Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 06-10-2003 SpecialAgenda City of Plymouth Special City Council Meeting Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:30 p.m. Public Safety Training Room 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss Ives/Jonquil drainage issue 3. Schedule future study session topics 4. Adj ourn Agenda Number: DATE: June 2, 2003 for the Special City Council Meeting of June 10, 2003 TO: wight D. Johnson, City Manager through Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E., Director of Public Works FROM: John M. Hagen, P.E., Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL/NES DRAINAGE SWALE CITY PROJECT NO. 1044 BACKGROUND: The Jonquil/Ives drainage swale is located north of Schmidt Lake Road, south of the Canadian Pacific railroad tracks, between Jonquil and Ives Lanes (see attached project location map). The drainage ditch at Jonquil/Ives Lanes was in need of a properly built drainage way for many years. Last summer, a project was done by the City which restored proper drainage through the swale. A few of the homeowners were concerned about the steepened side slopes of the swale after it was completed, and asked to bring back discussion of installing a pipe through the swale. As a result, a Special Council meeting was held on October 8, 2002, with the residents living adjacent to the swale and City Engineering staff. At the conclusion of that meeting the Council directed the City Engineering staff to further explore possible options for the swale. The attached memo, which was mailed to the residents on May 21, 2003, explains the history and discusses possible options for the Jonquil/Ives drainage swale. CONCLUSIONS: As stated in the attached memo, the City Engineering staff recommends the following: Staff feels the existing swale adequately transfers the drainage to the pond. However, new subdivisions or developments in the City are typically required to build side slopes of 3:1 or flatter or plant an approved ground cover that doesn't need regular maintenance. Although discouraged, 2:1 side slopes have been constructed by other projects. The preconstruction condition of the Jonquil/Ives swale included areas where near vertical conditions existed (where the timber wall failed) and limited space to construct the new swale at a 3:1 side slope. 0AEngineeringTROJECTS\2000 - 2009\1044\Memos\2ndSpecialCouncilMtgMemor.doc SUBJECT: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL/IVES DRAINAGE SWALE CITY PROJECT NO. 1044 Page 2 At this time the City has spent $66,607 to construct the swale and has not offered to pay for additional work on the swale. In the past the property owners have opposed paying for any work. Potential compromises include the City building and paying the entire cost of any of the four options or choosing an option the City is willing to pay for. If the property owners desire a more expensive option, they could pay the cost difference between options to have a more expensive option built. For example the City may decide to pay for the retaining wall option to establish 3:1 side slopes at an estimated cost of $34,000. If the residents want the pipe option, they could agree to pay the difference between it and the retaining wall option of $30,000 ($64,000-$34,000=$30,000). Before we would proceed with the work all the homeowners would need to agree to the assessments and waive their right to an assessment public hearing. J M. Hagen, P.E. Assistant City Engineer attachments: Project Location Map Memo 0:\Engineering\PR0JECTS\2000 - 2009\1044\Memos\2ndSpecialCouncilMtgMemor.doc L PROJECT AREA l Z -Y ry LLJ J U Q J J\ Q J SCHMIDT PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 DATE: May 7, 2003 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager through Dan Faulkner, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL / IVES DRAINAGE WAY CITY PROJECT NO. 1044 BACKGROUND: The drainage swale running through the backyards of approximately 10 houses between Jonquil Lane and Ives Lane north of Schmidt Lake Road has not been functioning properly for many years. Figure 1 provides a project location map. The drainage way was originally graded with the development that created the lots on both sides. On the north side of Schmidt Lake Road where the storm sewer ends and the swale starts, the storm sewer apron was found to be buried by over 3 feet of sediment. In addition, piles of debris placed into the swale over the years along with sediment had blocked natural drainage path forcing the water to meander, finding the easiest path to the pond approximately 400 feet to the north. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, Inc. (BRA), the City's consultant, prepared a concept plan and preliminary engineering report on drainage improvements in the area in 1990. The concept plan would have constructed a ponding area just north of the existing 27 inch pipe outlet (north of Schmidt Lake Road), a 12 inch pipe to discharge the ponding area and handle smaller rain events, and an overflow drainage Swale to handle the larger rain events. This preliminary engineering report is attached to this memorandum. If this project had proceeded, the installation of the pipe was proposed to be assessed. In 1994, concern about the swale's capacity came to the City's attention due to a planter constructed in the drainage way. BRA analyzed the swale capacity and recommended that the planter be removed. A letter was sent to the homeowner directing that the planter be removed. The analysis and letter are attached to this memorandum. In 2000, wooden retaining walls near the pond collapsed, blocking flow. A neighbor on the Jonquil (west) side reported flooding in the basement and City personnel removed the Pw/engineering/projects/2000-2009/1044/memos/ Pipe&WallOptionsMemo.doc SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL / IVES DRAINAGE WAY PAGE 2 blockage. At a meeting in January 2001 between City staff and residents options to reestablish the swale or install a pipe were discussed. The pipe installation would have been assessed. The residents were not in favor of the pipe due to the cost to them. In addition it was indicated that the swale would require some areas of 2:1 side slopes. The City has been looking at options for this drainage way for several years and last summer a project to reestablish a swale was completed. City staff met with the residents several times individually and in groups to explain the options for the work. The two options discussed last year were: 1. Install a pipe and carry the water from the storm sewer to the pond with an overflow swale to carry water from yards and provide an overflow route. 2. Re -align and excavate the existing channel, exposing the buried apron and creating an open channel swale with 2:1 side slopes. The first option of installing a pipe required an assessment from the adjacent homeowners. It was originally stated that the residents would pay the difference between the cost of installing a swale and the cost of installing pipe. This difference was estimated at between $20,000 and $30,000. The residents were opposed to this option. The second option was then chosen and more meetings in the field were set up where City staff showed residents what the limits of the new swale would be in their yards and the impacts of the project. The reason for the 2:1 side slopes of the second option was to keep the project limits inside the existing drainage easement and minimize the impact of the swale on the adjacent backyards. As a result, two complete backyards, 5125 Ives and 5135 Ives, and two partial backyards, 5115 Ives and 5130 Jonquil, where the houses sit up high, were constructed steeper then 3:1 slopes in the drainage easement area. No areas are steeper then 2:1. The side slopes steeper then 3:1 extend for approximately 225 of the 400 feet along the east side and approximately 75 of the 400 feet along the west side. After the construction of the swale was completed this past Fall, some of the residents expressed concern about the swale and requested reconsideration of the pipe option. Figure 2 shows the areas with slopes steeper than 3:1. Recently the City received a petition signed by 9 of 10 homeowners adjacent to the drainage swale. The petition asked the City to use the approximately $3.00 per month, that each home is charged every month to pay for surface water management, to construct the pipe option. The actual amount charged every month is $3.25 per household, which means $390.00 is generated annually from the 10 households adjacent to the drainage way. That fee is used to pay for cleaning up Plymouth's lakes, monitoring lake quality, improving ponds and drainage ways, conducting lake water quality studies, and educating the public about surface water quality. The Jonquil / Ives drainage swale constructed last year was paid for out of this fund. SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL / IVES DRAINAGE WAY PAGE 3 A Council study session was held on October 8, 2002 with the adjacent homeowners which resulted in ordering the Engineering Department to develop a more detailed pipe option, a retaining wall option for those areas which currently have side slopes steeper then 3:1, and a landscaping or fence option also for those areas with side slopes steeper then 3:1. These four options were further explored with cost estimates and are explained in greater detail in the following sections. In addition, the options of diverting the water before it exits the 27" apron, and using a pipe as an overflow were brought up. These two additional options were considered, but dismissed after initial investigation. The option that would divert water from the existing 27 inch pipe that currently flows into the Jonquil/Ives drainage way to other storm sewer systems was determined to be not be feasible due to the extremely high costs associated with the placement of new pipe within existing built up areas. The overflow pipe option was dismissed since the likelihood of an overflow pipe becoming blocked or plugged is much greater than that of an open swale. This would ultimately increase the risk of flooding adjacent residential property. PIPE OPTION: A 27 inch round reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) currently empties into the swale. To continue this pipe for another 400 feet to the pond would require 3 manholes installed in the system. To accommodate storm water runoff from the yards and large storm events which the pipe could not handle, an overflow swale would still have to be constructed. This swale would be at a higher elevation than the current swale is, but still give the lowest house, 5120 Jonquil, 3 feet of vertical clearance from the bottom of the swale to