HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 06-16-2003 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Monday, June 16, 2003
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. County Road 73 Area and Possible Transit Grant
3. Bassett Creek Water Management Organization
4. Schedule future study session topics
5. Update with City Manager
6. Adj ourn
Agenda Number: a
DATE: June 6, 2003 for the Special City Council Meeting of June 16, 2003
TO:/Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager through
6 Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E., Director of Public Works
FROM: Pat J. Qvale, Public Services Manager
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 55/COUNTY ROAD 73 PARK AND RIDE
BACKGROUND: Plymouth Metrolink recently completed the 2002 Public Facilities Study.
This study documented the need for additional park and ride capacity and designated the Highway
55/County Road 73 intersection as a priority site for a Park and Ride facility. The Public Facilities
Study was completed by LSA Design of Minneapolis.
Over the past 13 years, LSA Design has specialized in planning and architectural services in the
areas of transit facilities and parking. They have focused their efforts on transit and governmental
agencies that seek to build more effective and efficient transit systems, reduce congestion and
enhance the image of mass transit. LSA Design has significant experience in developing transit
facilities ranging in size from $8,000 individual bus shelters up to $15 million transit stations and
parking structures.
DISCUSSION: The proposed City of Plymouth project is to build a transit Park and Ride facility
near th-e intersection of Highway 55/County Road 73. The City of Plymouth has an existing Park
and Ride in the Southeast corner. The facility is located within MnDOT right-of-way and has 65
parking spaces. We are proposing a multi-level parking structure to accommodate 300 to 500
parking spaces with a cost range from $5 to $8 million.
The City of Plymouth Engineering, Planning and Transit staff have met with LSA Design to
discuss the pros and cons of the County Road 73 southeast comer (existing site) and the County
Road 73 southwest corner (vacant parcel). Engineering staff believes this project will have no
impact on the proposed County Road 73 alignment, but some realignment of the frontage road
may be necessary. Based on an initial analysis, staff feels the southwest parcel (vacant parcel)
offers the greatest opportunity for a successful Park and Ride facility due primarily to the potential
for future mixed use development which can support and attract transit riders. Alternatively, the
existing Park and Ride site could be significantly improved to meet additional transit demand, but
the site may be too small for any ancillary uses. Discussions have started with MNDOT to partner
O:\Enginccring\TRANSIPRESOL\2003\CC Mcmo re Specia[Session CR73 P&R_061603.d«
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 55/COUNTY ROAD 73 PARK AND RIDE
Page 2
in the project. In addition, this project is on the regional Team Transit project list, which
recognizes the project as a regional transit asset.
A site recommendation and a preliminary design is required prior to proceeding with the federal
funding Transportation Equity Act for the
215` Century/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (TEA-
21/CMAQ) request. The 2003 solicitation for federal funding TEA-21/CMAQ application is due
to Metropolitan Council in September 2003. These funds will be available for the 2007 — 2008
construction year. The last two solicitation processes were in 1999 for 2001 — 2004 construction
and 2002 for 2005 — 2006 construction.
LSA Design has enclosed their Scope of Work and Fee Proposal for the Planning and Design of
the Transit Station Project and the TEA-21/CMAQ grant preparation.
BUDGET IMPACT: The estimated total multiple year project cost range is $5 to $8 million.
The federal funding component could fund up to 80% with a maximum of $5.5 million with a
local match. The matching funds could be regional capital transit funding through the
Metropolitan Council. Transit staff has also applied for funding up to $3.5 million through the
recently approved 2003 legislative state bond funding for improvements in a trunk highway
corridor. We have received a favorable verbal response from Metropolitan Council for funding
this project.
The attached proposal for the planning and the design of the Transit Station Project and the TEA-
21/CMAQ grant preparation from LSA Design could be up to $50,000. Staff will seek
clarification of the scope of services to determine if all activities are necessary. This cost would
be financed from the City of Plymouth Transit Fund. The current Transit Fund balance is
approximately $1,200,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending proceeding with the LSA planning,
design, and TEA-21/CMAQ grant preparation proposal for the County Road 73 southwest
corner (vacant parcel). Staff would plan to prepare the motion to accept the proposal for
the Jurie 24`h
council meeting. -
Pat Y Ov—ale
Public Services Manager
attachments: LSA Memorandum
LSA Scope of Work and Fee Proposal
LSA Transit Station Project Development Packet
0:\Engincering\TRANSITRESOL\2003\CC Memo re SpccialSe sion CR73 P&R_h1603 d«
MEMORANDUM
D f S 1 G n
To: Pat Qvale
From: Jo Ann Olsen/Jim Lasher
Project: Highway 55/County Road 73 Park and Ride
Subject: Site Selection/Work Program
Date: May 28, 2003
Background
Plymouth Metrolink recently completed a 2002 Public Facilities Study. This study
documented a need for additional park and ride capacity and designated the Highway
55/County Road 73 intersection as a priority site for a Park & Ride facility. The study
referred to two potential sites at this location. The first is the existing 55/73 Park & Ride
facility, which is located at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and County Road 73.
The second site is located at the southwest corner of Highway 55 and County Road 73.
Site Selection
There is a 2003 Solicitation for Federal Funding (TEA-21/CMAQ) that could be used
towards development of a Park & Ride Facility. The 2003 TEA -21 Solicitation
application is due September 2003. Plymouth Metrolink has initiated preliminary review
of the two sites to determine which site will be used in the TEA -21 Solicitation. The
preliminary review included a meeting with PML staff and Plymouth Planning and
Engineering staff. At this meeting LSA Design presented the steps necessary to
produce a successful grant application and examples of Park & Ride facilities funded by
through the TEA -21 process. (An outline of this presentation and a project example has
been included as an attachment). After discussion of the pros and cons for each site, it
was agreed that the preferred site was the southwest parcel (the vacant parcel, not
including the existing shopping center). The following is. a summary of the discussion on
each site:
Southeast Corner (existing site)
Pros:
Existing Park & Ride facility (score points for improving an existing facility).
Potentially no costs for land (Mn/DOT right-of-way could be transferred to
the City of Plymouth at no post).
Cons:
Poor access to the site for buses and cars.
Require a structure to provide increase in capacity (cost factor).
No room for expansion or mixed use.
Planning I Architecture I Urban.Design I Landscape.Architecture
LSA DESIGN, INC. 1 250 Third Ave. North, Suite 600 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1 612.339.3729 1 Fax: 612.339.7433 I mall@isadesigninc.com —
Southwest Corner (vacant parcel)
Pros:
Potential for transit oriented mixed-use development. (Points for mixed-
use)
Source of income to maintain site
Springboard for redevelopment of area
Improved access for buses and cars. (Points for efficiency, etc.)
Park & Ride Expansion potential
Can begin as surface lot and expand with a structure (Points for
increased number of cars off congested roadway)
Cons:
Cost of property — purchase from private landowner.
New transit facility/site
Work Program
In order to proceed with a 2003 TEA -21 Solicitation, PML must proceed with Site
Development of the chosen site, along with neighborhood input and preliminary
approvals. The attached proposal provides a scope of work and fee proposal for the
steps necessary to develop a Park & Ride/Transit Oriented Development that will score
well in the solicitation process.
Attachments
A. Scope of Work and Fee Proposal for TH 55/73 Transit Station Project Development
B. TH 55/73 Transit Station Project Development Packet
cc: James Lasher - LSA
File (0313.03/20030604_PQvale.mem.doc )
ATTACHMENT A — SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE PROPOSAL
The following are the next steps necessary to complete planning and preliminary design
efforts for a Mixed -Use Transit Station in the southwest quadrant of CR 73 and TH 55.
The basic program elements of this project includes a 500 car Park and Ride Facility, a
Passenger Waiting Space and Commercial/Retail spaces that are suitable for this area
as well as providing added benefit and convenience to transit users.
Phase 1— Planning & Design
1. Programming & Site Selection — work with city staff to determine the exact size and
extent of land available for the project, specific listing of site uses and sizes of each
use, access/egress from adjacent roads, and basic transit service required to serve
the facility.
2. Mixed -Use Master Planning — Upon completion of Task 1, we will prepare two
concept design alternatives that address all program elements and meet the project
requirements. Deliverables include: Site Plan at 1" = 50', Architectural Elevations
and Sketches indicating proposed improvements and typical cross-sections
indicating the relationships of this project on the surrounding land uses.
