverse commute services. The county commissioners felt that several factors warranted intra -county and reverse com- muter service. This included the fact that 87 percent of the 47,000 new jobs in the Kansas City metro- politan area within the last six years are located in Johnson County; and there exists in the county two regional shopping centers employing 3,700 people, a community college with 8,000 students, a corpo- rate complex employing 20,000 people, two hospi- tals, and twenty hotels. The county commissioners hired a consultant to design a timed transfer system that they felt would correct these deficiences. Based on the consultant's recommendations, the initial phase of the new system was to consist of six peak hour commuter routes to downtown Kansas City and four intra -county routes. In later phases, based on communityneed over a period of four to six years, two additional commuter routes and five intra -county routes would be added to the system. The commuter routes would be operated only during peak hours. Intra -county circulator routes would operate between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. A dial -a -ride service to augment fixed -route service feeding into the downtown Kansas City commu- ter lines was added later. After a series of public hearings, the county solic- ited proposals from public and private providers. Seven private operators responded to the invitation, and one was awarded a three-year contract, expected to cost $1.3 million per year. Johnson County will be using no federal operating assistance. The total annual subsidy to the new program is expected to amount to about $1.05 million as compared with $700,000 in 1984. All revenues will be from the farebox, state allocation, and the county general fund. Farebox return is expected to amount to $250,000 per year. As an incentive to provide quality service, the county will allow the company to keep 25 percent of farebox receipts over $300,000 in the first year. The new service began in January 1986. After six weeks of operation ridership is up by 40 percent, from 700 to 1,200 riders per day. About 85 percent of the ridership is on the commuter runs, with standing room only. The system will be integrated with the regional system to permit transfers, joint marketing programs, and handicapped programs. Inter -connections between the lines will be facilitated with the help of three transfer centers. County officials hope to double the current daily ridership to 1,400 under the new program. Johnson County officials identified several factors that contribute to the contractor's ability to provide efficient service. Among these factors is that the con- tractor owns a bus maintenance facility located in a Johnson County industrial park, and that the operator employs part-time drivers. Furthermore, being the sec- ond largest consumer of diesel fuel in the country, the contractor is able to purchase fuel at a cost savings and pass the savings on to Johnson County taxpayers. Summary. Both of these communities found transit services to be unsatisfactory. Service to both lacked the reverse commute, ignored internal circulation needs, and provided inadequate feeder services. Since these communities are experiencing both population and employment growth, a market for these services had emerged. Both Johnson County and Plymouth found that community transportation needs could efficiently and effectively be met by a private provider through a contract arrangement. Coordination and Cooperation Deal with Downtown Congestion The goal of ensuring responsive, efficient transportation service is not unique to suburban communities that withdraw from regional transit districts. Central cities are also looking at options for improving mobility. Many are finding that service provision is not the sole component of comprehensive transportation planning. Communities have worked with the private sector to develop ways to assess community transportation needs, to develop approaches to meet those needs, to Local Transportation identify and coordinate transportation options, and to consider the impact of transportation on the city's quality -of -life. Hartford, Connecticut and Charlotte, North Carolina are two major cities that have succeeded in implementing effective approaches. Hartford, Connecticut. Hartford, Connecticut, an older New England urban center with a population of about 136,000, is located midway between the cities of Boston and New York. Hartford has been experiencing rapid growth in recent years. It is expected that office space will grow at a rate of 200,000 to 500,000 square feet per year until 1993, generating up to 20,000 new jobs, and doubling the number of commuter trips to and from the CBD. Less than half of the jobs in Hartford are held by Hartford residents, so most of the commuter trips originate outside of the city. The projected office space growth and employment boom created two major concerns for the city and its business community. The first concern was Hartford's traffic congestion, which is at its peak during a short but intense afternoon period. How would traffic generated by 8,000 to 20,000 new jobs in the 50 square block CBD be accommodated? The second concern was the effect of ongoing, major area highway construction that will complicate the downtown congestion problem. Hart- ford is located at the intersection of Interstates 91 and 84, but the two highways are not fully connected and auto- mobiles must travel through city streets to get from one interstate to the other. These issues were of great concern to Hartford busi- nesses. Key business people felt that congestion in the CBD could affect employee productivity and, because of competition for labor, make Hartford businesses unattractive as employers. The effort to focus on and resolve Hartford's present and anticipated transporta- tion problems began in the private sector and developed into a Transportation Management Organization (TMO). The first critical step in the evolution of Hartford's TMO was to focus the attention of the Hartford employ- ers on transportation problems. This was accomplished by one person from the private sector who took the ini- tiative to mobilize the group. Once he had succeeded in focusing the other downtown employers on the issues, discussions began. The business community took the transportation problems seriously, raising $175,000 for the city to hire a team of consultants and conduct the Hartford Downtown Transportation Project. The Downtown Transportation Project began with a task force comprised of representatives of the city, the state of Connecticut, the Downtown Council (the down- town arm of the Hartford Chamber of Commerce), and others from the private sector. The Downtown Trans- portation Task Force selected and hired a team of five consultants. The consultant team compiled a recom- mended action plan between January and September 1982. The team focused on four broad goal areas: 1) reducing the inconvenience of congestion, 2) managing 8 Management Information Service The Structure of Hartford's TMO CityCouncil ---------------------- Policy ------ ---------- Chamber of Commerce City Manager 9 ;Downtown cil Transportation Management Working Committee Task Force Department of Implementation The Rideshare Public Works -------- ----- Company (TMO) the parking supply, 3) improving the street environ- ment, and 4) improving public and private sector capa- bility to manage the transportation system. The action plan emphasizes small-scale, practical solutions for achieving the four broad goals. The action plan outlined several steps to be taken to achieve each goal within one year, two years, or in two to five years. The team reported that there were several barriers to speedy implementation of the action steps: There was no clear cut responsibility for transpor- tation policy. formulation and proper implementa- tion in either the public or the private sector. The city has an overly formal, bureaucratic style which relied heavily on written communications that interfered with both the speed and the flexibil- ity of necessary negotiations. There were no clear cut representatives of the private and public sectors designated to negotiate with their public/private counterparts. In order to eliminate these barriers to implementation, the task force recommended that within one year: • The city public works department be designated as the lead city agency for transportation policy form- ulation and project implementation. The Downtown Council (the downtown arm of the chamber of commerce) be designated to act on behalf of the private sector in implementing a package of street management recommendations. The greater Hartford Rideshare Corporation (now The Rideshare Company) be designated as the TMO and be authorized to act on behalf of the private sector in transportation policy formulation and project implementation. This arrangement allowed The Rideshare