Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-28-2015 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 2015, 5:30 p.m. MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. TOPICS A. Improvements required for developments B. Set Future Study Sessions 3. ADJOURN Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 July 28, 2015 irp)City of To: Plymouth Adding Quality to Life From: Memorandum Date: Item: INTRODUCTION Agenda Number: Dave Callister, City Manager Steve Juetten, Community Development Director July 28, 2015 Development Fees The City Council has set a study session to discuss development fees. Although the initial purpose for the study session was driven by questions on an existing roadway adjacent to a recent proposed plat, staff has included information on all development fees collected. To assist in the Council's discussion, staff has collected and summarized fee data from Lakeville, Chanhassen and Maple Grove (all developing communities). HISTORY The City Council had a similar discussion on fees on September 11, 2012. At this meeting, staff presented a feasibility report prepared by Elfering & Associates that looked at trunk sanitary sewer, trunk watermain, and the street network for the northwest area of the city (area defined on the east by Dunkirk Lane, on the west by County Road 101, on the north by the Plymouth/Maple Grove Border, and on the south by the railroad). The study analyzed the potential location of the infrastructure, phasing, estimated costs of the improvements and how the improvements could be financed. At that time, the City Council decided not to make any changes to how improvements are financed. The study is attached. Currently, the City of Plymouth collects area charges pursuant to state statute from developers for sanitary sewer and watermain. The sanitary sewer charges are collected to finance central system costs including sewer trunks, force mains, pumping stations and similar improvements. The watermain charges are also collected to finance central system costs, which include trunk watermain, reservoirs, wells, pumping stations, treatment facilities, and similar improvements. The fees charged are as follows: 2014 3.00% 2015 3.00% 2016 3.00% 2017 3.00% 3.00% 2018 2019 Sewer Area $ 1,102 1,135 1,169 1,204 1,240 $ 1,278 Water Area $ 4,092 4,215 4,341 4,471 1,606 $ 4,744 Sewer REC $ 464 478 492 507 522 $ 538 Water REC $ 1,190 1,226 1,262 1,300 1,339 $ 1,380 Note: Area charges are per acre and residential equivalent connection (REC) charges are per residential unit The City Council also recently discussed park dedication and raised the cash dedication amount from 6,500 per acre to $7,500 per acre. Page 1 Development Fees Page 2 RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND FUTURE EXPECTATIONS Over the past several years, residential development activity has been strong with many landowners in the northwest selling to developers and developers receiving approval for current and future single family neighborhoods. Many of the approved developments included multiple phases that have been started with future phases to come in the next few years. The map below shows recently approved developments (gray) and parcels that could be developed in the future (blue). It is expected that developers will extend the trunk watermain and sanitary sewer as land is developed (with any oversizing reimbursed by the city from area charges collected to date and in the future). The roadways that will need to be improved or constructed are: 54th Avenue (from Peony west to County Road 101), Troy Lane a local street that may be upgraded in its current location or moved as part of development), Brockton Lane (addition of turn and bypass lanes and an overlay with development as needed), Hamel Road, Old Rockford Road, and County Road 47 (as completed by the county or as development necessitates). Recently the city required developers to assist in payment for the construction of Dunkirk Lane which was in the City CIP, pending (being designed) and were directly benefited by improvements. In the case of Dunkirk Lane the City collected fees from developers and assessed adjacent property owners). C unplatted Phases at At concept Park Property Golf Course School Undeveloped Parcels Page 2 Development Fees Page 3 DEVELOPMENT FEE COMPARISON Mentioned earlier in the report, staff contacted three metro area developing communities to provide a development fee comparison for the City Council. The information is summarized in a chart on the next page of this memorandum. Reviewing the information, it is clear that fees vary dramatically from one community to the next. However, and each community states that projects are based on: 1) planned improvements outlined in their comprehensive plan and, 2) estimated costs to complete the improvements (similar to how Plymouth computes sanitary and watermain area charges). The two areas where the three other communities charge fees that