3. Council Work Session/Neighborhood Meeting — Upon completion of the Master
Planning task, we will convene a meeting with City Council to review concepts and
begin to build consensus for the project. At this point, we could either conduct an
informal Neighborhood Meeting or request that the Planning Commission conducts a
public hearing at a scheduled Planning Commission meeting for neighbors to attend
and comment.
4. Upon review of all comments and suggestions obtained in Task 3, we will modify the
plans accordingly and complete a Land Development Application to the City to
secure "Preliminary Approvals" of the project concept and authorize the preparation
of a TEA -21 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant to the Metropolitan Council.
This stage will not signify final approval of the overall project but will seek to confirm
Council support and authorization to submit the grant).
Phase II — Grant Preparation
1. Upon authorization to prepare the TEA -21 CMAQ grant, we will complete the grant
application including all necessary graphics and calculations necessary for the
submittal.
2. We will prepare requests for Letters of Support" from interested parties to be
included in the grant package.
Fee Proposal
Phase I - $40,000 plus normal reimbursable expenses
Phase II - $10,000 (if approved after completion of Phase I work) plus normal
reimbursable expenses
City of Plymouth Mixed -Use Transit Station Fee Proposal
LSA Design Inc.
TH55/73 Transit Station
Project Development
LSA Design, Inc.
MOBILITY
Moving People, Goods &
Services throughout
Your Community
Key Decision Factors
Project Strategies & Policy Decisions
Site Selection and Grant Criteria
Implementation Process
r
i
dd
fir• ,, t>• . '
S
1 a
Project Strategies & Policy Decisions
Integrate Transit with Mixed -Land Uses
Highest & Best Transit Use
FTA Guidance
Development Guidelines & Incentives
Overall Project Governance
Financial Goals & Objectives
J+Tf: 'I : - ? _' 1.+,Wyk. .,'
V y1 ' -
1,. _ -.f}
fir
J Aw'40. f''• _
i .•f }
t
n F i
TH55/73 Site Selection & Grant Criteria
Transit as a Community Asset
Site Selection based on Approved Criteria
Site Access
Visibility
Route Proximity
Demand Analysis
Joint -Use Potential
Develop Master Plan in Association
with Transit and Selected Developer Input
Integrated Planning Process/NEPA
Project Maturity/Municipal Project Approvals
MPO/MnDOT/Hennepin County Concurrence
MARKET /
LEGAL /
POLICY
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ESTABLISH PROGRAM ESTABLISH ADMINISTRATIVE
GOALS 8 OBJECTIVES FRAMEWORK PLYMOUTH METROLINK
MNDOT /MET COUNCIL
MARKET ANALYSIS LEGAL ANALYSIS
SITE DEVELOPMENT
POLICIES
SITE SELECTION
PROGRAMMING
SITE PLANNING
DESIGN
CONCEPT DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES
PROJECT APPROVALS
GRANT CMAQ / STP / TE
APPLICATION
GRANT APPLICATION
PRIORITY RANKING
METHODOLOGIES
DEVELOPMENT
METHODOLOGIES
PRIVATE SECTOR TESTING
SITE ACCESS DESIGN
AMENITY PACKAGE
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Next Steps
Select Development Type
Joint -Use or Single Use Facility
Programming & Site Selection
Park & Ride Stalls
Housing
Retai 1
Develop Concept Master Plan
Present Concepts at City Council Work Session
Conduct Neighborhood Meeting/Public Hearing
City Council Presentation and Concept Stage Approvals
CMAQ Grant Application
Eagan Transit Station & Deck I Eagan, MN
D f S I G I7
Scope
Station Area Planning; A/E design (site, station & deck)
Transfer of development rights from Mn/DOT to MVTA
Rezoning & Municipal Approvals
Federal grant submittal and administration of award
5.5 M in CMAQ funds)
Construction administration
Features
850 car / 3 -level parking structure
15,000 s.f. mixed-use retail space
t a
Client
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
Reference
Beverley Miller, Executive Director
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
100 East Highway 13
Burnsville, MN 55337
952.882.7500
P l a n n i n g I A r c h i t e c t u r e I E n g i n e e r i n g I L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e
D f S 1 6 n
P•Ic,nFng ( Architect,ure rti,giear,..g ancsc pe e'ectur
x.. ,w, . .. , .. a u ... ..,, ,,s
D f S 1 G n
Pn;'iAhch.fu.r E'ng Reaecrn Land`supe- lrcktecta-`r'e. n- 9
M.. -
f e, c... ....
DATE: June 12, 2003 for the City Council Meeting of June 16, 2003
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager through
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E., Director of Public Works
FROM: Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FUNDING PROPOSAL
For the past several months the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
has been working on developing a Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The CIP includes
two major areas. The first is identifying projects and proposing the timing for construction.
The second is the source of funding for the projects. The City Council has reviewed aspects of
the BCWMC CIP in the past and provided comments to the Commission.
Earlier this year the Commission requested comments from the cities on various funding
proposals. Attached is a summary of comments received. They indicate a wide range of
opinion on funding the CIP. The Steering Committee met and reviewed the comments from
the cities and provided a recommendation to the Commission. Attached is a memorandum
describing the Steering Committee's recommendations. The Steering Committee
recommended that the Commission pay the entire cost of the projects and that the funds be
raised by a watershed -wide ad valorem tax.
On May 12, 2003, a joint meeting of the BCWMC Policy Advisory Group (PAC) and Steering
Committee was held. Representatives from all nine cities in the BCWMC were in attendance.
Plymouth was represented by Councilmember Ginny Black, City Manager Dwight Johnson,
and myself. The group generally appeared to agree with the ten year project schedule
proposed. A copy of the CIP project schedule is attached to this memo. The issue of funding
the projects appears to be much more difficult. A memorandum distributed at that meeting
regarding funding capital projects is also attached. The group seemed in general agreement
that the BCWMC should construct projects and the projects and timing listed were acceptable.
It appeared that a majority of cities present were in favor of the BCWMC paying the entire
cost of the projects and using a watershed -wide ad valorem tax to fund the projects. In
addition there appeared to be support for studying the governance structure of the Commission.
O:\Engineering\GENERAL\MEMOS\RON\2003\CC_BCWMC CIP_FundingProp.doc
SUBJECT: BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FUNDING PROPOSAL
Page 2
The Commission has discussed the CIP, including the Steering Committee's recommendations.
The Commission, to date, has not taken action on the item. Most recently the issue was
discussed at the May 15, 2003 meeting and deferred to June 19, 2003, to allow Commissioners
time to consult with the member cities. There appears to be significant sentiment of the
Commission to act on the matter at the June 19 meeting.
AD VALOREM FUNDING: Several formulas to fund CIP project have been considered by
the BCWMC including:
1. the City in which the projects are located would pay the entire cost,
2. the BCWMC would pay the entire cost,
3. dividing the cost between the cities and BCWMC using various percentages for each,
4. based on a determination of who benefits from improvement and who is causing the
problem requiring the improvement.
Concern has been expressed with any funding method that does not comply with the existing
Joint Powers Agreement since varying from it would require unanimous agreement by all the
member cities. The three methods listed in the Joint Powers Agreement for charging the cities
for projects are:
1. based 50% on tax capacity and 50% on land area within the BCWMC like the
administrative budget funding,
2. negotiated allocation agreed to by all affected member cities,
3. a variation of the first method where the Commission can increase the proportion paid
be one city if the city receives a disproportionate benefit.
In addition the Joint Powers Agreement allows other funding sources such as grants or using
the County's ability to levy an ad valorem tax. The Steering Committee has recommended and
a number of cities have expressed support for an ad valorem tax levy to pay for the projects.
The ad valorem funding option involves levying a tax throughout the watershed based on the
cities' tax capacity. The ad valorem tax would actually be levied by Hennepin County and
paid to the watershed for the project. The BCWMC currently has legal authority to fund
capital projects by this method. The ad valorem levy can only be used for capital projects, not
the administrative budget. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District which includes a portion of
Plymouth currently funds projects by this method. To be eligible for funding by this method a
project must be included in a CIP approved by Hennepin County. The County has the
authority to decline to use this funding method and in all cases requires a public hearing.