Company to act as a transportation management organization, coor- dinating existing transportation resources, creating new approaches to working within the bounds of Hartford's older infrastructure, and coordinating the efforts of both the public and private sectors. Furthermore, the arrangement designates certain persons (Public Works employees and Downtown Council members) to act on behalf of each sector. With the city's public works department, the Downtown Council and The Rideshare Company in place as responsibility centers, the mechanism by which to implement the 33 task force recommendations was set in place. The public works department has taken responsibility for implementing recommendations such as installing peak hour parking prohibition signs and zebra -striping cross walks. The Downtown Council works with the city to implement street management recommendations such as street- scaping and pedestrian related improvements. Finally, r 4 the function of the TMO (The Rideshare Company) is to: Work with the city of Hartford and the Downtown Council in implementing the recommended overall transportation program Implement consistent transportation policy among employees concerning commuter travel Work with the public and private sectors to stimulate the development of appropriate new transportation services. The Downtown Transportation Project has suc- ceeded in identifying over 30 manageable tasks such as prohibiting peak hour deliveries, and assigning the responsibility for completing the tasks. Each task is a small component of a broader transportation manage- ment plan. The Downtown Transportation Project establishes the Hartford TMO for the purpose of over- seeing the transportation management plan and for co- ordinating complicated tasks that require input from several organizations. Local government officials and Hartford business community leaders view the TMO as a "marriage" of public and private sectors for accomplishing a pre- scribed purpose. The TMO is successful because it is regarded as a highly credible organization for recom- mending action to establish Hartford's overall transportation program, and then assisting in implementing the recommended steps. Charlotte, North Carolina. Charlotte, North Carolina, a city of 350,000 people, is located in a metropolitan area with a population of about one million people. It is a major transportation hub, and a financial and banking center for the southern mid-Atlantic region. Office and commercial development in the central business district (CBD) is growing rapidly. The local business commu- nity and public officials are united in their desire to maintain the central city as an economically strong and healthy urban center, and to preserve a high quality of life for those who live and work in downtown Charlotte. Fortunately, Charlotte has a business community that exercises its civic responsibility and has a long history of public-private cooperation. This cooperative atmos- phere made it possible for the local government and the business community to address potential barriers to achieving their goals of continuing CBD growth. Economic projections indicate that Charlotte's employment base in the central business district will double in size to 100,000 by the year 2000, with cor- responding growth in office and commercial devel- opment. The existing and planned roadway network does not have the capacity to meet the projected traffic volume from the increased development. Given the limited gateway capacity to the center city, it is clear that this extensive growth cannot be accommodated without massive traffic jams in and around the central Local itansportaHon 9 business district. The community wanted to avoid a crisis of intolerable levels of congestion, and it is for precisely this reason that Charlotte's public-private team was mobilized. Both local officials and the business community resolved to take action before the transportation problems overwhelm the city. Charlotte has a well -used local transit system that provides effective service to the CBD. In addition, there is a network of express transit routes that serve commu- ters from areas outside of the CBD. The community also has a strong history of supporting transit. The voters in Charlotte have passed a number of major bond referen- da which include purchasing the transit system, con- structing a new bus maintenance facility, purchasing new buses, and developing a transit mall running the length of the central business district. Approximately 18 percent of peak hour trips to the CBD are on mass trans- it, and the city's goal is to increase that to 25 percent by the year 2000. Original plans to maintain accessibility to the CBD relied too heavily on mass transit. The automobile remained the primary mode of transportation for most commuters, and congestion was getting worse. Public officials became concerned about the possibility of an overextended infrastructure and automobile congestion. They realized that the cooperation of the Charlotte pri- vate sector was necessary to effectively address these problems. Charlotte officials informed business leaders of the inability of the street system to accommodate one car for each CBD employee. The CBD employers could help to avoid severe congestion problems by designing and implementing rideshare programs and encouraging employees to use them. If efforts were not made, bus- iness plans for growth would certainly be inhibited, and eventually the vitality of the CBD would be negatively affected. The downtown business community understood that it was in their best interest to work with local officials to forestall potential traffic crises. The catalyst for the private initiative came from the Charlotte Up- town Development Corporation (CUDC) and its chair- man, a respected local banker. CUDC was launched in the 1970s when the city obtained state permission to establish a business -led authority to promote downtown economic development and a municipal service district to provide the financing for the authority. CUDC collects an annual 1.75 cent ad valor- or-ern alor- fem tax on downtown properties. Realizing that the major corporations in the city needed to be committed to the effort, CUDC sponsored a transportation symposium called "Getting You to Work Tomorrow." The symposium was developed in co- operation with the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce with the assistance of the city. The meeting was designed to alert chief executive officers of major Charlotte cor- porations to the counterproductive effects of traffic congestion, to secure commitments for working toward solutions, and to begin identifying solutions. The CUDC chairman personally extended invitations to 150 cor- 10 Management Information Service porate colleagues and strongly urged their attendance. Several nationally known experts were invited to speak to the group. Other speakers representing Dallas, Texas and Hartford, Connecticut discussed the transportation problems their cities have had to face as a result of rapid CBD growth. The group was urged to anticipate and plan for traffic congestion problems that would result from Charlotte's increase in commercial activity and employment. The meeting generated a great deal of interest, ex- citement, and enthusiasm and resulted in the appoint- ment of five committees to study transportation issues related to: ridesharing, staggered work hours/flextime, parking management, transit, and other options. The committees' recommendations have been adop- ted by a steering committee and are now being imple- mented in cooperation with the city transportation staff. The recommendations for continuing cooperation include: • Surveying employees of each cooperating firm to gather information useful to the firm in making policy changes. Examples of policy changes would be subsidizing transit fares for employees or dis- continuing free parking benefits to employees in an attempt to discourage single occupancy vehicle commuting. • Implementing a pilot flextime program aimed at shortening traffic peak periods. • Working with parking lot operators to provide priority parking and cost incentives for carpool and vanpool commuters. • Increasing efforts to get new employees involved in transit or ridesharing. City staff members work with employers to survey employees. The survey is conducted to obtain infor- mation useful for developing transportation -related policies, to respond to employee need for information about alternative transit modes, and to provide the city with planning data. The chairman of the Charlotte Uptown Develop- ment Corporation explains the motivation for Charlotte business community involvement. "Our business com- munity is looking ahead to the future. The employers want their employees to be able to get to and from uptown in an easy, efficient way. They want shoppers, tourists, and visitors to be able to reach our hotels and other city attractions. We have a big investment in both property and human beings." He also describes the nature of the public-private relationship from the private sector perspective. 