the basement floor or 1.5 feet above the estimated 100 year frequency flow in the swale. The side slopes of the new swale would be 3:1. This option would require the City to obtain additional drainage easements from two residents as it would impact an area outside of the current drainage easement. In addition, approximately 14 more trees would be removed in the new construction limits in order to install the pipe and build the new swale. This option requires splitting the alignment of the overflow swale and the pipe at station 22+25 and moving the swale alignment to the west instead of following the property lines as it was built last summer. This is where the additional easement is required, 5120 and 5130 Jonquil Lane. Figure 3 shows the pipe construction limits and the swale construction limits. Two cross sections have also been attached to this memorandum showing the existing swale, temporary and permanent impacts of pipe option, and drainage and utility easement. Installing multiple pipes with smaller diameters was also looked at as a possible solution to stay within the necessary vertical clearance between the bottom of the swale and the corner of 5120 Jonquil. The problem is that in order to equal the cross sectional area of a 27 inch round pipe, it takes either 2-21 inch, 3-18 inch, 4-15 inch, or 6-12 inch round pipes. Two big problems are associated with this. The first is cost. It would double or triple the entire cost of the pipe, especially with the need for larger structures to accommodate these pipes. The second is the impact to homeowners when installing multiple pipes. The construction limits would quickly extend well outside the drainage easement limits and even encroach up to the homes. RETAINING WALL OPTION: The second option is to remove the newly created side slopes steeper than 3:1 by installing retaining walls along the slopes. All 2:1 side slopes SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL / IVES DRAINAGE WAY PAGE 4 would be transformed into 3:1 slopes, and retaining walls varying from 3-5 feet in height would be constructed to make up the vertical difference. Any wall greater than 4 feet in height would require a split -rail fence to be installed at the top or constructed in two tiers, each with a height below 4 feet. The locations of these walls would be approximately the northernmost 225 feet on the east side and 75 feet on the west side. Future maintenance of the walls would be the responsibility of the property owners. Figure 4 shows the approximate locations of the proposed retaining walls. Estimated costs for this option including fence costs can be seen in the following section. LANDSCAPING OR FENCE OPTION: The third option to address the safety issue of the slopes is to install a fence or plant shrubs along the top of the slope as a boundary between the backyards and the 2:1 slope to discourage people from going past the top of the slope. The northernmost 225 feet along the east side and 75 feet along the west side would be candidates for this type of barrier. Approximately 38 shrubs at 8 feet on -center would be required along the top of the 2:1 slope or 300 feet of fencing could be installed. COSTS: The City has spent $66,607 to date on the newly constructed swale. If the pipe option were to be constructed, it would cost another $64,600. A comparison of the original costs and the costs of the different options is displayed on the following table. These estimated costs include an approximate cost for additional easement necessary for the pipe option. The information presented in the memo is based on the original construction plans. A topographic survey is necessary to more accurately identify impacts to individual properties and prepare a final design for construction. The cost to complete a topographic survey of the entire swale is included in the cost estimates for the project. Cost Comparison of Jonquil / Ives Drainage Way Options CONCLUSIONS: Staff feels the existing swale adequately transfers the drainage to the pond. However, new subdivisions or developments in the City are typically required to build side slopes of 3:1 or flatter or plant an approved ground cover that doesn't need regular maintenance. Although discouraged, 2:1 side slopes have been constructed by other projects. The preconstruction condition of the Jonquil/Ives swale included areas where near vertical conditions existed (where the timber wall failed) and limited space to construct the new swale at a 3:1 side slope. In -Place Pipe Retaining Fence Shrubs/ Swale (Costs Option Wall Option Option Plantings to Date) Option Construction Costs 51,236 47,500 26,600 6,300 1,600 Total Project Costs 66,607 64,600 34,600 8,200 2,000 CONCLUSIONS: Staff feels the existing swale adequately transfers the drainage to the pond. However, new subdivisions or developments in the City are typically required to build side slopes of 3:1 or flatter or plant an approved ground cover that doesn't need regular maintenance. Although discouraged, 2:1 side slopes have been constructed by other projects. The preconstruction condition of the Jonquil/Ives swale included areas where near vertical conditions existed (where the timber wall failed) and limited space to construct the new swale at a 3:1 side slope. SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR JONQUIL / IVES DRAINAGE WAY PAGE 5 At this time the City