Attached is a series of tables which compares the cost within each City for each year of the
CIP for three different funding options, the current BCWMC formula based on 50% drainage
area, 50% tax capacity, according to tax capacity alone which would be the amount for a
watershed -wide ad valorem tax, and the cost of projects located within the boundaries of each
city. Also attached are two memorandums describing the average annual cost to various types
of property of a watershed -wide ad valorem tax sufficient to fund the CIP. It estimates that the
average annual cost for each individual residential unit would be $3.78. This is based on 45 %
O:\Engineering\GENERAL\MEMOS\RON\2003\CC_BC W MC_CIP_FundingProp.dm
SUBJECT: BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FUNDING PROPOSAL
Page 3
estimated percentage that is residential) of the overall average annual assessment divided by
32,750 residential units (0.45 x $275,000 / 32750 = $3.78). Home values in Plymouth may
be higher then the watershed average which would result in a somewhat higher cost for the
average Plymouth residence.
There are several positive and negative aspects for using the ad valorem tax to fund CIP
projects. Negatives for using ad valorem tax include:
1. The current governance structure does not provide equitable representation for the
taxpayers in the watershed.
2. Special purpose taxes, such as this, add to the confusion on the tax bill reducing the
ability for the taxpayers to understand what their money pays for.
Positives for using ad valorem tax include:
1. The issue of who pays how much for what project is settled, and therefore, future
disputes are greatly reduced.
2. The ad valorem tax would be outside the City's Water Resources Management Fund,
and therefore, free up funds for other water resources projects such as cleaning water
quality ponds, which appears to be an emerging potential future obligation for the City.
EFFECT ON CITY PROJECTS: Several projects within the City of Plymouth are identified
in the BCWMC CIP, including construction of the water quality ponds proposed along the
southeast shore of Medicine Lake. A Preliminary Engineering Report has been prepared by
the City for these ponds. To be eligible for funding by the BCWMC, the watershed must hold
a public hearing for the project. If the City proceeds and constructs the project prior to the
public hearing, it would not be eligible for BCWMC funding according to the Joint Powers
Agreement.
The CIP is part of the BCWMC Second Generation Plan. If issues involving the CIP are
quickly resolved, the plan could begin the extensive review process in the next few months.
This process will likely extend into 2004, the earliest funds could be secured for projects
would be 2005. A public hearing on the Plymouth project cannot be held until after adoption
of the plan. An alternative being pursued by BCWMC is to make a minor plan amendment to
the existing BCWMC Watershed Plan. The existing Watershed Plan's CIP includes general
reference to water quality projects for Medicine Lake. A minor plan amendment to more
clearly define the projects as these two ponds and to identify funding sources could be made.
The funding source identified is an ad valorem tax levy. If this effort proceeds, the required
public hearings could be held this summer and portions of construction may begin late this
year. The request for minor plan amendment has been forwarded to the Board of Water and
Soil Resources, and a meeting held with a Hennepin County staff member to discuss the
potential for using the ad valorem tax.
GOVERNANCE: The issue of governance was raised at the Joint Steering Committee/PAC
meeting. Currently, each of the nine member cities of the BCWMC has one vote regardless of
O:\Engineering\GENERAL\MEMOS\RON\2003\CC_BCW MC__CIP_FundingProp.dm
SUBJECT: BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FUNDING PROPOSAL
Page 4
the city's size or prominence within the watershed. Plymouth constitutes 46.77% of the area
of the watershed and 47.18 % of the tax capacity. While Plymouth and Golden Valley together
comprise 73.04% of the area, they only have two of the nine votes on the Commission.
Conversely, if voting were determined by watershed area, Plymouth would only need to get
cooperation from one other city to dominate the Commission. It was noted that Golden
Valley, Crystal, and New Hope are exploring creative forms of governance as they investigate
forming a joint water supply system which may address both concerns. The representatives of
the cities present seemed to be amenable to investigating forms of governance to address these
issues and it was suggested that direction to study the governance be acted on at the same time
as the CIP. At the May BCWMC meeting the two issues were raised. The City Council may
wish to suggest language that the City's commissioner could use for a motion. Governance
was also discussed in a meeting between Plymouth and Golden Valley and the Mayors of
Plymouth, Golden Valley, and New Hope met to discuss the issue. Conversations also have
taken place with the Mayor of Minnetonka.
SUMMARY: If the cities' commissioners vote consistently with the indication of the various
cities at the Steering Committee/PAC meeting, it appears likely that the Steering Committee's
recommendation that projects be funded by BCWMC using an ad valorem tax levied by the
County will be adopted. In addition, it appears the Commission may approve a study on the
governance of the watershed. Change in the governance will require modification of the Joint
Powers Agreement which would require the unanimous approval of all nine member cities.
The motion to study the governance issue could influence the type of study performed. The
Council should consider whether they would like the Commission to perform the study perhaps
by appointing a subcommittee or whether they would like the Commission to encourage the
cities to study the governance issue in which case the cities would take the lead.
Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E.
City Engineer
attachments: BCWMC CIP Project Schedule dated April 2003 (Table 1)
Memorandum: Re: Funding Capital Projects dated May 9, 2003
Memorandum: Re: Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
dated March 6, 2003
Memorandum: Re: Steering Committee Recommendations on Funding of
Capital Projects Costs dated March 20, 2003
BCWMC CIP Funding Options dated May 2003 (Table 4)
Memorandum: Re: Capital Improvement Plan - Assessment per Residential
Unit dated April 4, 2003
Memorandum: Re: Capital Improvement Plan - Annual Assessment per
Property Types dated May 12, 2003
O: \Engineering\GENERAL\MEMOS\RON\2003\CC_BCWMC_CIP_Fund ingProp. dm
Table 1
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
DRAFT Water Quality Management and Flood Control 10 -Year Capital Improvements Program
April 2003
PVM7'051V--A-sed C1P0,f-0,i-03.XLS T.U.1.1-10,CIP A-1 2003
Year
Map IDs 20061 20061 20071 2006 20091 20101 20111 20121 20131 2014 NOTES:
W Other potential projects that the CIO" may Implement will be evaluated at the time the projects
3 Cws'wet wet detention pond for subwatershed BC94BI (Option a in Medicine Lake become more definite.
Plan) so 0
ML -2 Reduce Gooss, Loadings by 75% (Option 17 in Medicine Lake Plan) 102,500 34,170 $34,170 $34,1601 Capital C..tcicesnot include land acquisition costs, but does Include legal, administration, and 25%
ML 3, Reroute flows from subwatershed BC94 to a larger wet detention pond for BC92 90.2001 additional for contingencies.
Option 9a in Medicine Lake Plan) & dredging of accumulated sediment 104.100 13.900 3 - Already consimcited
K-4
Medicine Lake East Beach wet detention pond for subwatershed 8C107 (Option 11 in 5347.950 This project Includes dredging of accumulated sediment, as recommended by the City of Plymouth'sMedicinLakePlan) & dredging of accumulated sediment 401.850 53P900 Medicine Lake Watershed Implementation and Management Plan. The dredging cost Is the
ML -5 4.1 Con Inict wet detention pond for subwatersheds BC98, BC9aA and BC98B (Option 5272540 cost shown below the line.
10a in Medkine Lake Plan) & dredging of accumulated sediment 314.740 MnDC1T sound wall construction In New Hope will require relocation A resixing of atom sewer
ML -6 Construct wet detention pond for subwatershed subwatershed BC94132 (Option 6 in In this watershed, which couild Mad to City of New Hope participation In this project.
Medicine Lake Plan) 510,800 10.800
MIL -7 in -Lake Herbicide Treatment (Option 18 in Medicine Lake Plan) 195.000 90.0011 5105.000 Th. Commission will consider Including repair of the existing control structure as part of the
PwkeniX feasibility study for this project. Project Is In City of Golden Valley's CIP.
PL -6 Improvements to stormwater basin in PL -A13 near Circle Park (from the City off S31.350 S31.350PlyrooidiParkersLakeImplementationPlan) Project costs may be offset by $150,000 LCMR grant,
I I is In Ciry of 0 "Valloy'a CIP.
WTH.Is' Dredging subwatershed FR -5 detention pond (Option 2 in Wirth Lake Plan) 40,000 1 540.0001 I P., Is not Included In the Cfty of Golden Valley's CIP.