'We have a long way to go, but we have made a good start. We have a positive political environment; we have enthusiasm; we have great communication between the public and private sectors; we have involvement with the right people; and we have a commitment by all. I think, with these ingredients, we can't help but succeed" A representative of Charlotte's Department of Transportation offers a public sector perspective about why the relationship has been successful. 'It has worked because the transportation staff of the city got the commitment of the business community at the start of the project and is working to tailor the program to meet their needs. We are not simply trying to sell another government program." Summary. Hartford and Charlotte represent two examples of communities where a potential transpor- tation problem was identified, a public-private partnership was developed, and steps were taken to address the anticipated problem through joint efforts. Both cities were faced with downtown congestion caused by rapid CBD growth. Although the approaches taken by the two communities differed somewhat, there were several key elements that enabled the public- private relationship to develop and work successfully: • There was a key person, known and respected by both local government officials and private sector executives, who acted as a catalyst. In each case this person was a private sector employee who had for- merly been employed by the public sector. • This person was able to promote a collective interest among his private sector peers. • With both sectors prepared to tackle a common problem together, there was an atmosphere of cooperation instead of animosity. • Both sectors took a "one -step -at -a -time" approach. They concentrated on managing what was in their power to control (parking, flexible work hours, signalization). • Collective objectives were set. • Both sides coordinated efforts to acheive the collective objectives. • "Responsibility Centers" were designated. The Use of Traffic Management Ordinances Ordinances can be used to encourage cooperation between a local government and the private sector in community traffic management. Ordinances can set measurable traffic mitigation goals, outline approaches businesses can take to achieve the goals, and even be a guide to assist businesses. Pleasanton, California. The city of Pleasanton, California is located about 30 miles southeast of San Fransisco, in an area known as the Tri -Valley. The valley, which straddles southern Contra Costa County and eastern Alameda County, is experiencing some rapid growth. The city's population of 37,000 has more than doubled since 1970. The Tri Valley area is also experiencing office, commercial, and industrial growth as a result of San Francisco firms and Silicon Valley research and development operations seeking lower rents and room to expand. Presently 42.5 million square feet of new office, commercial, and light industrial space are under construction or have been approved. The city of Pleasanton, which until recently has been a quiet "bedroom" suburb, has not been immune to this rapid development. On the outskirts of the city, con- struction is underway for an 850 acre business park that will employ 35,000 people. Adjoining this office park are two smaller office parks and a regional shopping mall. Employment in Pleasanton is expected to increase from 18,000 to about 45,000 over the next 20 years. This amount of development and growth has im- portant implications for any community. Pleasanton community officials recognized that increases in com- muter traffic corresponding to the projected increase in employment would cause intolerable congestion levels unless significant mitigation measures were imple- mented. Based on traffic studies projecting future traffic levels, it was ascertained that peak hour traffic had to be reduced by 45 percent to avoid intolerable conditions. Pleasanton city officials have agreed that the number of automobile trips has to be reduced, and that the partic- ipation of individual businesses is necessary for success. The city identified several programs or activities for commuting employees that could be developed or en- couraged by employers. Each of the programs or activi- ties are viewed as traffic mitigation steps. They are: ridesharing programs, transit/shuttle programs, cycling/walking amenity development, parking man- agement, flexible work hour programs, and employ- ment of a transit coordinator. A citizen review committee worked with Pleasanton city administrators to design an ordinance that would mandate action by employers. The resulting ordinance draft was extremely stringent, placing the entire burden of commuter trip reduction on the employers. The Pleasanton city council did not adopt the ordinance; however, the action attracted the attention of Pleasanton employers. Pleasanton administrators tried to redevelop the ordinance, this time working with the private sector. A task force with representation from the employers was included in the second attempt. In the ordinance that resulted, the 45 percent trip reduction became a benchmark for large employers instead of a requirement. Furthermore, the new draft defined a cooperative role for the city in achieving the trip reduction benchmark. The city's role would be to: • Gather data for the businesses to use in designing and implementing programs • Provide a coordinator to assist with program development and implementation • Develop a bus system • Improve roadways. Any initial concerns the business community had about the proposed ordinance were resolved through negotia- Local Transportation 11 tions. Thus, when the ordinance was finally presented for approval in October 1984, it was adopted with no opposition. The goal of the ordinance is to reduce negative traffic impacts on air, energy resources, and ambient noise level within the city and the region by reducing the number of commuter vehicle trips and total vehicle miles traveled. The ordinance is applicable to all existing and future employers, developers, and landlords in the city. The level of involvement depends on the size and loca- tion of the employer. All employers must respond to an annual transportation survey. Employers with ten or more employees are required to implement an ongoing transportation information program. All employers with 50 or more employees, business complexes, and employers located within complexes are required to design and implement transportation systems manage- ment (TSM) programs. These are intended to achieve a phased 45 percent reduction in the number of peak period automobile trips that would occur if all employees made single occupancy automobile trips. The reduction is phased in over a 4 -year period, with a 15 percent reduction required in the first year, and ten percent in each of the following three years. During the initial two-year period employers and developers may decide which TSM measures they will implement to meet the traffic reduction goals (ride - sharing, staggered work hours, promotion of transit usage, etc.). After the initial two-year period, however, the city may impose mandatory requirements on those who have not demonstrated substantial progress toward the traffic reduction goals. The ordinance has two enforcement provisions: the threat of a mandated transportation management pro- gram, and monetary penalties for noncompliance. The annual transportation survey and the annual employer progress reports act as monitoring mechanisms. The city transportation coordinator and a TSM task force com- prised of executives and managers from major employ- ment centers share responsibilities for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the ordinance. The ordinance has been in effect now for about 15 months, and it appears to be working. Twenty-five of the city's largest employers have reduced their rush hour commute traffic by 15 percent or more over the past year, according to figures released by the city in October 1985. The information comes from reports filed by 27 large employers and complexes affected by the ordi- nance. Only two employers did not meet the 15 percent peak hour vehicle reduction goal, while six employers and complexes achieved a 50 percent or more reduction in peak hour vehicle trips. These figures are so promising that the City of Pleasanton Transportation Coordinator feels that the goal of 45 percent traffic reduction is very possible. Summary. There are several lessons to be learned from the Pleasanton experience. First, successful mitigation efforts require broad community support. Otherwise, 12 Management Information Service communities will find it difficult to achieve meaningful compliance. Second, local governments must give the