Plymouth does not are storm water and roadways. The three comparison communities charge a flat fee for stormwater on either a gross or net acre basis. Plymouth requires each developer to provide quantity and quality control as part of a development (no more water leaves the property after development than leaves prior to development). Plus, a number of years ago the City Council adopted a surface water fee that is charged to all property owners with there water bills. The most aggressive city with regard to roadway charges is Maple Grove. Including both a per acre roadway charge and a per acre right-of-way charge, the cost to a developer can be as much as $30,000 per acre (a developer can receive reductions for improvements made and right-of-way dedicated). It should be noted that Roger Knutson has opined that state statute does not give cities the ability to levy an area charge for future roadway costs (Supreme Court opinion regarding road fees is attached). Although both Lakeville and Chanhassen have a roadway fee, it is only applied when there is a direct nexus between a development and the roadway improvement, when the roadway is in the CIP, and when the developer does not make the improvements to the roadway (turn lanes, bypass lanes, etc.). Staff contacted other cities regarding adjacent roadway improvements and others do require developers to either make improvements or provide money in lieu of improvements (these are typically negotiated in the development agreement on an individual basis). Attachments 1) June 29, 2012 Northwest Area Truck Study 2) March 6, 1997 Supreme Court Opinion Page 3 Development Fees Page 4 Charge Plymouth Lakeville Maple Grove Chanhassen 0 Area Charge If in CIP — 17,100 per acre If in CIP — Roadway Area However, we do developer pays 13,000 per acre developer pays Charges require and completes for right-of-way and completes developers to pay improvement. reduced by $2.9 improvement. if in CIP and they Developer could sq. ft. for Developer could don't build or if choose to be dedicated right- choose to be identified in a assessed of -way). assessed traffic study. 107 / FF Urban Number is based 2,400 / acre 62 / FF Rural on comp plan. Adjacent Street See Above See Above Charge developer See Above Improvements for adjacent. 3,993 / unit 5,800 / SF Unit Park Dedication 7,500 per unit — 25% reduction for 5,000 / Duplex no adjustment 3,781 / unit affordable units Unit based on product. and 20% 3,800/ reduction for Apartment Unit apartment 41 / LF of pipe Water Area 4,215 / Unit adjacent to 5,700 / Unit 10,007 / Unit Charges development 408 / Lot 41.50 / LF of Sanitary Sewer 1,135 / Unit pipe adjacent to 7,035 / gross ac. 8,236 / Unit Area Charges development & 418 / Lot 0 7,753.68 / Net Storm Sewer All storm sewer Acre (take out 6,775 / Gross Ac. 7,550 / Net Acre Area Charges costs for a ponds, wetlands development and parks) constructed and paid by developer Also $5,500 credit on site given for land dedicated for storm water Local Sewer Connection 478 / Unit 825 / Unit 660 / Unit 1,580 / Unit Charge Local Water Connection 1,226 / Unit 4,100 / Unit 2,235 / Unit 4,566 / Unit Charge Page 4 City of Plymouth Feasibility Report Northwest Area Trunk Study June 29, 2012 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Rep,istration No. 41613 Lee W. Elfering tRui 147ki1 Table of Contents I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 II. Existing Conditions..............................................................................................................1 III. Proposed Improvements.......................................................................................................2 IV. Phasing.................................................................................................................................8 V. Estimated Costs..................................................................................................................10 VI. Financing............................................................................................................................13 VII. Summary............................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A — Exhibits APPENDIX B — Plan and Profile Sheets APPENDIX C — Watermain Modeling Results APPENDIX D — Utility Construction Cost Estimates APPENDIX E — Transportation Development Fee (Peony Lane) Contributing Documentation Intrnrli irtinn The Northwest Area of the City remains the largest area of principally undeveloped residential guided land. The majority of the anticipated housing growth in the coming years will occur in this corner of Plymouth. This study was undertaken to determine what properties within the area currently have access to trunk sanitary sewer, watermain, and paved streets within an acceptable distance and what extensions are necessary to provide City infrastructure in an appropriately phased manner to the remainder of the area. The study area boundary is shown