WTH-2 Highway 55 detention pond (Option 3 in Wirth Lake Plan) 151.200 1 $75,6001 $75,6001 The City of St. Louis Park supports a scaled-down, fees costly project that Includes park and
WTH-3 In -lake alum treatment (Option I in Wirth Lake Plan)
rt
1145.6130 1 W.6001 1 playground Improvements. The city " agrees with the Commlaslon's proposed schedule,
but suggests -r-!uatIon of the Commisslon's water quality goal for Westwood Lake.
JNone - site Table 2. Potential Future Water Qualk Capital Igroverfulnit Projects The City of New Hope has constructed NB -3W B. C. but not to the same degree as proposed In
the lake and watershed management plan. NB -29A & 0 have hot been corustructed. These
TW -I' Pond Expansion (Option I in Twin Lake Plan) 552,700 improvements will need to be re-evaluated as part of the feasibility study. Costs shown am for
uwpj - NO -29A & 8 only.
WST-I'* Flag Avenue cletentiorilskinvnirig facility (Option I in Westwood Lake Plan) 41413,800 231,9001 The City of New Hope has already constructed NB- 28A & B. The city will be constructing ponds
N847A & NB -38A In the next year. Pond NB -36A may be constructed In conjunction with a church
None - seat Table 2. Polemist Future Water Quality Capital Improvement Projects SO expansion project. These Improvements will need to be re-evalusted as part of the feasibility
study. Costs shown me for NS -36A, NB -37A A NB -38A only.
NLA " Construct ponds NB-35A.B.0 AND NB-29A.B (Option 4 in Northwood Lake Plan) 74,300 project to be completed as, put of the Boons Avenue and Broolorlew Golf Course Improvement
NL -2 Dredge pond NB -07 (Option 2 in Northwood Lake Plan) 725.700 5241,900 5241,900
This
5241,900 projects In 2004.
NL -3 own Lancaster Lane atom sewer (Option 31n Northwood Lake Plan) 45.200 45,200 • This project should be feasible as Paul of the City of Robblinsdes's street reconstruction project
NLI " Construct ponds NB -36A, NEI -37A. NB -38A, & 145-28A, B (Option 5 in Northwood taking piece in the near futures.
Lake Plant 141.100 141,100
Funding Is from remaining flood control project construction funds ($700,000). The floodprocifing
BC _I 13 Pond BC -10-3 (Option 4 in Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan) 215,300 215,300 funds are proposed to be allocated as follows: 2003 - $100,000, 2004 - $200,000, 2005 - $300,000 andMiilFiNA2006 - $100,000. These arriounts are the Commission costs, at the 65% level of funding. Sea
GR -21' Gimes Pond wet detention paid (Option 4 in Rice and Grunts, Ponds Plan) 1 80,000 S80,000J I Table Ill.
CL -1 Ramada Inn detentbnJskimming facility (Option I in Crane Lake Plan) 89,100
CL -2 Jo Lane Wel Detumfion, Pond IAN. s2 585.100 585.1
None -see Table 2- Potential Future Water Qua' CVftw Improve P
None -see Table 2. Potential Future Water Ouality Capital improvement Projects
Year
M !2 ID 0 Flood Control Improvement Option 20071 20081 20091 20101 20111 20121 2013 201
abn9It- system so! SO Sol i I 1 11 11
AL IWS339.14701 r $323260 I '-$24Z7001 $231.9001x4241,90014$294;6001 241:900
PVM7'051V--A-sed C1P0,f-0,i-03.XLS T.U.1.1-10,CIP A-1 2003
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
612) 337-9300 telephone
612)337-9310 fax
hlrl2:/,'wunv.k,.nnedy-y aven.com
CHARTERED
CHARLES L. LEFEvERE
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9215
email: clefevere@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
May 9, 2003
To: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
From: Charlie LeFevere C-
Xle
Re: Funding of Capital Projects
I. INTRODUCTION
The Commission has requested that I prepare a letter describing options available to the
Commission related to the construction and funding of capital improvements.
The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections
103B.201 to 103B.252 (the "Act") requires that watershed management organizations
WMOs") be formed to take jurisdiction over all watersheds in the Metropolitan area.
The Act allows two kinds of WMOs. One is a traditional watershed district, organized
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D. Watershed districts are governed by
commissioners appointed by the county board and have powers specified in Minnesota
Statutes for watershed districts and WMOs.
The other form of WMO is a joint powers organization under Minnesota Statutes. Section
471.59. Joint powers WMOs are created by member municipalities and are governed as
provided in the joint powers agreements between the municipalities, subject to the
requirements of the Act and the rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources ("BWSR"). The cities of the Bassett Creek Commission decided in 1968 to
form a joint powers organization rather than to allow the county to form a watershed
district, and entered into a joint powers agreement for the creation of the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission
CLL -231416v1 1
BA295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
Watershed districts and joint powers WMOs have essentially the same duties for planning
and management of surface water within their jurisdictions in the Metropolitan area.
Among these duties are the preparation and implementation of surface water management
plans. The Commission is currently in the process of preparing an updated surface water
management plan as required by the Act and BWSR Rules. This is the so called "second
generation plan," which will replace the current surface water management plan. A
second generation plan is required to conform to current requirement of BWSR. A part
of the surface water management plan is the capital improvement program ("CIP"). As a
part of the planning process, the Commission will have to decide 1) whether to include
construction of capital projects in the CIP, and 2) if so, how to pay for them.
II. WHETHER TO CONSTRUCT CAPITAL PROJECTS.
In the past, the Commission has undertaken one significant capital project. Between the
late 70's and the mid 90's, the Commission organized and accomplished the construction
of a flood control project for the watershed at a total cost of approximately $45 million,
much of which was paid for by the United States Corps of Engineers and Mn/DOT. The
Commission's CIP now under consideration includes projects that are primarily water
quality projects.
Whether to construct capital projects is a matter within the discretion of the Commission.
Some watershed management organizations such as the Lower Rum do not have capital
projects in their CIPs. Current drafts of the second generation plans for Shingle Creek
and West Mississippi do not include capital projects. Other WMOs are undertaking
construction of substantial capital projects.
The Hennepin County staff reported capital expenditures in 2002 for the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed District of $279,050, for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District of $1,065,000 and for the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District of
2,300,000.
Jack Frost of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District reported that that
watershed district has a budget of between $1 and $2 million per year, or about $20 to
25 per household per year.
The Middle Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, a joint powers
organization, plans to levy for capital projects of over $3 million per year through the year
2011.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District constructed capital projects of $1.85 million
this year.
CLL -231416.1
BA295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
If the Commission decides not to undertake capital projects, no decision will have to be
made about funding. However, if the Commission decides to include capital projects inL-
its CIP, several options for funding are available.
III. FUNDING OPTIONS AND ALLOCATIONS OF COSTS.
The Commission has three primary options under the joint powers agreement and state
law for funding capital projects: 1) an ad valorem tax levied within the watershed by the
Commission, 2) an ad valorem tax levied within the watershed by the county, and 3) a
charge to member cities under the joint powers agreement.
A. Tax Levy by Commission.
State laws do not currently allow joint powers watershed management
organizations to levy ad valorem taxes directly. However, the Commission could
seek special legislative authority for such a levy. This course was chosen by the
Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, a joint powers
WMO that was authorized by a special law in 2001 to levy ad valorem taxes
throughout that watershed.
B. Tax Levy by Hennepin County.
The Act authorizes watershed districts and joint powers WMOs to finance capital
projects in their CIPS by having the County levy an ad valorem tax within the
watershed. This kind of levy is more fully described in my memorandum of
January 8, 2003, a copy of which is attached. This is the method used by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its capital projects.
C. Charge Member Cities under the Joint Powers Agreement.
Under joint powers agreement, charges to member cities for capital projects of
this kind are allocated on the basis of one of three methods, or formulas. These
are:
A negotiated allocation agreed to by all affected city members.
2. A formula in which 50% of the project cost is prorated among the
members on the basis of land area of that member city within the
watershed and 50% of the project cost is allocated on the basis of the net
tax capacity of that city within the watershed (the "50/50 formula"). The
CLL -231416v1 3
BA'_95-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
Commission's administrative charges are allocated among cities on this
basis.
3. The third formula is a variation on the "50/50 formula." The Commission
can increase the proportion of the cost paid by one city if that city receives
a benefit that is so disproportionate as to require a modification to the
50/50 formula in a sense of fairness.