has spent $66,607 to construct the swale and has not offered to pay for additional work on the swale. In the past the property owners have opposed paying for any work. Potential compromises include the City building and paying the entire cost of any of the four options or choosing an option the City is willing to pay for. If the property owners desire a more expensive option, they could pay the cost difference between options to have a more expensive option built. For example the City may decide to pay for the retaining wall option to establish 3:1 side slopes at an estimated cost of 34,000. If the residents want the pipe option, they could agree to pay the difference between it and the retaining wall option of $30,000 ($64,000-$34,000=$30,000). Before we would proceed with the work all the homeowners would need to agree to the assessments and waive their right to an assessment public hearing. Attachments: Project Location Map (Figure 1) 1990 BRA Concept Plan 1994 BRA Report 1995 Letter to the Kalins Existing Slopes Steeper Than 3:1 (Figure 2) Petition Pipe Option Map (Figure 3) Cross Sections Retaining Wall Option Map (Figure 4) SCHMIDT PROJECT LO CATI 0 N MAP FIGURE 1 I Crc 3c r __ r _ rr ,r ' a... e 2 arC_ o. c1BonestrooJosacn +rLe.k PE rnald C 8 rrarrt PE. bla t -<c s °. E tdes 9 rsen. Pit Rosene r 3 , r7rr I 2C a. - lr 113.1k a -Ill. Lr. d "3U s. =_ g 1 .,^',7r Jar-es ;Iscr?;,. ed X.. Id E. var;; + ,rrfcrd 'E r 1 7,rj Anderlik & Glerr :Ock °E` MtOael 7 Rautmarn. PE Dart! j __gertcn. ?E erry D _r2.-sc i p° r^cmas E `+cyes. PE. Rccert 7 "effP,' PE. b1 r< e PE. Io ue, PE wAssociatesReeertfAss 7 ScLrncrt. 3E David O. oskcca PE e :. C s.vell PE C are ° _nCac 7 .7 •7 SLSar. 1.1 _,`e.Iin. CRA. hcmai IN. cer;on. PE ae' Va .rez. PE to M ive.sky licrae' C. L/rr 1, PE Vark ,_i ''.C3!J!S, PE. arlar `A O'scr Engineers &t Architects June 20, 1990 City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Attn: Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner Re: Palmer Creek Estates Drainage File No. 70 General Dear Dan: Pursuant to your request, we have completed our preliminary investigation of storm sewer improvements in the Palmer Creek Estates area. Transmitted herewith are the results of our investigation. The preliminary findings presented in this letter are based on information received from or reviewed with City Staff, including field survey data. The proposed storm sewer improvements are shown in Figure No. 1. The improvements consist of 12 -inch PVC pipe, a drainage swale, and a small ponding area. A preliminary plan and profile of the storm sewer system is attached. The storm sewer system is located north of Schmidt Lake Road and east of Larch Lane, in Drainage Area SC -30. This system collects the stormwater runoff from a small drainage area encompassing portions of Hemlock Lane, Ivas Lane, Goldenrod Lane, Schmidt Lake Road, and 50th Avenue North. The system begins at the outlet of an existing 27 -inch RCP storm sewer. A ponding area approximately 100 feet in length will be excavated to receive stormwater runoff from the 27 _4 sewer. This ponding area gill then discharge into the 12 -inch PVC pipe, with the excess flow being conveyed overland in the drainage swale. The PVC pipe and drainage swale will discharge into an existing ditch which will carry the runoff north and eventually to Bass Lake. 1214 West Venture Court 9 Mequon, WI 53092 9 414-241-4466 City of Plymouth Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner June 20, 1990 The total estimated cost for the proposed storm sewer improvements is $9,572. The estimate includes construction; contingencies; design, inspection, and administration; and capitalized interest during construction. It does not include right-of-way acquisition, easement acquisition, or utility relocation costs. Based on the information received from the City Staff, it does not appear that any easement acquisition will be required. An itemized cost estimate is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments concerning the findings of this investigation. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. DLE:lk Attachment STORM SEWER Clear & grub 12" PVC 12" CMP flared end Pond excavation Random riprap, Cl. IV Granular filter material Geotestile fabric, Type III Silt control fence, Plate DWG -5 Seed w/topsoil & mulch Sod w/topsoil STORM SEWER COST ESTIMATE UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL COST LS 500.00 1 500.00 LF 15.00 250 3,750.00 EA 75.00 2 150.00 CY 6.00 180 1,080.00 CY 40.00 4 160.00 CY 25.00 2 50.00 SY 3.00 40 120.00 LF 3.00 50 150.00 AC 3,000.00 0.25 750.00 SY 3.00 280 840.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION 7,550.00 5Z Contingencies 377.50 7,927.50 15Z Design, Inspect., Admin. 