private sector maximum latitude to decide what works best for private employers. The business community is more likely to accept regulatory conditions if the requirements are sensitive to business needs. Third, implementation of traffic mitigation programs cannot be viewed solely as private sector responsibility. Businesses will need assistance and advice from local government. Finally, traffic mitigation is essentially a local program. As in Pleasanton, local circumstances must ultimately determine achievable goals and influence the design of acceptable implementation measures. CONCLUSIONS Problems with providing community fixed -route bus service are not new. Rising costs and falling ridership have affected transit systems for years. Communities are finding that the traditional responses to these problems have been largely insufficient. The traditional ap- proaches such as increased marketing efforts to attract riders, raising fares, and service cutbacks do not address the real problems of changing travel habits. Many local governments are now trying new, innovative solutions. Managers are rethinking traditional service delivery methods, and instead of trying to attract riders to inconvenient bus routes, are attempting to design alter- natives which serve the transportation markets that exist. Although it is clear that no single approach to re- design can solve every community's transportation problems, the rethinking of local transportation service provision and implementation of new ideas is becoming widespread, and some very effective, efficient ap- proaches are being developed. 0 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 .MEMO June 27, 1986 Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Sherman L. Goldberg, City Engineer Erosion Control Pursuant to the City Manager's memo of 6/26/86, the following is the procedure we will follow in trying to stay on top of keeping the streets clean in the developing part of the City. 1. Write the developer a letter stating that we expect them to clean and sweep the streets in their developments at least each Friday; or as often as needed depending on weather conditions dictate. The City will inspect these sites every Monday a.m. and if they aren't clean, will order the work be done and bill the developer for said work. The developer will be charged double the amount as per the City's policy. 2. John Sweeney will compile the list of developers and their contracts for street cleaning. He also will have a map of the project locations. 3. John will monitor the program. SLG: du -r 2 June 27, 1986 CITY Or PLYMOUTR Mr. Michael Pflaum Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Subject: Mission Trails Dear Mike: Would you please take the necessary steps to have silt fence and/or hay bales placed along the curb line in the Mission Trails area in order to prevent the soil erosion that is taking place and depositing the dirt in the streets and eventually in the storm sewers in the ditch system. There are several areas that need to be attended to and I would appreciate it if they were accomplished as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding the matter call myself or Dick Pouliot at 559-2800. Yours very truly, Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E. City Engineer SLG: du cc: James G. Willis, City Manager Fred G. Moore, Public Works Director Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 �4lF A,] June 27, 1986 (IC Il Y Or PLYMOUTR Baton Corporation 331 - 2nd Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Subject: Apartments on 41st Avenue in the Mission Trails Area Gentlemen: There has been considerable dirt being deposited on 41st Avenue from the erosion taking place on the Apartment site under construction. Would you please take the necessary steps to have a silt fence and/or hay bales placed along the curb line in order to prevent this erosion from entering the street and eventually the storm sewer system and City ditch system. Would you also check the erosion control fence that is suppose to be up on the East side of the project. We have had someone indicate that this has not been done. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned or Dick Pouliot at 559-2800. Yours very truly, ]4---A4 Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E. City Engineer SLG: du cc: James G. Willis, City Manager Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS June 10, 1986 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Quass, Anderson, Cornelius, and Bigelow. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Musatto and Mellen STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Al Cottingham and Building Official doe Ryan MINUTES MOTION was made by Commissioner Quass, seconded by Commissioner Cornelius to approve the May 13, 1986 Minutes as amended. VOTE. 4 Ayes. Commissioner Bigelow abstained. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Marofsky introduced the Board Members and reviewed the variance criteria as contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Z7- 30" MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1986 The request submitted by William Bullard was introduced for MR. WILLIAM BULLARD a variance from the minimum building side yard setback for 2015 XANTHUS LANE property located at 2025 Xanthus Lane North. Mr. Bullard NORTH. VARIANCE FROM reviewed his request noting the third car garage would MINIMUM BUILDING SIDE require a 6 foot e:ncorachment into the Ordinance required 15 YARD SETBACK foot side yard setback. Commissioner Quass inquired if the third car garage was to be used for parking his truck. Mr. Bullard responded affirmatively. Mr. Gerald Freeman of 2105 Xanthus Lane explained his concern with the variance proposed, as it would cut off the light from the south side of his home, which has five windows. He believes the garage should be expanded to the front, the home five feet, rather than the side, since that would not require a variance. The Board discussed this matter with Mr. Bullard who stated he had discussed this alternative, but had not had an opportunity to check on the addition to the front would be a benefit to everyone. He had not checked on the cost of moving the addition to the front with his builder. The Board discussed tabling this matter until the next meeting in order for the petitioner to decide if he would like to continue with this application. The Board would also be able to visit the site to check the impact on the adjoining property. Page two Board of Zoning Minutes June 10, 1986 MOTION was made by Chairman Marofsky, seconded by NOTION TO TABLE Commissioner Bigelow to table this request until the next meeting. VOTE 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED The request submitted by John Brose was introduced for a JOHN BROSE 10118 variance from the minimum Shoreland Management setback and SOUTH SHORE DRIVE. the minimum side yard setback for property located at 10118 VARIANCE FROM South Shore Drive. Mr. Brose reviewed his request noting SHORELAND MANAGEMENT the tree adjacent to the house was dead and would be SETBACK AND SIDE YARD removed. SETBACK Commissioner Quass inquired if Mr. Brose would trim the other trees for a better view of the lake. Mr. Brose said they would not. Mr. Quass also asked if the deck was going to be constructed of "tongue in grove" or of boards evenly spaced. Mr. Brose stated the boards would be spaced which would allow for drainage of water. MOTION was made by Commissioner Quass, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve the variance from the Shoreland Management setback and the side yard setback for property located at 10118 South Shore Drive for John Brose, for the reasons stated in the draft resolution. Commissioner Cornelius inquired why there was a side yard setback variance. Staff explained the Ordinance requirement for this zoning district of 15 feet; the petitioner is requesting an 8 foot side yard setback, which is the same as the home. MOTION was made by Chairman Marofsky to amend the main motion by adding condition number 3 stating the dedication of a 5 foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line and a 6 foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line. MOTION died for lack of a second. The Board discussed the purpose of having easements along property lines. Mr. Brose noted he would not be in favor of an easement due to plans for future expansion. The easement might become an obstacle for those plans. The Board informed Mr. Brose he was assuming that an encroachment into the side yard setbacks would be granted. At that time, consideration could be given to vacating the easements along the side property lines. At no time should he believe that if this variance is approved, future variances would also be granted. VOTE 5 Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE - NOTION CARRIED Page three Board of Zoning Minutes June 10, 1986 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjouned at 8:57 P.M. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adustments and Appeals of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 10th day of dune . 1986. The following members were present: Chairman Marofsky, Commissioners Quass, Anderson, Cornelius and Bigelow The following members were absent: Commissioners Musatto and Mellen Commissioner Quass introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. B 86-14 APPROVING VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR JOHN BROSE, 10118 SHORE DRIVE (06-02-86) WHEREAS, Sohn Brose has requested approval of a 15 ft. encroachment into the Ordinance Shoreland Management setback of 50 feet and a 7 foot encroachment into the Ordinance side yard setback of 15 feet in order to construct a 12 foot by 26 foot deck onto his home; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for Sohn Brose, for a 15 ft. variance to allow a 35 ft. Shoreland setback and a 7 foot variance to allow a 8 foot side yard setback for property located at 10118 South Shore Drive for the following reasons: 1. The variance criteria have been met. 2. No other variances are granted or implied by this action. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Anderson , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Marofsky, Commisioners Quass, Anderson Cornelius and Bigelow The following voted against or abstained: None Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXE U7ivE judge Anaerso^ 3030 ra Dcc La e Pyn Out vtv' �ti Pncne 62 55_ - TECH,N!CAL ADV!SCR Hennepin Conser✓a1 cr 12450 VJa,2a:a Minnetonka MSS 55343 Phone 612 544-6572 elm creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes June 11, 1986 -3b I. The meetinq was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Chairman Fred Moore. II. Steve Peaslee moved and Earle Strande seconded a motion to ap- prove the May 14, 1986 minutes. Motion carried. III. Peaslee moved and Strande seconded a motion to accept the Treas- urer's Report and pay the bills. Motion carried. IV. Those present: Fred Moore - Plymouth Leon Zeuy - District Office Earle Strande - Dayton Larry Elwell - Medina Terry Muller - Maple Grove Steve Peaslee - Hassan Will Hartfeldt - Attorney William Mason - Crystal John Johnson - Merila & Assocs. Judie Anderson - Exec. Secy. V. Reports from the District Office A. Water Quality Monitoring - Results of the May sampling have been received and recorded. All parameters were within acceptable limits except fecal coliform levels in Elm Creek at Hamel. Results of the May monitoring of Cook and Fish lakes have been received and recorded. Water quality in Fish Lake was better in May 1986 than in May 1985. Diamond, Dubay and Mud lakes, as well as Cook and Fish lakes, will be sampled in June. B. Champlin Hill Pond - The inspection program by the District Office is continuing. C. French Lake - The District Office sample French Lake for fecal coliform bacteria as requested by the City of Dayton. The re- sults indicated that severe fecal contamination did not exist at the time of sampling. The probable cause of odors present could be the release of hydrogen sulfide gas resulting from anaerobic metabolism of organic materials. U. Fish Lake Project - Preliminary data collection has been completed. Storm water treatment equipment should be installed this month. Minutes June 11, 1986 E. DNR Permit -The City of Maple Grove has proposed two pedes- trian bridges across Elm Creek as part of their trail system. The District has responded on behalf of the Commission to DNR and has recommended that no fill for the bridge ramps be placed below the 100 year flood elevation. Muller indicated no problem with this re- quirement and Maple Grove will submit their request formally to the Commission. F. Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Metropolitan Council has mailed an EAW for Shadow Creek in Maple Grove. The Commission commented on this plat in 1985, stating that the plat is acceptable contingent upon the Management Plan's 100 year profile being used for planning. VI. 1987 Budget - Strande moved and Peaslee seconded a motion to adopt a budget for 1987 of $36,550.00. Motion carried. Anderson wiii certify to tiie cities before July first. VII. Plat Reviews A. 86-016 Fountain Park West, Maple Grove. B. 86-017 The Maples - Maple Grove. C. 86-018 Shadow Creek East - Maple Grove. D. 86-019 Countryside Plaza - Corcoran. E. 86-020 Twin Barns - Corcoran. F. 86-021 Highwood Acres 3rd Addition - Dayton. Moore moved and Strande seconded a motion to approve the above plat reviews with the recommendations of the District Office. Motion carried. Johnson answered questions pertaining to Lake Cimarron Estates. This project will be reviewed at the July meeting. There being no further business before the Commission, the meet- ing was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 ' Judie A. Anderson Executive Secretary JAA:tim * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments COMPARISON OF PLAN14ING APPLICATION VOLUME BY TYPE The following figures represent the number of applications received and in process by the Planning Department for the month of: dune 1986 THIS YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR TYPE OF APPLICATION MONTH TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE Site Plan 6 31 3 26 Preliminary Plats*/RLS 3 14 1 16 Final Plats*/RLS 3 20 4 26 PUD Concept Plans - 2 - 4 PUD Preliminary Plats 1 3 - 5 PUD Final Plats 2 10 3 11 Conditional Use Permits 4 36 1 26 Rezonings** 2 8 - 7 Lot Division/Consolidation 2 15 5 18 Variances 3 23 2 23 Sign Plans - - - - Site Plan Amendments - 4 - - Rev General Development Plan - - - 1 Land Use Guide Plan Amendments** - - - 4 Landscape Plans - - - - Other - 3 - - TOTAL 26 169 19 167 * Other than Planned Unit Developments **Includes Planned Unit Developments MONTHLY REPORT OF PERMIT & INSPECTION ACTIVITY JUNE 1986 BUILDING PERMITS CURRENT Y.T.D. 1985 L.Y.T.D Public 0 1 1 2 Comm/Ind/New 10 28 1 4 Alteration 13 33 13 64 Residential 78 440 92 338 Multi -Family 4 9 0 15 Remodeling 87 190 66 245 Foundations 0 0 0 2 Garage 0 ----- 0 ----- 0 -------- 4 ----- TOTALS 192 701 173 674 OTHER PERMITS Plumbing 156 705 134 564 Mechanical 151 602 104 475 Signs 13 47 7 56 Grading 3 11 1 8 Wells 0 4 0 6 Moving 1 4 1 4 Sewer/Water 136 507 160 ------- 625 ------ TOTALS -------- 460 ------ 1880 407 1738 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 43 226 47 180 TOTAL NO. PERMITS CREATED 641 2853 693 2254 TOTAL NO. OF INSPECTIONS 1260 5327 N/A N/A MINNESOTA STATE PLANNING AGENCY Office of State Demographer POPULATION NOTES June, 1986 For Further Information: Diana Gray (612)296-2557 OSD 86-39 THE MINNESOTA SAMPLER, SECOND EDITION Most Commonly Asked Questions About Minnesota's Population The State Planning Agency, Office of State Demographer, receives more than 6,000 requests for information each year. Many of these requests are for the same or similar information. Therefore, we have updated our May, 1985 edition of the Sampler Population Note by adding more recent information where available as well as additional commonly asked questions and answers. The Sampler can also be viewed as representative of the types of information available. We continue to welcome your requests for more detailed information. QUESTION: Where is the nation's population center according to the Census Bureau in 1980? The 1980 location for the papulation center of the U.S. was De Soto, Missouri. In 1790, the date of the first U.S. Census, the population center was 23 miles east of Baltimore, MD. Until recently, the population center has moved almost directly west; now, the movement is also slightly south. The population center is where the country would balance perfectly if it were a flat surface and every person on it had equal weight. QUESTION: What is the population of the State of Minnesota and of the U.S.? Minnesota U. S. Ranking Among Change Between Total Year Population Density States Censuses Population 1940 2,792,300 34.9 18th + 8.9% 131,669,275 1950 2,982,483 37.3 18th + 6.8 150,697,361 1960 3,413,864 43.1 18th +14.5 179,323,175 1970 3,804,971 48.0 19th +11.5 203,302,031 1980 4,075,970 51.2 21st + 7.1 226,545,805 1981 4,100,602 229,637,000 1982 4,133,334 231,996,000 1983 4,145,667 234,284,000 1984 4,161,464 236,495,000 1985 4,193,000 238,740,000 Source: All years ending in zero were census years and estimates made for U.S. (1981 through 1985) were prepared by the Census Bureau. Estimates for Minnesota (1981 through 1985) were prepared by the Office of State Demographer. The percentage changes were figured between censuses so that the figure shown for 1940 would be the change between 1930 and 1940. QUESTION: What will the population of the U.S. and Minnesota be for the year 2010? Year Minnesota U.S. 1990 4,370,979 249,657,000 1995 4,502,089 259,559,000 2000 4,600,397 267,955,000 2005 4,684,467 275,677,000 2010 4,755,934 283,238,000 Source: All U.S. population