on the attached exhibits, but in general consists of the area west of Dunkirk Lane and north of the railroad tracks to the City boundary. The area is 1,390 acres in size. The study looks at the means to provide infrastructure in a staged and cost effective manner to this area that balances development with preserving natural features and open space. Service is deemed provided if it is located within '/a mile of a parcel. Existing Conditions Street Network The existing street network and the parcels currently served with a paved street are shown on Exhibit 1. The Northwest Area is currently served with a B -Minor Arterial (County Road 47) on the north side, an A -Minor Arterial (County Road 101) on the west border and an A -Minor Arterial (Peony Lane) in the south portion of the area. Local and private roads provide access to properties within the area. Dunkirk Lane is a gravel road with sections that are proposed to be paved with future development on the south and north ends of the roadway. The study area has significant topographic relief and numerous wetlands that require more analysis for street extensions than flat areas. There are also numerous City owned parcels within the study area that are part of the proposed Northwest Greenway. Trunk Sanitary Sewer The extension of the Elm Creek Interceptor by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services has provided sewer access to the Northwest Area in general. The location of the Elm Creek Interceptor is shown on Exhibit 2. The design of the interceptor provides for multiple points of 1 connection for the sub -districts within the area. Exhibit 2 shades properties that currently have access to sanitary sewer within 1/4 of a mile from their property border. A majority of access is achieved through proximity to the Elm Creek Interceptor. There is also lateral sanitary sewer that borders the study area on the southeast side that provides service. Wayzata High School is served by a sanitary sewer that runs parallel with Peony Lane. In addition, the properties on the south end of Dunkirk Lane are also shaded as having access on Exhibit 2 through a lateral sanitary sewer that was extended to the edge of the Timber Creek Crossing Addition. Trunk Watermain The location of existing watermain is isolated to the south and east portions of the study area. Service to properties shaded on Exhibit 3 is possible from watermain stubs from the Timber Creek Crossing Addition, Harvest Hills, and Steeple Hill plats. Wayzata High School is served by watermain that is stubbed on Peony Lane north of Schmidt Lake Road. Proposed Improvements Street Network In order to provide adequate paved street access to the properties within the study area the following street improvements and extensions were reviewed and are shaded on Exhibit 4: 1. Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane — From just south of 54th Avenue to Lawndale Lane in Maple Grove 2. 54th Avenue — From Peony Lane to County Road 101 3. Dunkirk Lane — The section outside of the proposed development as shaded 4. East/west Route — From Dunkirk Lane to Peony Lane. This route is labeled as 58th Avenue for discussion purposes within the remainder of the study. Peony Lane: The City has expended considerable effort on the proposed extension of Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane from south of 54th Avenue to Lawndale Lane at the border with Maple Grove. A public informational meeting was held in early May 2012. It is anticipated based on the response from that meeting and information prepared to date by city staff and their consultant that the preferred alignment as presented at the public information meeting is Alignment 3. The proposed 2 extension of Peony Lane as shown on Exhibit 4 of this report reflects the preferred Alignment 3. Preliminary cost estimates are based on a four -lane divided roadway. The extension of Peony Lane provides paved street access to the properties located within the center of the study area 54th Avenue: 54th Avenue is proposed to be extended from Peony Lane to County Road 101. The roadway would provide access for the future Speak the Word campus and the properties on the south end of Vagabond Lane. It would also provide access to the north side of the Elm Creek Golf Course. The roadway would be extended as a two-lane undivided roadway with 66 -feet of right-of-way. The roadway width will vary from 32 -feet to 44 -feet. The proposed layout for the future Speak the Word campus was utilized for the alignment of the roadway adjacent to their property. In addition, existing wetlands and topography within the proposed corridor have been taken into account in developing the remainder of the preliminary proposed alignment shown on Exhibit 4. Number of privately owned impacted parcels (right-of-way) 8 City -owned property impacted (acres) 0 Parcels with structures that require relocation 0 Wetland impact (acres) 0.35 Maximum slope of the proposed street 