One of these methods must be used by the Commission to allocate costs among
member cities unless there is an amendment, agreed to by all cities, to the joint
powers agreement. The procedure to be used for undertaking a capital project and
determining the allocation of costs under the joint powers agreement is described
in my memorandum of January 12, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The city
may raise funds to pay for its share of the project in a number of ways including a
city-wide ad valorem tax, a special district ad valorem tax, storm sewer utility
charges, and in some cases, special assessments. See attached page labeled
BUDGETING AND FINANCING OPTIONS."
D. Considerations in Selecting Options
The option of a direct ad valorem tax levy by the Commission is not available
without a change in state law. Additionally, a levy by the Commission and a levy
by the county would be identical except for the procedures followed. Therefore
the two primary options for purposes of comparison are 1) charges to the member
cities under joint powers agreements (or "sending the bill to the cities") and 2) a
county ad valorem tax levy (or "sending the bill to the county"). The factors
distinguishing the two options include the following:
1. Allocation among cities. Under the two options, there will be a difference
between the total amount paid by the citizens and taxpayers of the member
cities. This results from the fact that if the bill is sent to the county, the
project cost is paid on the basis of the tax capacity of that part of each city
within the watershed. However, if the bill is sent to the cities, the formula
would generally call for an allocation among cities that is based 50% on
tax capacity and 50% on area. Therefore, because land area does not
correlate exactly with tax capacity, these two methods will yield different
results. These differences can be seen on "Table IV" prepared by Barr
Engineering.
2. Allocation among individuals. The two options will also result in a
different allocation among individual landowners or taxpayers. This
difference will vary from city to city depending on the method used by that
CLL -331416v1 4
BA:95-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
city to pay its share of project costs if the Commission sends the project
bill to the cities. For example, if the city pays for this cost by levying ad
valorem taxes, a more expensive house will pay a higher share of the cost
than a less expensive house. However, under a typical storm sewer utility
program, each of two houses would pay the same cost.
3. Tax levy and levy limits. If the bill is sent to the county, .the tax levy
would not be included in the city levy so that city taxes would be available
for other uses. This is may be particularly important in a city that is
currently levying up to its levy limits. In cities that pay Commission
charges through storm sewer utility charges, the effect of using a county
tax levy would be that those charges could be reduced, or city storm sewer
utility funds could be devoted to other purposes.
4. Tax deductibility. If the bill is sent to the county, the ad valorem taxes
levied would be deductible by individuals from their income. If the bill is
sent to the cities, whether the payment by an individual is deductible for
income tax purposes would depend on whether the city pays its share by
an ad valorem tax levy (in which case the payment would be deductible) or
a storm sewer utility charge (in which case the payment would not be
deductible).
In considering these differences, it should be kept in mind that the average
estimated cost per household per year as determined in the Barr analysis for the
proposed CIP would be about $3.78. Therefore, the impact of selecting one
option or the other as felt by a typical household would be less than one dollar per
year.
N. OTHER ISSUES
In discussions relating to capital projects and how they should be funded, a number of
other ideas and issues have been presented, including the following.
A. Allocation of Costs Among Members.
A number of ideas were expressed about the appropriate allocation of costs among
members. These included formulas such as 100% Commission funding (of course
Commission funding simply means that costs are spread among member cities),
80% paid by the Commission and 20% paid by the city in which the improvement
is constructed, 20% paid by the Commission and 80% paid by the city in which
the improvement is constructed, and 100% paid by the individual cities within
which the improvement is constructed. It was also suggested that a formula or
CLL -231416v1 5
BA295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
method should be followed that requires those who benefit from an improvement
to pay for it or those who are causing the problem necessitating an improvement
to pay for it.
The legal authority of the Commission is limited. It can finance projects by using
a county tax levy or by using the formula set forth in the joint powers agreement.
Whether to amend the joint powers agreement is a political question to be
addressed by the member cities. The Commission cannot unilaterally change the
formula agreed to by the cities and set forth in the joint powers agreement.
Therefore, whatever the merits of the various formulas that might be used for
allocation of costs, the Commission is not in a position to decide unilaterally to
change the formula.
B. Voting Power of Member Cities.
Concern has been expressed by several people about the fact that each city has
only one vote on the Commission although some cities provide substantially more
financial support for the Commission's activities. If the member cities are
interested in changing the voting procedures, they may do so by unanimous
agreement among all member cities. However, again, the Commission does not
have the authority to change the appointment process or number of appointees for
each city.
C. Taxation by Unelected Officials.
Several people expressed concern about decisions that have an effect on taxation
being made by the Commission, a body that is not elected. The legislature
provides for only two kinds of WMOs. Neither a watershed district nor a joint
powers watershed management organization is an elected body.
The legislature has provided for a number of public bodies that are not elected but
have the authority to either levy tax directly or compel other entities to levy taxes.
These include watershed districts under chapter 103D, sanitary districts under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 115.18 to 115.37, regional sanitary sewer districts
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 115.61 to 115.67, regional railroad authorities
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 398A., regional development commissions
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.381 to 462.398: port authorities under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.048 to 469.068, the Metropolitan Council under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.123 to 473.549, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission under sections 473.601 to 473.680, the Middle Mississippi
Watershed Management Organization under sections 103B.211 and 103B.241,
Emergency Medical Services special taxing districts under sections 144F.01 and
CLL -231416v1 6
BA295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
103B.601 to 103B.645.
It may be that the fact that WMOs are not elected bodies has caused the legislature
to provide for such extensive public involvement in the decision making process
relating to capital projects.
First, for a capital project to be financed with a county levy, it must be included in
the CEP. The CEP is a part of the surface water management plan, which is
prepared with substantial public involvement and review. For some time, the
Commission has conducted open public meetings and open houses, and has
formed a citizen advisory committee, a technical advisory committee, and a policy
advisory group to assist in development of the plan. Several requests have been
made directly to cities for input on specific matters. The public has been notified
and given an opportunity to participate in the process of development of the plan.
And, of course, every Commission meeting is attended by one or more
representatives of each city.
All of this public review and comment has occurred before the formal adoption
process specified by state law has even begun. Once the Commission has decided
it is ready to submit a draft plan for comment and review, the plan must be
submitted to cities, counties, the Met Council, state review agencies, the Board of
Water and Soil Resources, and Hennepin Conservation District. Those entities
have 60 days to review and comment on the draft plan and the Commission is
required to respond to concerns expressed by the review agencies within 30 days.
Later, the commission is required to hold a public hearing within 30-45 days of
the end of the 60 day review period. After the public hearing, the draft plan, any
amendments and written comments received, the record of the public hearing and
a summary of all changes incorporated as a result of the review process are
submitted to the Metropolitan Council, state review agencies and BSWR for final
review.
After the state review agencies and others have completed this review and changes
are incorporated in the plan, BSWR makes a final review of the plan for
compliance with the requirements of the surface water management act. That all
occurs, before a project is even included in the CIP.
If the Commission proposes to finance a project by a county tax levy, the
Commission is required to hold an additional public hearing to initiate the county
financing. The Commission must forward a copy of the plan for the improvement
to the county and conduct a public hearing following notice as required by the
CLL -231416v1
B A295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
May 9, 2003
Minnesota Statutes. It should also be noted that the county board has the authority
to disapprove funding a project by a county tax levy, although I understand that
Hennepin County has not disapproved any such project in the past.
In addition to the county hearing process, the joint powers agreement requires a
hearing following mailed notice to the clerk of each member city. Even then, a
resolution ordering an improvement requires a two-thirds vote of all Commission
members, the highest voting requirement allowed by law.
Despite all of this openness in the decision-making process and involvement by
the public at large and by other agencies, the decision is still made by a non-
elected body. However, it is not within the power of the Commission, or for that
matter within the power of the member cities, to make the Commission into an
elected body. Such a change would require action by the Minnesota Legislature.
V CONCLUSION
If the Commission decides to undertake capital projects, it must decide how those
projects will be funded. Unless there is a change in state law or a change in the joint
powers agreement approved by all member cities, there are two basic options available to
the Commission. One is to charge member cities under the formula set forth in the joint
powers agreement. The other is to charge the county, in which case the county will levy
an ad valorem tax on all properties within the watershed.
There are two primary differences between these options. The first is that the option
chosen will affect how much each individual taxpayer or landowner will pay toward a
project. That in turn will depend on whether the Commission sends the bill to the county
or to the city. If the bill is sent to the cities, the cost incurred by each landowner or
taxpayer would in turn depend on the method or methods used by each city to raise its
share of the project costs.