projections were prepared by the Census Bureau (middle series) P-25, No. 952. Minnesota population projections were prepared by the Office of State Demographer, May 1983. QUESTION: What is the population of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)? Year Population Rank 1960 1,598,000 936,922 1970 1,965,000 4.9% 1980 2,137,000* 17th 1982 2,194,000* 17th 1983 2,208,000* 17th 1984 2,231,000* 17th *Information reported is for the new Metropolitan Statistical Area designation. The Office of Management and Budget changed the definition of SMSA's to MSA's (June 30, 1983). New definition of MSA includes Isanti County with the original designations of Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright counties in Minnesota and St. Croix County in Wisconsin. Source: 1970 and 1980 Censuses of Population, 1980 Supplementary Report, PC80-S1, and Current Population Report, P-25, No.976. QUESTION: Haw many people live in urban and rural areas? Area 1960 1970 1980 (Population in thousands) U.S. Urban 125,269 149,325 167,051 Rural 54,054 53,887 59,495 Minnesota Urban 2,123 2,527 2,725 Rural 1,291 1,278 1,351 Source: 1960, 1970, and 1980 figures reported by the Census Bureau. As defined by the Census Bureau, "urban" refers to all people living in cities of 2,500 or more or to people living in smaller places within densely settled urbanized areas. "Rural" refers to the remainder of the population. QUESTION: How has the population in different age groups changed over time, and how is it projected to change in the future? Population by Age Group in Minnesota: 1970-2000 % Change % Change % Change Age 1970 1980 1970-80 1990 1980-90 2000 1990-2000 0-14 1,149,427 936,922 -18.5% 983,212 4.9% 944,723 -3.9% 15-24 665,442 793,384 21.0 622,759 -21.5 640,839 2.9 25-44 851,858 1,125,755 32.2 1,435,358 27.5 1,368,561 -4.7 45-64 729,325 740,345 1.5 780,717 5.5 1,046,315 34.0 65+ 408,919 4791564 17.3 548,933 14.5 599,959 9.3 Source: 1970 and 1980 Censuses, General Population Characteristics, (Minnesota). Projections for 1990-2000: Minnesota Population Projections 1980-2010, Office of State Demographer, May, 1983. QUESTION: How have occupations in Minnesota changed in number between Source: 1980 Census, Detailed 1970-80? Population Characteristics, (Minnesota). Employed Persons 16 Years and Older % QUESTION: How many businesses Occupation 1980 1970 Chancre operate in Minnesota? Exec. & Mgmt. 200,130 115,666 73.0% YearEstabli fit. Employees Technicians 65,735 40,071 64.0 Professional 234,365 170,835 37.2 1984 101,730* 1,505,571 Service 264,633 194,828 35.8 1983 97,292* 1,403,412 Admin. Support 314,988 235,497 33.8 1982 85,868 1,434,506 1981 85,581 1,468,675 Sales 187,186 148,174 26.3 1980 85,482 1,489,464 Operators and 1979 85,443 1,484,513 Laborers 298,691 259,422 15.1 1978 83,036 1,383,339 Precision Prod. 212,891 188,999 12.6 *Prior to 1983 only establishments Farming 106,902 110,777 -3.5 active in the fourth quarter were counted. The 1983 and 1984 counts Source: 1980 and 1970 Censuses, include establishments active anytime General Social and Economic during the year. Characteristics, (Minnesota). Source: _County Business Patterns, QUESTION: How many married couple U.S. Census Bureau. families in Minnesota were there in 1979 where both the husband and wife were employed? QUESTION: How many Minnesotans Husband -wife 16+ years Total live on farms? Both employed 520,429 In 1980, 315,400 persons were living Percent of all families 57.4% on Minnesota farms, about eight percent of the state's population. Both employed full-time 295,538 Source: 1980 Census, General Social Both employed full-time and Characteristics, year round 154,272 Minnesota) ' QUESTION: In what occupations do Minnesotans work? 1980 1970 Percent Percent Female In Females In Ck tion Total Males Females Oocgpation Total Males Females oocupation Managerial 200,130 143,444 56,686 28.3% 115,666 95,737 19,929 17.2% Professional 234,365 119,757 114,608 48.9 170,835 94,375 76,460 44.8 Technical 65,735 36,723 29,012 44.1 40,071 26,111 13,960 34.8 Sales 187,186 98,827 88,359 47.2 148,174 87,555 60,619 40.9 Clerical 314,988 65,539 249,449 79.2 235,497 58,413 177,084 75.2 Service 264,633 93,938 170,695 64.5 194,828 68,353 126,475 64.9 Farming 104,490 89,035 15,455 14.8 108,597 100,466 8,131 7.5 Skilled labor 212,891 194,814 18,077 8.5 188,999 174,306 14,693 7.8 Unskilled labor 298,691 220,802 77,889 26.1 259,422 200,395 59,027 22.8 Source: 1970 and 1980 Censuses, General Social and Economic Characteristics, (Minnesota), and Detailed Population Characteristics, (Minnesota). QUESTIOP,: In what industries do Minnesotans work? Transportation 87,335 1980 18,418 Industry Total Males Females Agriculture 108,727 90,756 17,971 Forestry 1,471 1,106 365 Mining 15,221 14,158 1,063 Construction 99,380 90,812 8,568 Manufacturing 380,763 258,922 121,841 Transportation 87,335 68,917 18,418 Communication 20,368 10,806 9,562 Utilities 21,408 18,193 3,215 Wholesale trd. 92,232 67,283 24,949 Retail trade 321,167 151,021 170,146 Services 729,835 271,544 458,291 Public Admin. 69,551 41,307 28,244 Source: 1980 Census General Social and Economic Characteristics, (Minnesota) and Detailed Population Characteristics (Minnesota). QUESTION: How many farms are there in Minnesota? 1982 1978 1974 Number of Farms 94,382 98,671 98,537 Farmland (mil. acres) 27.7 28.5 27.6 Avg. Farm Size (acres) 294 288 280 Source: 1982 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Census Bureau. QUESTION: What is the average cost of housing in Minnesota? Type of Housing 1980 Census Median value of owner - occupied housing $ 53,100 Median contract rent of U.S. Total renter -occupied housing $ 212 Number of owner -occupied Population housing units 1,035,689 Number of renter -occupied 1985 housing units 409,533 Source: 1980 Census, General Housing Characteristics (Minnesota). QU=0N: How does M.innesot.a corpare with other states? Minnesota Item Rank Minnesota Value U.S. Total Date Highest State Lowest State Population 21 4,193,000 238,740,000 1985 California Alaska Land Area (sq. mi.) 14 79,548 3,539,295 1983 Alaska Rhode Island Water area (sq. mi.) 2 4,854 79,481 1980 Alaska Hawaii Persons per sq. mi. 32 52 67 1984 New Jersey Alaska Population Change 1970 - 1980 (%) 33 7.1% 11.4% 1980 Nevada New York Population Change 1980 - 1985 (%) 32 2.9% 5.4% 1985 Alaska Michigan Median Age (years) 30 29.2 30.0 1980 Florida Alaska % Population under 5 19 7.9% 7.5% 1984 Utah Connecticut % Population 65 and over 19 12.4% 11.9% 1984 Florida Alaska Non-white population 46 3.4% 16.9% 1980 Hawaii Vermont Black papulation 41 1.3% 11.7% 1980 Mississippi Vermont Asian population 17 0.7% 1.5% 1980 Hawaii South Dakota American Indian poop. 15 0.9% 0.6% 1980 New Mexico Maine Hispanic papulation 41 0.8% 6.4% 1980 New Mexico W. Virginia Persons speaking English poorly or not at all 34 0.54 2.0% 1980 California Alabama QUESTION: What are the 25 largest Source: 1980 Census, General cities in the State of Minnesota and Population Characteristics their rankings? 137.4 Widowed 220,789 (Minnesota). Separated 1980 1985 1985 City Census Estimate Rank Minneapolis 370,951 362,090 1 QUESTION: How many households are St. Paul 270,230 267,810 2 there in Minnesota and what is the Duluth 92,811 85,037 3 average size? Bloomington 81,831 83,900 4 Rochester 57,890 62,158 5 Number in Ciange Catpgoory 1980 70-80 Brooklyn Park 43,332 50,510 6 Edina 46,073 44,940 7 All households 1,445,222 24.9% St. Cloud 42,566 43,692 8 Persons per Coon Rapids 35,826 42,870 9 household 2.74 -14.4 St. Louis Pk. 42,931 42,780 10 Family type: Minnetonka 38,683 41,710 11 Married couple Burnsville* 35,674 40,115 12 families 897,532 9.4 Plymouth 31,615 38,940 13 Other female - Richfield 37,851 36,900 14 headed families 107,271 45.8 Roseville 35,820 35,270 15 Other male -headed families 32,719 20.4 Blaine 28,558 33,840 16 Brooklyn Ctr. 31,230 30,630 17 Nonfamily Household: Moorhead 29,998 30,294 18 Persons living Eagan* 20,700 30,456 19 alone 335,791 64.2 Mankato* 28,637 29,746 20 Persons living with nonrelatives 71,909 126.8 Fridley 30,228 29,440 21 Maple Grove* 20,525 28,676 22 Source: 1980 Census, General Maplewood 26,990 28,310 23 Population Characteristics Apple Valley* 21,818 27,172 24 (Minnesota) and Summary Tape File 3 Winona 25,075 24,808 25 (STF-3) for Minnesota. *Special censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1985. Source: 1980 Census, Number of Inhabitants, (Minnesota). Estimates for 1985 were prepared by the Office of State Demographer. Seven -county metropolitan area city estimates prepared by Metropolitan Council. Rankings are fra, the 1985 estimates. QUESTION: How many single and divorced people live in Minnesota? Minnesota 1980 Marital Status pmt of Persons Number in Change 15 and Older 1980 70-80 Single 894,264 29.6% Married 1,835,846 9.9 Divorced 157,471 137.4 Widowed 220,789 8.1 Separated 30,678 5.9 QUESTION: Do you have a more current estimate for households than 1980? Source: Office of State Demographer, Population and Household Estimates 1985. Household estimates were mandated by the legislature in 1982. Minnesota Year Households 1983 1,508,382 1984 1,518,629 1985 1,537,921 Source: Office of State Demographer, Population and Household Estimates 1985. Household estimates were mandated by the legislature in 1982. QUESTION: During what years did the l'baby boan" take place? ANSWER: The term "baby boom" refers to the post World War II upswing in births. Different authors cite different beginning and ending dates for the baby boom. The most commonly used beginning dates are 1946 or 1947; the most commonly used end dates are 1959 or the early 1960s. Almost one-third of Minnesota's population was born during this period. QUESTION: What are the trends in the median age of the population in Minnesota? Median Age of Minnesota Population: 1910 through 2000 Year Age 1910 23.7 1920 25.3 1930 27.2 1940 29.5 1950 30.6 1960 28.6 1970 26.8 1980 29.2 1990 (projected) 32.5 2000 (projected) 36.4 Source: 1910 to 1980: 1980 Census, General Population Characteristics (Minnesota). 