8% Crossing of Elm Creek No There are City owned parcels on the east end of the proposed 54th Avenue alignment that could be utilized if less acquisition of right-of-way is desired. However, this will impact additional wetlands. In addition, the proposed alignment takes into consideration the location of the Elm Creek Interceptor to include the manhole locations within the right-of-way where feasible. Shifting the roadway onto City property would move the roadway south of the Interceptor. Dunkirk Lane: Dunkirk Lane from County Road 47 to the south is also proposed as a two-lane undivided roadway with right-of-way generally 66 -feet in width and a 32 -foot wide roadway section. Proposed development layouts have been submitted to the City for the Scherber Partnership Properties adjacent to Dunkirk Lane just south of County Road 47 and the parcels just north of the Timber Creek Crossing Addition. Dunkirk Lane would be constructed by the developers 3 within these segments. The preliminary cost estimates are only for the highlighted section of Dunkirk Lane shown on Exhibit 4. The City did receive $133,000 from a developer towards the future upgrade of Dunkirk Lane. The roadway would generally be constructed in the location of the existing gravel road and therefore impacts to properties and wetlands are negligible. 58th Avenue: Due to minimal east/west routes between Dunkirk Lane N and the proposed extension of Peony Lane, the area was reviewed to determine if an additional east/west route would be feasible and cost effective. The highlighted route on Exhibit 4 was identified as the route with the least wetland impacts. The following is a summary of impacts with the proposed route: Number of privately owned impacted parcels (right-of-way) 3 City -owned property impacted (acres) 0.4 Parcels with structures that require relocation (garage) 1 Wetland impact (acres) 1.45 Maximum slope of the proposed street 8% Crossing of Elm Creek Yes Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from Peony Lane across the wetland in the vicinity of where the street is proposed. If the street is extended watermain should also be extended to provide for additional looping of the system. The street would allow for access to these utilities for future maintenance. There are City owned parcels on the east end of this roadway that could be utilized to minimize right-of-way acquisition. The roadway was moved to the south of the City owned parcels to avoid impacts to a house and keep the impacts limited to the garage. The roadway is not entirely necessary for the street network system due to the proximity to County Road 47, which is an east/west route approximately 1,350' to the north. However, if an additional east/west route is desired between County Road 47 and Schmidt Lake Road the identified location of 58th Avenue is the most logical due to the extent of existing wetlands in the remaining corridor. 2 Trunk Sanitary Sewer As noted above, the extension of the Elm Creek Interceptor provided access to sanitary sewer within 1/4 mile to a number of parcels within the study area. Four main trunk extensions are proposed to serve the remaining parcels within the area and are shown on Exhibit 5. Exhibits are also included that provide information on the existing topographic relief of each segment and the depth of sanitary sewer that would be necessary to service the area. A summary of the extensions follows: Segment 1: This segment will serve the parcels located in the northwest corner of the study area. 85% of the sanitary sewer depth is less than 30 -feet, however approximately 15% of the sewer is between 30 -feet and 40 -feet in depth. An optional alignment to serve the parcels north of County Road 47 was reviewed under Segment 0. Segment 0 would replace the need to construct Segment 1B and install a crossing under County Road 47; however the length of sanitary sewer to construct is longer for Segment 0. The sewer depth would all be less than 30 -feet. The phasing of development in the area may ultimately determine which alignment is constructed. Segment 2: This segment would serve the Elm Creek Golf Course. The extension shown on Exhibit 5 to serve the area north of T.H. 55 and west of Peony Lane in the south corner of the study area is from the Elm Creek Interceptor. There is existing sanitary sewer in the southwest corner of the study area near T.H. 55 that could be extended north to serve this area as well. The Elm Creek Interceptor and the existing sanitary sewer south of T.H. 55 both have adequate depth to service this area. Elm Creek cuts through the south portion of the golf course. Given the topographic relief of the property and the location of Elm Creek the sanitary sewer depth becomes excessive if an attempt is made to service the entire property from either the Elm Creek Interceptor or the T.H. 55 sanitary sewer alone. If depth is to be minimized an extension may be necessary from both directions that terminates