The second primary difference between these two options is that the county tax levy is
outside of city levies and outside of city levy limits.
CLL:sez
Attachments (2)
CLL -231416v1 8
B A295-4
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
R
Phone: 952-832-2600 •Fax: 952-832-2601
BABAR Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO
Memorandum
To: Steering Committee — Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
From: Baa Engineering Company
Subject: Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
Date: March 6, 2003
Project: 23/27-0512003 061
c: Charlie IeFevere
On November 1, 2002, seven tables relating to the Proposed Capital Improvements and Non -Structural
Programs that will likely be included in the Commission's draft Second Generation Plan were sent to the
BCWMC commissioners for presentation to their respective cities for discussion. Comments were due
back to the Commission by January 31, 2003. Each city was requested to review and comment on the
following.
Proposed capital improvement program (CIP), which is summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Tables 2
and 3 will require ongoing Commission action (along with the capital improvements projects).
CIP funding options — three cost sharing scenarios are depicted in:.Table 1A.
Additional projects that should be added to Table ii.
Watershed tax levy options. Minnesota Statute Chapter 103B authorizes the Commission to request the
County to levy ad valorem taxes throughout the watershed for capital projects listed in an approved
plan. There is some question as to whether this authority is legally effective. The Commission staff is
looking into whether this funding mechanism is, in fact, available. There are a few items for the
member cities to consider.
1. If it is currently possible for the County, at the request of the Commission, to levy a watershed -
wide tax to pay for projects, then the following questions need to be answered:
Should the proposed C1P be financed 100% using this levy (Yes or No)?
Should the Commission pursue legislation to allow such a levy to also be used to fund the
Commission's administrative activities (Yes or No)?
ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCS\239209\ 1
To: Steering Committee — Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Cody
Subject: Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
Date: March 6. 2003
Project: 23/27-051 2003 061
c: Charlie LeFevere Page 2
2. If it is not currently possible for the County, at the request of the Commission, to levy a watershed -
wide tax, should the Commission pursue legislation that would allow the Commission to use such
a levy?
on January 8, 2003, Charlie LeFevere submitted a memorandum to the Commission regarding the
probability of a County tax levy within the watershed to pay for Commission projects. In summary,
Mr. LeFevere reported that the Commission can only certify to the County payment of the costs of projects
that are a part of the Commission's approved CIP and no certification can occur until the Commission's
watershed management plan and its CIP have been finally approved Additionally, to initiate the County
financing, the Commission will need to take the following steps: (1) a copy of the plan for the
improvement will need to be forwarded to the County, (2) hold a public hearing following notice as
required by the statute, and (3) adopt a resolution with appropriate findings, determining the cost of the
improvement and certifying the cost to the County.]
Below is a summary of the cities' comments received for your review prior to the March 18th Steering
Committee meeting.
Crystal
Crystal submitted a resolution approving the 80% (City) and 20% (Commission) funding mechanism
of the CIP.
Crystal did not offer any comments concerning the watershed tax levy options.
Golden Valley
The city has no concerns or issues related to the proposed 10 -year CIP, but notes that each actual
project scope may change once the project is developed beyond a concept level stage.
The city supports the 0% Commission funding option and believes that each community should be
responsible for funding projects in their own community and assessing the costs to residents as the
community sees appropriate.
No additional projects to add to Table ii.
The city supports the Commission's effort to research opportunities to raise funding for water quality
and administrative activities through an authorized taxing authority or through Hennepin County.
The city is not interested in relinquishing the member cities' participation in the Commission, or the
member cities' right to approve or disapprove Commission projects.
To: Steering Committee — Bassen Creek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Company
Subject: Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
Date: March 6, 2003
Project: 23r 7-05 1 2003 061 page 3
e: Charlie LeFevere
Medicine Lake
The city offered no specific objections or comments to the November 1, 2002 CIP.
Minneapolis
The city supports the 20% (Commission) and 80% (City) funding scenario.
No additional capital improvements are scheduled that would affect the water quality of Bassett Creek
aside from Wirth Lake).
Table 1 comments:
WTH-2: Minneapolis staff believes it would be appropriate for the state Department of Transportation
to contribute to the construction of the detention pond along Highway 55 near Wirth Lake (WTH-2)
and encourages the Commission to pursue such support. Further, will Wirth Lake improvements
remain in the CIP even if the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources funding is not
available?
BC -10 (removed from CIP): Staff is comfortable with the removal of the plan to dredge the pond near
the intersection of Wirth Parkway and Plymouth Avenue. However, they note that it is not clear that
sedimentation is a problem at this location. Also suspended solids inflow will be reduced by the
construction of a stormwater detention pond at Logan Avenue North from 27m Avenue North to 29m
Avenue North. Construction of the pond will be complete in the summer of 2003 and city staff will be
glad to provide an implementation report on the project to the Commission.
Table is Minneapolis staff requests clarification as to how the $50,000 will be spent annually by the
Commission on erosion control and sedimentation projects will be allocated. The same question is
relevant to long-term maintenance of flood control projects (i.e., will the Commission or city staff
initiate such work?).
Minneapolis staff would need to see detailed information about the impact on taxpayers before
considering the option of financing the CIP entirely through a watershed -wide tax.
The city is not in favor of the Commission pursuing legislation to allow a watershed -wide levy to fund
Commission administrative activities.
The Commission should pursue authority for a watershed -wide tax, levied by the County, only as part
of a coalition of watershed organizations.
To: Steering Committee — Bassett Geek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Company
Subject: Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
Date: March 6, 2003
Project. 23127-0512003 061
c: Charlie 1tFeve=e Page 4
Minneapolis staff requests clarification concerning the Minneapolis homes recently added to the 100 -
year floodplain and if they will be given funding assistance from the Commission for flood proofing or
be flood proofed by the Commission?
Minnetonka
The city accepts the proposed CIP (tables 1, 2, 3, i and iii).
The city supports 100% Commission funding of projects.
The city favors BCWMC financing of these projects through ad valorem taxing process (pursue
BCWMC taxing authority).
It would be acceptable to finance BCWMC administrative costs using the ad valorem taxing process.
Table ii (Water Quality Practices) should not be included in the CIP or the Second Generation Plan as
a BCWMC initiative. Those efforts more respectfully should remain city obligations. Should the
Commission decide to include the water quality practices in the Plan, the city recommends that they be
listed as 100% city/local funding.
New Hope
No additional structural projects were recommended at this time.
New Hope will continue to implement some nonstructural improvements according to past practice.
The city supports the 20% (Commission) and 80% (City) funding mechanism. Those cities creating the
water quality issues associated with the project, as well as those cities benefiting from the project
should fund the remaining 80%.
All maintenance and nonstructural improvements should be funded locally.
If the Commission selects the 20/80 cost sharing option, New Hope questioned whether or not credit
for construction of past CIP projects would be given.
The city supports the option to fund improvements via the Hennepin County levy process.
Plymouth
Plymouth does not favor 100% financing of the CIP using a watershed -wide Hennepin County levy.
Plymouth is not in favor of the Commission pursuing legislation to allow such a levy to be used to
fund Commission administrative activities.
To: Steering Committee — Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Company
Subject: Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
Date: March 6, 2003
Project: 23/27-0512003 061
c: Charlie L.eFevere Page 5
Plymouth does not favor the Commission pursuing legislation for such a levy if it is not currently
allowed.
The city is concerned that using these methods of funding capital projects will move the Commission
one step closer to functioning as a watershed district type of organization, which the city does not
favor.
Plymouth believes taxing residents to fund the organization are actions that should be made by elected
officials of the city rather than by appointed commissioners.
Table ii: requests Commission consideration of the additional projects on Medicine and Parkers lakes
at the earliest date possible.
Table ii: add a program to clean existing water quality ponds. This would be an ongoing annual
program rather than individual projects.
It is reasonable to assign some portion of the cost of each project to the BCWMC as a whole, but the
majority of the costs should be apportioned based on the contributors to the problem and the benefits
gained from the solution. The proposed funding formulas do not appear to accomplish this, especially
when designating the non-BCWMC funding responsibility to the city in which the project is located.
This will likely require examining several projects individually.
The city believes it would be better to build equity into the Joint Powers Agreement by changing the
funding formulas than to proceed with an inequitable funding formula. This should extend beyond
funding CIP projects to include governance of the watershed.