1,189.13 9,116.63 5Z Capitalized Interest 455.83 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 9,572.46 S00 PROPOSED 12" VC AND SWALE m °C w G x a N P OPOSE 2 ONDING A E O XISTING 7" RCP . p O Y d: J W OO O 50TH AVENUE NORTH o N SCALE: 1" = 200' PALMER CREEK ESTATES STORM SEWER PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA t3oneatroo lnpinoorm i Archileels Aoaene O Anderllk 6 Associates at. Pout uin....ot. Fig. No. 1Date: 6/20/90 Comm. 70 MEMORANDUM To Dan Edgerton From : Mustafa Z. Emir Re Palmer Creek Estates Date : September 8, 1994 Bonestroo 0 ,. sene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects St. Paul, Minnesota I have conducted a HiH analysis of the situation at the above referenced site. I looked at three cases: without planters, with the existing planter, with two planters facing each other. The planters were 8 ft apart and 1 ft. high. In all cases, I used the limited cross sectional data provided from your previous work. I calibrated the model by using the 5 year flow and then concentrated on the 100 year flow, which was 79 cfs. My results show the following: Without the planters, the estimated depth of flow in this swale is 1.1 ft, with a top width of approximately 30 ft. There were no back -water effects observed anywhere. With one planter, the effects of the channel constriction were apparent and a back- water effect was observed upstream of the planter. The depth of the water upstream of the single planter is calculated to be 1.4 ft., with an estimated top width of 35-40 ft. With two planters, the flow restriction will cause relatively severe back -water effects, reaching depths of 2.3 ft upstream of the planters, and a depth of 1.2 ft through the planters. This means that during the 100 year storm, the planters would be completely under water, and the depth of flow upstream would be almost double the case without the planters, and almost 60% higher than the existing one planter case* In conclusion, I would recommend that the construction of this second planter should be strongly opposed, unless the above mentioned consequences are acceptable to the City and the property owners upstream from the planter builders. February 17, 1995 cryY C PLYMOUTF+ Bradley and Virginia Kalin 5115 Ives Lane No. Plymouth, MN 55442 SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF WOOD PLANTER Dear Mr. and Ms. Kalin: As you may recall, some time ago last summer we discussed the need to remove or modify a recently installed wood planter in your back yard. The City became concerned about this regarding drainage issues when it was noted that the planter encroaches into a drainage easement area. Specifically, we are concerned about potential property damage during intense rainfall events. During our review of the situation, the City employed a private consulting engineering firm to perform computer modeling to identify whether or not the planter poses a drainage problem. On the basis of their information, a six inch rainfall event in a twenty-four hour period will equal a river of storm water approximately 30 feet wide and 1.1 feet deep. This river of water was calculated prior to the installation of the wood planter. With the planter factored into the calculations, the width of the river becomes five to ten feet wider and several inches deeper upstream. Since this may cause potential drainage related property damage to adjacent homeowners, the City must require the removal of the existing planter. The minimum allowable distance frotp the rear property line to the edge of the planter must be at least 15 feet. Please have this work completed prior to spring rains to prevent any potential drainage problems. Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me at 550-5079 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Darrell Johnson Sr. Engineering Technician - Drainage cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer We Listen • We Solve • We Care 34CO PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544 • TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 5130 JONQUIL / EX. AREA STEEPER Duk 5110 JONQUIL THAN 3:1 SLOPE 5120 JONQUIL 2 m p0\ / 5Q PROPOSED WALLS 5070 JONQUIL EXISTING \ s°) DRAINAGE & UTILITY F i ' EASEMENTS 5135 IVES 5145 IVES O / V EX. AREA STEEPER THAN 3:1 SLOPE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION LIMITS s 5125 IVES W 5115 IVES 30 0 30 scale feet JONQUIL/ IVES 51 os IVES EX. SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 FIGURE 2 101ZI6 i QA CITIZEN PETITION 9 Proposina the city of Piynwuth proceIM! 1 wits the 2T i pipe option as the long term solution to the Ives lane and Jonquil [ane drainage and safety issues. Due to: the.fact that we as Plymouth city residents currently pay over 3.00 per month for surface water management we feel MIS reasonable. to ask the city to use these fees to pay for tete protect we also feet justified In asking this R because the cost to the city for future maintenance on +a at this channel would be eliminated. This petMon is supported by the follow ft contiguous affected neighbors, with one signature per household. Name- (printed) Signature Address 2 rJ.+q'R i qAq@CNN c uy S 3s vis C six sa -?.a 5130 JONQUIL 5110 JONQUIL ADDITIONAL EASEMENT REQUIREDX p c ' ik 4ig 5120 JONQUIL / P = = 5070 JONQUIL \ \ .,( / } `SWALE ALIGNMENT PIPE ALIGNMENT PIPE ALIGNMENT J_ ;1 1J CONSTRUCTION \ \ LIMITS 5135 IVES 5145 IVES SWALE ALIGNMENT /' y1 ' " — 6) EXISTING CONSTRUCTION — CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ' / — Q LIMITS 5125 IVES x' 5115 IVES EXISTING ©\ u DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS 30 0 30 MANHOLE TYP)scale feet JONQUIL/ IVES 5105 IVES PIPE OPTION FIGURE 932 928 924 920 916 912 908 904 900 896 40 2 932 8 928 924 920 916 912 908 904 000 J 806 3 40 MI 9J2 928 924 920 916 912 908 904 900 896 932 928 924 920 16912910/,- 912 908 904 9 0 0 890 5130 JONQUIL / kpp 5110 JONQUIL / Z 5120 JONQUIL ° { 1JX r \ PROPOSED WALLS w 5070 JONQUIL X :; EXISTING DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS 32k / i I 5135 IVES 5145IVES 1 A- PROPOSED FENCE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ryOk / 5125 IVES 5115 IVES 30 0 30 stole feet i i 5105 IVES JONQUIL/ IVES RETAINING WALL OPTION FIGURE 4 Agenda Number: -S TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions DATE: May 30, 2003, for City Council study session of June 10, 2003 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and, if desired, establish future special meetings or amend the topics list. 2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars to assist in scheduling. Roger Scherer, who represents the Plymouth area on the Metropolitan Council, has indicated an interest in meeting briefly with the City Council at an upcoming meeting. One possible time is at 5:30 p.m. on June 24. The City Council has already scheduled a study session to review the Audited Financial Statements at 6 p.m. on this date, and the special meeting time could be moved to 5:30 in order to add this topic item. Pending Study Session Topics at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list) Pond and Drainage Issues (late summer) Speed tubes used for speed studies Council Tour of Hennepin County Workhouse Other requests for study session topics: Recycling Program — future program initiatives (requested by EQC; after legislative session) Request of Metropolitan Councilmember Roger Scherer to address the Council (suggested 5:30 p.m. on June 24) OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS June 2003 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8:00 AM TOUR OF ZACHARY WATER TREATMENT 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Council Chambers PLANT, 4425 Zachary Lane 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7:30 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING:DISCUSS IVESIJONOUIL LANE DRAINAGE ISSUES, Public Safety Training Room 7:00 PM EVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE EQC), Plymouth Creek Center 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION PRAC), Council Chambers Flag Day 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: DISCUSS BASSETT CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION; CO. RD. 73 8 POSSIBLE TRANSIT GRANT,7:00 Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 6:00 PM -6:30 PM FIRE DEPARTMENT FAMILY NIGHT, Fire Station III, 3300 Dunkirk Lane PM HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Medicine Lake Room LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, St. Cloud Civic Center 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7:30 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 6:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: DISCUSS 2002 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Public Safety Training Room 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - 9:15 AM MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH 5k RUN Medicine Lake 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers Room 29 30 Jul 2003May2003 2:00 PM 4:00 PM MILLENNIUM GARDEN RIBBON -CUTTING CEREMONY, Plymouth Creek Center S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 31 modified on 5/30/2003 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS AN 2003 Sunday I Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 5:15 PM MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH, Hilde Performance 3 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Council Chambers 4 INDEPENDENCE DAY - City Offices Closed S Jun 2003 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Center 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7:30 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM EVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE Plymouth Crreekeek Center 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION C , CouncilFRA Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7:00 PM HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Medicine Lake Room 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7:30 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 1145 AM BUSINESSOUNCiL. BORN ConhrenceRoom. 301 Carlson Park -y, 4th Moor 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Couneil Chambers 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - Medicine Lake Room 27 28 29 30 31 Aug 2003 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 modified on 5/30/2003 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS Jul 2003 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 August 2003 Sep 2003 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 12 3 4 7:30 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 5 5:30 PM NATIONAL NIGHT OUT 6 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Council Chambers 8 9 10 11 12 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 13 7:00 PM EVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE EQC), Plymouth Creek Center 14 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION PRAC), Council Chambers 15 16 17 18 7:30 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 19 20 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 21 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Medicine Lake Room 22 23 24 25 26 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 27 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - Medicine Lake Room 28 29 30 31 modified on 5/30/2003