on either side of Elm Creek. If Segment 2 is extended at a depth necessary to service this entire area the required depth would include approximately 615' of sewer that is 50 to 60 -feet deep. 5 Segment 3: This segment will serve the parcels located on the east side of the study area. The installation of Segment 3 will require crossing of a wetland and Elm Creek. An extension through a City owned parcel will provide service to the northeast corner of the study area. Approximately half of the length of sewer necessary to serve this area is under 20 -feet in depth and the other half is less than 30 -feet in depth. Segment 4: This segment is the extension of Segment 1 to serve the area within Phase 4. Depending on the final alignment of this sanitary sewer main and the timing of the installation it may be necessary to disturb the north portion of Troy Lane. No costs have been included for street impacts in the estimated cost section. A summary of the parcels served, number of developable lots, and length of sewer follows in the Appendix as Table 1. Trunk Watermain The length of watermain necessary to provide service to all parcels within 1/4 mile is greater than the length of sanitary sewer. The proposed watermain extensions are shown on Exhibit 6. In general, the mains shown are those necessary to provide service to the properties within the area. Water modeling was completed for various scenarios to compare potentially long dead-end segments with looped trunk watermain. Segment A6 and Segment E were added beyond that to simply serve the properties within the study area as a means to provide redundancy and increased fire flow. Water modeling results are shown in Appendix C. Each phase is discussed in greater detail below. Segment A: This segment will extend watermain along the proposed Peony Lane extension. This will provide the main trunk extension to the properties located in the northwest corner of the study area. An alternate alignment for a portion of the watermain along Peony Lane has been included. This alternate assumes that watermain would be extended utilizing a future development to the west of Peony Lane when possible. The purpose would be to reduce the cost to the City by paying for the upsizing of watermain installed within the development from lateral to trunk rather than incurring the cost of paying for the entire trunk main. Water modeling was completed to determine if a watermain loop was necessary along County Road 47 to loop the Peony Lane trunk main into the trunk main that currently 2 terminates at County Road 47. Available fire flow and peak hour pressure for the surrounding area was determined for a dead end main on Peony Lane and a looped system. For residential properties the required fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. Comparing the results of the two scenarios indicates that minimal variations will be observed in pressure. Variations under 10 psi will be negligible to most customers. In addition, the required fire flows are met in both cases. The trunk watermain Segment A6 is proposed to be constructed in the first phase to provide reductions in service disruptions and to provide a level of redundancy to the system in case of main breaks or other emergencies such as fire suppression operations. Segment B: This segment extends watermain from Peony Lane along the future 54th Avenue extension to serve the southwest portion of the study area. Depending on the timing of the construction of 54th Avenue it may be possible to install the watermain ahead of any street construction by utilizing the easement obtained for the Elm Creek Interceptor. Segment C: This segment extends watermain along Dunkirk Lane to serve the east portion of the study area. Watermain would be extended from the proposed developments adjacent to Dunkirk Lane. Segment D: This segment is the extension of Segment A to serve the very northwest corner. Installation of the watermain along Troy Lane could be accomplished with minimal street impacts with installation by directional bore. Segment E: This segment is to provide looped watermain from Segment B to Segment D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan currently calls for Commercial, C, in the very northwest corner of the study area and Semi-Public/Institutional, P -I, along the west edge adjacent to County Road 101. For commercial, institutional, and industrial land uses the minimum fire flow is 3,500 gallons per minute. To achieve this required rate it will be necessary to loop the two segments along County Road 101. 