Robbknsdale
The city supports the 100% CIP Commission funding option.
The city supports the Commission initiating a tax levy for the Bassett Creek watershed capital projects.
St. Louis Park
The city accepts the proposed CIP (tables 1, 2, 3, i and iii).
The city supports 100% Commission funding.
Financing of projects should be raised via the ad valorem taxing process pursued through BCWMC
taxing authority.
The city accepts the concept of financing BCWMC administrative costs using the ad valorem taxing
process.
1 To: Steering Committee — Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Company
Subject Summary of Capital Improvement Program Comments
Date: March 6.2003
Project 23/27-051 2003 061
c: Charlie LeFevere Page 6
Table ii (Water Quality Practices) should not be included in the CIP or the Second Generation Plan as
a BCWMC initiative. Those efforts more respectfully should remain city obligations. Should the
Commission decide to include these in the Plan, the city provided a list of Water Quality Practices with
associated costs to add to Table ii.
470 Pillsbur v Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis NIN ,402
612) 337-9300 telephone
612) 337-9310 fax
C H A R T E R E D http://www.kennedv-graven.com
CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9215
email: clefevere@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
March 20, 2003
To: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
From: Charlie LeFevere Q j
Re: Steering Committee Recormnendation on Funding of Capital Projects Costs
The second generation plan Steering Committee requested that I provide the Board with a
memorandum describing the Committee's recommendation for funding of capital projects in the
second generation plan and some of the matters considered by the Committee in making that
recommendation.
A. Allocation Of Costs Under the Joint Powers Agreement.
For purposes of discussion, we have sometimes referred to the "Commission share" and
the "city share." It must be kept in mind that under the current joint powers agreement,
the Commission share is also paid by the member cities (unless there is a county tax
levy). Under the joint powers agreement, charges to member cities for capital projects
are allocated on the basis of one of three methods, or formulas. These are:
A negotiated allocation agreed to by all affected city members.
2. A formula in which 50% of the project cost is prorated among the members on the
basis of land area of that member city within the watershed and 50% of the project
cost is allocated on the basis of the net tax capacity of that city within the watershed
the "50/50 formula"). The Commission's administrative charges are allocated
among cities on this basis.
3. The third formula is a variation on the "50/50 formula." The Commission can
increase the proportion of the cost paid by one city if that city receives a benefit that
is so disproportionate as to require a modification to the 50/50 formula in a sense of
fairness.
One of these methods must be used by the Commission to allocate costs among member
cities unless there is an amendment to the joint powers agreement.
CLL -229081 v1
BA29=-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
March 20. 2003
B. Other Allocation Formulas Considered.
The Steering Committee considered a number of other formulas including 80% paid by
the city in which an improvement is constructed and 20% paid by the Commission (i.e.,
200io would be allocated to member cities on the basis of the 50150 formula), 20%
individual city and 80% Commission, 100% Commission, 0% Commission, and
allocations based on what city contributes to a problem of pollution and what city
receives a benefit from a project. Comments from member cities showed that there was
some support for each of these formulas.
C. Steering Committee Recommendation On Formula For Allocation.
A majority of the Steering Committee members recommend that the formula for
allocation set forth in the joint powers agreement be used for capital projects. In part, this
recommendation is based on the practical fact that the joint powers agreement dictates
this formula. A new formula could be specified by an amendment to the joint powers
agreement. However, amendment of the agreement would require unanimous consent of
all member cities. Given the wide divergence of opinions on alternative formulas,
unanimous agreement to a chance does not seem likely. Departing from the formula in
the joint powers agreement is not within the authority of the Commission. A decision to
use another formula could be made by unanimous agreement of all member cities, but it
is not within the authority of the Commission.
D. Steering Committee Recommendation On Funding.
In the past, the cost of Commission activities has been allocated among cities in
accordance with the joint powers agreement formula. Cities can raise money to pay their
share of these costs by a city-wide tax levy, a special district tax levy, storm sewer utility
charges, and in some cases special assessments. The city-wide tax levies and special
storm sewer tax district levies could be subject to levy limits imposed by the legislature.
One alternative means of funding that was considered was to seek special legislation, as
the Middle Mississippi Watershed Management Organization has done, authorizing the
commission to levy a tax directly as an independent taxing authority. There did not seem
to be a great deal of interest in seeking such authority from the Legislature.
The final alternative considered by the Steering Committee for funding of capital projects
was to direct Hennepin County to levy a tax within the watershed in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. This method of funding is recommended by a
majority of the members of the Steering Committee and appears to be favored by a
majority of the member cities.
CLL --'2908 I v I
BA295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
March 20, 2003
During Steering Committee discussions, a number of advantages of this funding method
were identified. These included:
1. The county levy would be outside of city tax levies thereby freeing the member cities
to either lower their tax levies or use their levy authority for other public purposes.
For cities paying their share of the commission charges by a storm sewer utility
charge, charges could be reduced or utility funds could be made available for other
city projects.
2. The county ad valorem tax would be deductible by individuals for income tax
purposes while utility charges paid to city storm sewer utilities would not.
It was suggested that using 100% commission funding and using a county tax levy would
reduce city control, make the organization more like a watershed district, or allow
taxation by an unelected body.
However, the joint powers agreement currently gives the Commission the authority to
order a project and charge cities, using the formula in the agreement. City consent is not
required. Requiring individual cities to pay a higher share, such as 20% or 80% of the
project cost, would not increase city control.
If the Commission orders a project under the joint powers agreement, cities are required
to pay for it, and will have to raise monies to pay these charges either by ad valorem
taxes, special assessments, or storm sewer utility charges.
Cities do not control Commission projects or decide whether to fund those projects. To
this extent, the Commission is like a watershed district. The difference is that watershed
district commissioners are appointed by the county board while joint powers WMO
commissioners are appointed by member cities. Additionally, the city has the right to
appoint city staff members to the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee. These
facts lead to a much greater decree of deference to city input and consideration of city
concerns; but individual cities do not have the authority to veto a project or dictate who
will pay for it.
If Commission projects are paid by county levy, the impact (i.e., what any city or any one citizen
or landowner will pay for project expenses) will vary somewhat from the charge imposed under
the 50/50 formula of the joint powers agreement. Under the joint powers agreement, the cost
allocated to any city is allocated partly on the basis of area within the watershed and partly on the
basis of tax capacity, With a county levy, the part of project expenses paid by citizens in any one
city would be determined entirely by tax capacity.
Additionally, under a county levy, charges against any one propertv would be based entirely on
tax capacity. If a project were paid for under the 50/50 formula of the joint powers agreement
CLL -22908 l v 1 3
BA295-4
Memo to: Bassett Creek WMO Commissioners
March 20, 2003
and charged to cities, each city could pay its share on some basis other than property valuation.
For example, neither special assessments nor storm sewer utility charges are based on property
valuation. Therefore, the amount paid by the citizens of one city and the amount paid by any one
tax payer will vary somewhat if capital project costs are paid for by county tax levy rather than
charges against the city under the joint powers agreement 50/50 formula.