1990 and 2000: Minnesota Population Projections 1980-2010, Office of State Demographer, May 1983. QUESTION: What are the largest ancestry groups in Minnesota? Minnesota 1980 Those reporting a single Ancestry Ancestry Rank Number German 1 707,161 Norwegian 2 267,853 Swedish 3 162,917 English 4 109,486 Irish 5 96,187 Those reporting a multiple Ancestry Ancestry Rank Number German 1 1,060,609 Irish 2 510,501 Norwegian 3 444,405 English 4 381,582 Swedish 5 365,164 Source: 1980 Census, Ancestry of the Population by State, Supplementary Report PC80-S1-10. QUESTION: How many Minnesotans are there in each racial group? Population by Race: 1980 Race Number White 3,935,770 Black 53,344 American Indian 34,831 Eskimo and Aleut 185 Korean 6,319 Vietnamese 5,866 Chinese 4,835 Asian Indian 3,670 Japanese 2,789 Filipino 2,677 Hawaiian, Guamanian, Samoan 380 Other Races 25,304 Source: 1980 Census, General Population Characteristics, (Minnesota). QUESTION: Do you have population infoanation by age and race? Minnesota 1980 Race Under 5 5-17 18-64 65+ White 289,006 823,626 2,349,149 473,989 Black 5,927 14,561 30,297 2,559 Indian 4,312 11,396 17,770 1,538 Asian 3,594 7,534 14,511 897 Other 4,410 7,442 12,871 581 Total 307,249 864,559 2,424,598 479,564 Source: 1980 Census, Summary Tape File 1. Population and Household Items, (Minnesota). QUESTION: Which racial group includes Hispanics? ANSWER: In the 1980 Census Spanish origin is not a racial category. Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race. In 1980 there were 32,123 persons of Spanish origin in Minnesota. QUESTION: What is life expectancy in Minnesota? How does this compare with national figures? Life Expectancy: 1980 Minnesota U.S. Total 76.2 years 73.7 years Male 72.5 70.0 Female 79.9 77.5 Source: Population Notes 84-27, Office of State Demographer. U.S. figures are from National Center for Health Statistics. QUESTION: How many people in Minnesota are high school and college graduates? Minnesota 1980 Persons 25 years and older 2,345,701 High school graduates 73.1% 4+ years of college 17.4% Median years of school completed 12.6 Source: 1980 Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics (Minnesota) . QUESTION: Hoa do males and females compare in educational attainment? Minnesota 1980 4 or more High School College Age Male Female Male Female 25 and older 71.8% 74.2% 21.0% 14.0% 25 to 34 93.0 93.9 29.1 23.2 35 to 44 86.0 88.4 27.0 16.9 45 to 54 71.3 78.1 20.7 11.2 55 to 64 57.1 65.8 13.0 8.2 65+ 32.2 42.4 7.4 6.6 Source: 1980 Census, Detailed Population Characteristics, (Minnesota). QUESTION: How do educational attairm ent and earnings ootpare? Mean Annual Earnings* by Years of School Completed by Age and Sex, 1979 High School 4 Yrs. College Age Male Female Male Female 25 to 34 $16,017 $10,088 $18,630 $12,749 35 to 44 19,707 10,327 29,217 14,440 45 to 54 20,728 10,537 34,675 14,532 55 to 64 19,883 11,085 34,774 15,029 65+ 17,199 9,925 24,826 11,538 *For Minnesotans working 35+ hours per week for 40 or more weeks in 1979. Source: 1980 Census, Detailed Population Characteristics, (Minnesota). QUESTION: What is the median family income in Minnesota? Median Percent year Income Change 1979 $19,959 1980 21,434 7.4% 1981 23,230 8.4 1982 24,027 3.4 1983 24,714 2.9 1984 26,416 6.9 The definition of median is the point where 50 percent of incomes are above and 50 percent of incomes are below. source: All figures are from median income estimates, 1984 in Population Notes 86-38, Office of State Demographer. QUESTION: Do you have any median income figures for any other category of tax filer? Minnesota 1983 1984 All filers $16,037 $16,933 Married couples 26,710 28,073 Married couples 65+ 13,837 14,644 All filers are all tax filers, married couples are filers with identified spouses filing joint combined or separate returns, and married cauples 65-r are filers with Source: 1980 Census, General Social identified spouses where one or both and Economic Characteristics, spouses are 65 years or older. 12.2% (Minnesota). 1983 estimates for General Social and Economic 136,750 Characteristics, Minnesota and Minneapolis/St. Paul Source: All figures above are SMSA, Current Population Survey, unpublished data frarn median income P-60. estimates, 1984, Office of State Demographer. QUESTION. What is the per capita QUESTION: What were the thresholds inoome for the state of Minnesota? for poverty levels in 1979 and 1985? Minnesota Year Per Capita Amount Rank Household size 1979 1985 1980 $ 9,765 18th 1 person $ 3,686 $ 5,250 1981 10,747 17th 2 persons 4,723 7,050 1982 11,249 19th 3 persons 5,787 8,850 1983 11,760 18th 4 persons 7,412 10,650 1984 13,212 12th 5 persons 8,776 12,450 1985 14,071 13th 6 persons 9,915 14,250 Source: 1985 Estimates, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. QUESTION: Hoer many people are belm,r the poverty level? Persons Below Poverty level In Minnesota in 1960 374,956 Poverty rate in 1980 9.5% Percent change in persons below poverty 1970-1980 -5.6% Poverty rate for persons 65 and older 14.8% Poverty rate for female householder 22.8% Poverty rate for persons under age 6 In Minnesota in 1983 Poverty rate in 1983 Minneapolis/St. Paul SMSA (1980) Poverty rate in 1980 Minneapolis/St. Paul SMSA (1983) Poverty rate in 1983 Families and unrelated individuals are classified as above or below the poverty level by comparing their total 1979 and 1985 incomes to an incarne cutoff or "poverty threshold". 1985 Poverty Threshholds March 8, 1985, Federal Register, p.p. 9517-8. QUESTION: How many people are in the labor force in Minnesota? Labor Force Percent Year in thousands Change 1970 1,537 1980 1,996 29.9% 1990 2,277 (proj.) 14.1 2000 2,482 (proj.) 9.0 The definition of labor force is 12.3% persons 16 and over working or looking for work. 494,000 12.2% Source: 1970 and 1980 Censuses, General Social and Economic 136,750 Characteristics, (Minnesota). 1990 and 2000 figures are fra, Minnesota Labor Force Prof ections 1980-2000, 6.8% Office of State Demographer, June 1984. 181,000 9.0% Minnesota Rankings (continued) Minnesota Minnesota U.S. Highest Lowest Item Rank Value Total Date State State Urban population 26 66.9% 73.78 1980 California Vermont Farm residents 2 315,000 5,618,000 1980 Iowa Alaska Farm residents (%) 5 7.78 2.58 1980 S. Dakota Rhode Island Births/1000 persons 20 15.8 15.5 1983 Utah Connecticut Deaths/1000 persons 32 8.0 8.5 1982 Florida Alaska Infant deaths/1000 births 45 9.5 11.5 1982 S. Carolina Maine Marriages/1000 persons 38 8.8 10.5 1983 Nevada Mass. Divorces/1000 persons 46 3.5 5.0 1983 Nevada Mass. Physicians per 100,000 persons 11 196 191 1982 Mass. Idaho Total Housing Units 19 1,612,960 88,411,263 1980 California Alaska 8 housing built before 1950 21 41.08 37.48 1980 New York Nevada Homeownership rate 5 71.78 64.48 1980 W. Virginia New York Median value of owner oocupied housing 14 $53,100 $47,200 1980 Hawaii Arkansas 8 high school graduates (persons 25+) 14 738 678 1980 Alaska Kentucky 8 college graduates (persons 25+) 17 178 168 1980 Colorado Arkansas Labor force participation 5 71.58 648 1983 Alaska W. Virginia Labor force with high Georgia & school diploma (%) 6 818 758 1980 Alaska S. Carolina Female labor force participation 3 62.78 53.68 1984 Alaska W. Virginia Employed in labor unions (8) 16 26.28 25.28 1980 New York S. Carolina 8 voting age population 1 68.58 53.38 1984 Minnesota S. Carolina casting votes for President Unemployment (8) 24 6.88 6.78 12/85 W. Virginia N. Hampshire Employed to total population (ratio) 3 67.28 59.58 1984 Colorado W. Virginia Median family income 13 $21,185 $19,917 1979 Alaska Mississippi Persons below poverty 45 9.58 12.48 1979 Mississippi Wyoming Children below poverty 47 10.28 16.08 1979 Mississippi Wyoming Per capita personal income 12 $13,219 $12,707 1984 Alaska Mississippi Number of farms 5 96,000 2,285,000 1985 Texas Alaska Lanai in farms (acres) 15 30,000,000 1,016,000,000 1985 Texas Rhode Island Average farm size (acres) 23 313 445 1985 Arizona Rhode Island Gross farm income (mil. $) 6 $7,365 $166,200 1984 California Alaska Retail sales (bil $) 19 $19.1 $1,039.0 1982 California Vermont Change in retail sales 1977-1982 31 45.38 49.18 1982 Florida Michigan —community improvement Reminder �9 IO I have noticed a problem with: !l Resident has noticed a problem with: •-4 l ��� t 6 ')reet/Potholes ush/Weeds/Trees Drainage Traffic ar ing Violation Traffic/Street Sign/Signal- Dead Animals in street Sign Other Description Location s Waterm Fillin Dunk xc� Garbag e Erosion arty treets Broken/D aided f- -q-u' t_ Streetligh Resident's Name Phone Address ,\,D one cc: Dames G. Willis, City Manager S/F - 7/2/86 2:- (o GL. N 55447 -Ir Card submitted by bench near Schmidt 6 I provide me with a ponse by Wednesday, .on Memorandum. 