7 If an east/west route from Dunkirk Lane to Peony Lane were constructed in the future then the City may want to consider the installation of watermain along the route for additional looping purposes. Phasing Phasing of the improvements is an important component of providing service to the Northwest Area. The goal of the phasing is to outline a logical, controlled development of the Northwest Area while ensuring an overabundance of lots is not created or that expenditures are not made before they are needed. The phasing plan that follows is based on the current rate that land is being consumed for residential development within the City. The City observed a recent rate of land consumed by development of 185 acres over two years. In addition to acres consumed a review of the building permits issued over the last three years was also reviewed. The number of residential permits issued per year is as follows: Year Number of Building Permits Issued 2009 75 2010 133 2011 288 Total: 496 It was determined that for this report an average consumption rate of 165 lots per year would be used. There are currently 910 potential residential lots with access to paved streets, sanitary sewer, and watermain that are located outside of the study area. Assuming a rate of consumption of 165 lots per year, the land would be consumed for development within 5 to 6 years. Four phases are proposed for the extension of streets, sanitary sewer, and watermain to service all of the properties within the service area. The phases could be further broken down if so desired. Phase 1: Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane is proposed for construction in the summer of 2014. The construction of this roadway and the associated watermain, which consists of the Segment A sections, is considered to be the first phase of developing the area within the Northwest Area. Phase 2: The extension of 54th Avenue and the watermain consisting of the Segment B sections is proposed for Phase 2. Sketch plans have been prepared for the Speak the Word campus and the Elm Creek Golf Course; however no final plans have been completed. Phase 3: The construction of the remaining portions of Dunkirk Lane N after the development of the north and south properties within the study area and the watermain segments consisting of Segment C sections are included in Phase 3. This phase does require the extension of the sanitary sewer Segment 3 sections. Construction of 58th Avenue or another east/west route as part of this phase is optional. Phase 4: Phase 4 consists of the construction of the Segment D and Segment E watermain sections and Segment 4 of the sanitary sewer sections. The number of residential lots created with each phase is outlined below: Phase Number of Lots Time of Build Out ears 1 917 5.5 2 637 3.9 3 319 1.9 4 458 2.8 Total Lots: 2,331 The number of lots created is based on the maximum allowed according to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the anticipated zoning for the area. The time to build out is based on the current consumption rate of an average amount of 165 lots per year. 0 Estimated Costs Preliminary construction costs have been calculated for the infrastructure necessary to service the properties within the Northwest Study Area. Street Improvements: Peony Lane /Lawndale Lane Right-of-way $ 2,000,000 Construction $ 9,000,000 Total $11,000,000 54th Avenue Right-of-way $ 525,000 Construction $ 2,775,000 Total $ 3,300,000 Dunkirk Lane Right-of-way $ - Construction $ 900,000 Total $ 900,000 58th Avenue Right-of-way $ 425,000 Construction $ 1,300,000 Total $ 1,725,000 Assumptions: 1. The estimated costs for Peony Lane/Lawndale Lawn are based on Alignment 3 and were prepared by WSB & Associates. 2. Right-of-way costs were based on a rate of $2.50 per square foot, which was used for all parcels. Actual costs will vary depending on the final alignment chosen and individual impacts to parcels. No costs were included for impacts to City owned properties. 3. The estimated costs for 54th Avenue are based on a 44 -foot wide roadway and include a trail or sidewalk. The right-of-way cost could be reduced in City owned property is utilized for a portion of the alignment. 4. It is assumed that no additional right-of-way will need to be obtained for Dunkirk Lane and that the improvements will occur within the existing right-of-way. The existing right-of-way width is a minimum of 66 -feet through the proposed improvement area. The estimated costs are based on a 32 -foot wide roadway. 10 Pae 16 5. The estimated costs for 58th Avenue are based on a 32 -foot wide roadway and include a trail or sidewalk. The right-of-way cost could be reduced in City owned property is utilized for a greater portion of the alignment. Trunk Sanitary Sewer The estimated costs are shown in Table 1 and are based on the sizing shown. Sanitary sewer costs do not include any cost for easement or right-of-way acquisition. The costs also do not include major street repairs. Trunk Watermain The estimated costs are shown in Table 2 and are based on the sizing shown. Watermain costs do not include any cost for easement or right-of-way acquisition. The costs also do not include major street repairs. Proposed Phase Costs The cost for each of the four phases is summarized below and includes the street, sanitary sewer, and/or watermain that would be necessary