CLL:sez
CLL-229081vl
BA295-4
Crystal
Golden Valle
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Ho
Plymouth
Robbinsdal
St. Louis Par
Table 4
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
DRAFT Water Quality Management and Flood Control 10 -Year Capital Improvements Program
Funding Options
May 2003
A_ Cost Solit. According to BCWMC Formula (50% Area + 50% Tax Capacity) - Draft 2003-2004 Adjusted Tax Capacity
City Share of Project Costs
Hope
e
Percent
Difference
2,914 1.67%
54,395 6.45%
4,988 22.67%
26,059 12.83
Total
Per Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
174,350 47,043 12,981 17,566 16,727 12,558 12,000 12,517 15,244 12,517 15,197
842,793 227,402 62,750 84,911 80,857 60,706 58,005 60,506 73,688 60,506 S73,463
22,002 5,937 1,638 2,217 2,111 1,585 1,514 1,580 1,924 1,580 1,918
203,155 54,815 15,126 20,468 19,490 14,633 13,982 14,585 17,762 14,585 17,708
165,541 44,666 12,325 16,678 15,882 11,924 11,393 11,885 14,474 11,885 14,430
188,519 50,866 14,036 18,993 18,086 13,579 12,975 13,534 16,483 13,534 16,432
1,582,745 427,055 117,842 159,461 151,847 114,005 108,932 113,629 138,384 113,629 137,961
51,939 14,014 3,867 5,233 4,983 3,741 3,575 3,729 4,541 3,729 4,527
138,396 37,342 10,304 13,943 13,278 9,969 9,525 9,936 12,100 9,936 12,063
909,140 250,870 339,470 323,260 242,700 231,900 241,900 294,600 241,900 293,7001
Crystal
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis'
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymoutt
Robbinsdaie
St. Louis Parl
B Cost Solit According to Tax Capacity - Draft 2003-2004 Adiusted Tax Capacity
City Share of Project Costs
Percent
Difference
2,914 1.67%
54,395 6.45%
4,988 22.67%
26,059 12.83
Total
Per Year
2005 2006 20071 2008 2009 2010 2011 20121 2013 2014
177,264 47,829 13,198 17,8591 17,006 12,768 12,200 12,726 15,4991 12,726 15,451
788,398 212,725 58,700 79,431 75,638 56,788 54,261 56,601 68,932 56,601 68,721
17,015 4,591 1,267 1,714 1,632 1,226 1,171 1,222 1,488 1,222 1,483
177,096 47,784 13,186 17,842 16,990 12,756 12,189 12,714 15,484 12,714 15,437
180,805 48,785 13,462 18,216 17,346 13,023 12,444 12,980 15,808 12,980 15,7
207,230 55,915 15,429 20,878 19,881 14,927 14,2621 14,878 18,119 14,878 18,063
i $1,589,748 428,945 118,364 160,167 152,519 114,509 109,414 114,132 138,996 114,132 138,572
I $57,085 15,403 4,2501 5,7511 5,477 4,112 3,929 4,0981 4,991 4,098 4,976
174,798 47,164 13,0151 17,6111 16,770 12,591 12,030 12,5491 15,283 12,549 15,236
909,140 250,8701 339,470 3239260 242,700 231,900 2411,9001 294,600 241,900 293,7
Crystal
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymouth
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Par$
c enst cnn_ city pays fer 100'x, of Prosect Costs when Prolect is Located in the City
City Share of Project Costs
Percent
Difference
2,914 1.67%
54,395 6.45%
4,988 22.67%
26,059 12.83
Total
Per Year
2005 2006 20CY71 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
504,800 161,200 75,600 215,300 0 0 0 0 52,700 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
174,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174,200
215,400 0 141,100 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 74,300,
1,931,240 747,940 34,1701 124,170 243,260 10,800 0 241,900 241,900 241,900 45,200
80,000 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 0 0
463,800 0 0 0 0 231500 231,900 0 0 0
909,1401 250,8701 339,470 3239260 242,700 231,900 00 $241,9 294,60OF 241,900 293,7
Crystal
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymouth
Robbinsdaie
St. Louis Park
D. Cost Difference Between Table B and Table A
Dollar
Difference
Percent
Difference
2,914 1.67%
54,395 6.45%
4,988 22.67%
26,059 12.83
15,264 9.22%
18,711 9.93%
7,003 0.44%
5,146 9.91
36,403 26.30%
Minneapolis computations based on 2002-2003 adjusted tax capacity
P:\23\27\051\plan\CIP Funding Options
I EP
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601
Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO
Memorandum
To: Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Company
Subject: Capital Improvement Plan — Assessment per Residential Unit
Date: April 4, 2003
Project: 23/27 0512003 060
In accordance to the Commission direction during the March 2003 meeting, we have prepared an estimate
of the cost per residential unit for several proposed capital improvement plan (CIP) assessments.
Total CIP Residential CIP
Crystal (2)
Assessment Per
Assessment Assessment (1) Total Residential Units (2) Individually Owned
Parcels Residential Unit
275,000(3) 123,750 32,750 3.78
Avtt".7—. 9 h h is " f
1) Residential assessment = 45% of total assessment.
2) Residential units include homes, condominiums and townhouses. Residential units do not include
apartments.
3) Average estimated project cost 2006-2014.
The following table provides the basis for determining total residential units:
Community
No. of Individually Owned
Residential Units 3
Crystal (2) 3,010
Golden Valley (1) 7,450
Medicine Lake (1) 150
Minneapolis (2) 4,700
Minnetonka (1) 910
New Hope (1) 2,400
Plymouth (1) 11,640
Robbinsdale (2) 1,300
St. Louis Park (1) 1,190
TOTAL 32,750
1) Parcel numbers obtained from Hennepin County.
2) Parcel numbers estimated.
3) Residential units include homes, condominiums and townhouses. Residential units do not include
apartments.
ODMA\PCDOCS\DO CS\2? 39676\ 1
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601
Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO
Memorandum
To: Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
From: Barr Engineering Company
Subject: Capital Improvement Plan — Annual Assessment per Property Types
Date: May 12, 2003
Project: 23/27 051 2003 060
In accordance to the Commission direction during the March 2003 meeting, we have prepared an estimate
of the cost per residential unit for several proposed capital improvement plan (CIP) assessments.
TABLE 1
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PER PROPERTY TYPE
PROPOSED CIP ASSESSMENT
Total CIP
Assessment
275,000 1
CIP
Assessment
CIP
Assessment (2) Total Property Units (3)
Parcels
Annual
Assessment
Per Unit
Residential 45% 123,750 32,750 3.78
Apartment 5% 13,750 202 68.07
Commercial 30% 82,500 598 137.96
Industrial 20% 55,000 457 120.35
Total 100% 275,000 34,007
1) Average estimated project cost 2006-2014.
2) CIP Assessment = ($275,000)(percent), Example: Residential assessment = 45% of $275,000
3) Total property units from Table 2
0DMA\PCD0CS\D0CS\239676\2
The following table provides the basis for determining total property units:
TABLE 2
TOTAL PROPERTY PARCELS
1) Parcel numbers obtained from Hennepin County.
2) Parcel numbers estimated.
3) Residential units include homes, condominiums and townhouses. Residential units do not include
apartments.
4) No. of apartment properties or complexes (not number of apartment living units) 5) Commercial business (not commercial zoned land)
6) Industrial business (not industrial zoned land)
ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCS\239676\2
Agenda Number
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager/`
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: June 12, 2003, for Council study session of June 16, 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.
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 (fall)
Other requests for study session topics:
Recycling Program — future program initiatives (requested by
EQC; after legislative session)
Administrative fines
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
Tune 2003
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8:00 AM TOUR 7:00 PM 7:00 PM HUMAN
OF ZACHARY
WATER
TREATMENT
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
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
IVES/JONQUIL 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
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
8:00 PM -8:30 PM FIRE
DEPARTMENT FAMILY
NIGHT, Fire Stafion 111,
3300 Dunkirk Lane
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
DISCUSS BASSETT
CREEK WATER
MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION; CO.
RD. 73 & POSSIBLE
TRANSIT GRANT,
Council Chambers
Cloud Civic CenterLEAGUEOFMINNESOTACITIESANNUALCONFERENCE, St.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
5:30 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
MEET WITH MET
COUNCIL REP;
DISCUSS 2002
AUDITED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS, Public
Safety Training Room
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
9:15 AM MUSIC
IN PLYMOUTH
5k RUN
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
29
2:00 PM -4:00 PM
MILLENNIUM GARDEN
RIBBON -CUTTING
CEREMONY, Plymouth
Creek Center
30 Ju12003
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
May 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 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 6/12/2003
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
AN 2003
Sunday I Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
Jun 2003
S M T W T F S 5:15 PM MUSIC INDEPENDENCE
IN PLYMOUTH, DAY - City
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hilde Offices Closed
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Performance
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Center
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
7:00 PM
EVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
COMMITTEE (EQC),
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
MEETING, Council Plymouth Creek PRAC), Council
Chambers Center Chambers
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
7:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
COUNCIL, Council Medicine Lake Room
Chambers
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
11:45 AM
PLYMOUTH-MTKA
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
BORN Conference Room,
Chambers
701
Carlson Parkway, 4th floor 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
7:00 PM REGULAR Medicine Lake Room
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
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 6/12/2003
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
August 2003
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
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 2Ju12003
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
3 4 5
5:30 PM
NATIONAL NIGHT
OUT
6
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7 8 9
10 11
7:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
12
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
13
7:00 PM
EVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth
Creek Center
14
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM PARK 8 REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
15 16
17 18 19 20
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
21
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
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 6/12/2003