86-21 86-27 CITY OF PLYMOU'. - . 3400 PLYMOUTHBONE LVD(2PLYMOUTH, 9-28 00NESOTA 55447 TE MEMO DATE: June 27, 1986 TO: Eric Blank, Director of Park and Recreation FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD Attached is a copy of a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Bob Zitur regarding the board missing from a park bench near Schmidt Lake. Would you please investigate this matter and provide me with a report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by Wednesday, July 2 so it may be included in the Council Information Memorandum. Thank you. FB:dma attach. cc: James G. Willis, City Manager S/F - 7/2/86 =-4,C, Community Improvement Reminder 3~1 • • I have noticed a problem with: ��pwt�► ��.��•t..� Resident has noticed a problem ,..� Street/Potholes q, Brush/Weeds/Treesam n ant__ ;°1_"`'�,�,� Drainage in _ Traffic arking Violation a ebr —_ Traffic/Street Sign/Signa �� Dead Animals in street gsio�/Dirty) t.,�'reets Sign f. 6cen/Damaged Equipment ,S[he_etI t`1,/ Other F,tiWt-�- SQ�IS Description Locant onSG�IrM.+•• r S ALI 1 S Your name 'Ml�.�:. Date (, Z Resident's Name Address Phone CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE June 27, 1986 , TO: Mel Solberg, Lieutenant FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD Attached is a copy of a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Maria Vasiliou regarding flower sales being conducted illegally at Highway 101 and County Road 24. Would you please investigate this matter and provide me with a report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by Wednesday, July 2 so it may be included in the Council Information Memorandum. Thank you. FB:dma attach. cc: James G. Willis, City Manager S/F - 7/2/86 r- bad --.0mmunity Improvement Re i"ems I have noticed a problem with: Resident has noticed a problem wiTtei 'greet/Potholes lush/Weeds/Trees Drainage Traffic arking Violation Traffic/Street Sign/Signal-- Dead Animals in street Sign Other Description � ; Location Your name Watermain/Hvdrant' Filling/Excavating Junk Cars Garbage/Debr s Erosion/Dirty Meets Broken/Damaged Equipment Streetlight Date i Resident's Name S r,•y� ��-ny,�, Address ���d ` Phone TS3- 6 ; 86-25 CITY OF PLYMOU C- 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 Zej DATE: June 20, 1986 TO: Dick Carlqufst, Director of Public Saf y FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manage'* SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD Attached is a copy of a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Dave Crain on behalf of Sharyn Crone, 3600 Forestview Lane regarding cars parked on the street at 36th Avenue and Forestview Lane for access to French Regional Park during the day and evening. Would you please Investigate this matter and provide me with a report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by June 30. Thank you. FB:dma 1 attach. cc: James C. Willis, City Manager S/F - 6/30/86 z (0 e-, Community Improvement er �5 I have noticed a problem with: o; RV� Resident has noticed a problem wig �' . wN` 4 . �t•,Fr�. Street/Potholes Brush/Weeds/Trees Drainage Traffic arking Violation Traffic/Street Sign/SignaT— Dead Animals in street Sign Other Watermain/lyrant Filling/Excavating Dunk Cars Garbage/Debris Erosion/Dirty Ttreetsy,"_ Broken/Damaged Equipment Streetlight Description Location \pp � p So .,,�,iLn �� \Oq I t Your nameN� Date LP .-_r7/FLp Resident's Name Address Phone CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: June 27, 1986 TO: Fred Moore, Public Works Director FROM: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT REMINDER CARD Attached is a copy of a Community Improvement Reminder Card submitted by Virgil Schneider regarding dirt in the street and curb southwest of 10915 - 47th Place between homes at 4780 Yorktown Lane. Would you please investigate this matter and provide me with a report of your findings. I would appreciate a response by Wednesday, July 2 so it may be included in the Council Information Memorandum. Thank you. FB:dma attach. cc: James G. Willis, City Manager S/F - 7/2/86 Franit Too- S4.ec"t% t..lkt w,t'k S a V l .feJ.l 1-1,t J2'tlsf�f., ph f.IY 7..,J. H4- tvo.3 +Q'IJ tti.t St,, -a.+ ✓1ttalecl C.If b.tiJ 6¢ oma. 5t,%Y 1{ti, . ' L--, e- w:II ►"&i4c a.— ►^STeei:c-. c^ mo--A-y awC, j+1-% .a nit 6ec.+ cIc4t.44 t6.t c,+Y ,,ij Y,%4vl tL.t. wp.l< Clone. Sa , Sej.I, St -tad 1v fokr �%C w•.1d ,o t6t GII I--- —Irl's 7-3-86 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: June 10, 1986 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager FROM: Virgil Schneider, Mayor SUBJECT STORM WATER DRAINAGE - 56th Avenue North I received a call from Tom Brothen, 5565 Rosewood Lane, 553-9581, regarding a concern on storm water drainage in the Bass Lake Heights Addition. He reports that the storm water comes down the south side of 56th Avenue North (this is the down side of the road) and does not get caught by the catch basin because the basins are on the north side of 56th Avenue. Thereafter the storm water goes into the Rosewood cul-de-sac. The storm drain in the Rosewood cul-de-sac does not have sufficient capacity to drain. It seems like another storm drain is needed on the south side of 56th Avenue to catch some of this water. A further complaint is that part of this water is erosion material. Mr. Brothen has contacted our Engineering Department on at least two occasions and has yet to receive a response. VS:jm Jyn• t TY 86.3: OF pLYMOUT FROM:ahl.}.+'� 3400 P MOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOT REFERRED T0: 'F�14� TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 S/F: lo�s�%/��o ,MEMO DATE: -�a-- June 11, 1986 F Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works LC. 70: Sherman L. Goldberg, City Engineer FROM: , F Storm Drainage Problem / SUBJECT 56th Avenue North The complaint of Mr. Broughton at 5565 Rosewood Lane was first brought to tuy attention last week. I have since chatted with Paul Pearson and we are going to inspect the situation as soon as it rains, as this seems to be the best time to see exactly what is taking place. If, in fact, what Mr. Broughton says is the developer install one or two more catchbasins at true, we will have to have the appropriate places. Hopefully it will be raining hard enough in the next few days for us to inspect the situation. i:kh S11ti.... C..IIa.1, Mi. Tb re v,hle•. 4ai►r 4e *,,1 1%i" _a- —III%— 4.�:t:I' -ra. 1- re..rl reca:�.i �'.t 1 e., 11 P�e•�C Ce 11 ;Ie�+ Mr. 13 ra.1 h+ n {&—i ...L %smart. Qe.� Cs-.pbatl 6 taC61� OF OM J V1` 3rd • Na ��IJ {�:.n �L �.O� I Z s•►944*:C-11 1,%; bwcK. 1t 4.3 net fa.:.�i $:"aL ih♦ P�sewa Ce, 11 7vftL 11t 191C w A -k c o june 27,86 son he has I met with Dick Knutcatchebasin on the veloper of asouth ss kside loftd56th west agreed to install a of 56th ave. This should colle lleviateCt tthe he mproblem in the Rosewoodif the water oLane in the south gutter �j cul -da -sac. I� DD/, /I�/// CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE: June 30, 1986 TO: W rector Carlquist FROM: 0• Paulson SUBJECT Selective Traffic Enforcement (86-9) 38th Avenue at Pilgrim Lane School (30 MPH Zone) Four stationary radar assignments have been completed in response to the speeding complaint in this area. The assignments were made on two different days and the results are as follows: MPH 20/1-ess 20/25 26/30 31/35 36/40 41/45 46/50 06/ 23/86 -0700-0900 Cars/Misc. 02 08 21 06 Trucks/Buses Totals Cars/Misc. 01 02 01 06/23/86 -1500-1700 41 02 321 Trucks/Buses ars isc. 03 12 16 12 01 Trucks/Buses 01 03 07 02 06/24/86 -0700-0900 Cars/Misc. 06 28 39 09 Trucks/Buses 06/24/86 -1500-1700 Cars/Misc. 01 38 104 14 01 Trucks/Buses Summary: 20/Less 20/25 26/30 31/35 36/40 41/45 46/50 Totals Cars/Misc. 12 86 180 41 02 321 Trucks/Buses 01 03 08 04 01 17 20/Less 20/25 26/30 31/35 36/40 41/45 46/50 .04% .26% .56% .13% .01% Time Expenditure (Hours): 08 Tags Issued: 03 Verbal Warnings: 02 • JGid G 1906 NT t'< .` � fit I rrn a awi 900"'d MOSA i�YJ �d 9861 0 OE19 MR '0 ,p moz 109 woprp—OY'OOT d afto-H wwqmI a --Y l�4/l 114 �-7BSCB1