to provide access to all three components of infrastructure. Phase 1 Street $11,000,000 Sanitary Sewer $ 340,000 Watermain $ 1,400,000 Total $12,740,000 This is the cost to provide access to infrastructure within the Phase 1 area and build out of the Phase 1 area, which includes trunk extensions to serve future phases. As the area within Phase 1 develops the sanitary sewer Segments 1, IA, and 113 (or Optional 0) would be installed. The City could work with the developer to have the sanitary sewer installed at the size and depth necessary to serve the properties to the north and west. In addition to the sanitary sewer, trunk watermain Segments A4 and A5 would also be installed as the area develops. If the utilities are extended with development the cost would be reduced from that noted above. 11 Pae 17 Phase 2 Street $ 3,300,000 Sanitary Sewer $ 195,000 Watermain $ 405,000 Total $ 3,900,000 If the Elm Creek Golf Course develops as one large development, the sanitary sewer access would be from the Elm Creek Interceptor and the City would not need to incur the sanitary sewer cost associated with Segment 2. In addition, the watermain costs associated with Segment B 1 would not need to be incurred. Phase 3 Street $ 900,000 Sanitary Sewer $ 235,000 Watermain $ 340,000 Total $ 1,475,000 If an east/west roadway is desired between Dunkirk Lane and Peony Lane it could be constructed as part of this phase to further connect the properties within Phase 3 to the street network. The alignment of 58th Avenue that is shown on Exhibit 4 is the shortest route with the least wetland impacts. The cost could change significantly depending on the final route chosen, but is estimated at $425,000. This cost would be above and beyond what is shown above. The watermain costs may also be lower as it would be routed through any potential developments that occur prior to the construction. Phase 4 Street - Sanitary Sewer $ 120,000 Watermain $ 565,000 Total $ 685,000 No street improvements have been included as part of this phase. Depending on the alignment chosen for Segment 4A, impacts to Troy Lane as part of the extension may be incurred. 12 Pae 18 Financing Financing the proposed improvements is proposed to come from a variety of sources. Streets Current municipal state aid (MSA) rules allow MSA cities to request advancements of up to the lesser of $4 million dollars or five (5) times their annual allotment to fund construction of state aid roadways. The advancement would be repaid by the City's future allocation of state aid funds. The City's current rate of allocation is approximately $2 million annually. The other funding source available to the City is special assessments. The report assumes that a residential property would be assessed based on a 32 -foot wide roadway. Peony Lane: The funding for Peony Lane is currently designated as "Other" in the Capital Improvement Program. Although the exact funding source is unknown it will likely come from a variety of sources. A funding mix of special assessments and MSA funds is assumed to finance the roadway improvements. Another option for funding a portion of the Peony Lane street improvements that the City Council may wish to consider is establishing, by ordinance, a development fee similar to Park Dedication that would be dedicated to funding for Peony Lane. This fee would only be applicable to developing properties in the Northwest Area. Two methods were analyzed by city staff to determine the most appropriate means by which to establish the fee. The first method analyzed was determining the trips that are expected to be generated by the development of the property in the Northwest Area in the vicinity of Peony Lane using population and employment data from the City's Land Use Plan element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The number of trips generated utilizing this method was 17,585 additional trips from 2005 data to projected 2030 data. The second method analyzed was determining the trips expected to be distributed onto the roadway system by development of the property in the Northwest Area in the vicinity of Peony Lane using the City's Transportation Plan element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The number of trips generated utilizing this method was 17,510 additional trips from 2005 data to projected 2030 data. Since the two methods yielded very similar results in terms of expected traffic volumes generated by development of the Northwest Area, the Transportation Plan Element method was 13 utilized to establish the percentage of trips on Peony Lane generated by development of the Northwest Area. This percentage was then used to calculate a fee based and equivalent percentage of the cost divided into the potential number of units to be developed, which was extracted from the net area of land in the Northwest Area of 1,104.09 net acres. The assessment per unit was calculated as follows: Total Construction Cost (less R/W) $8,991,400 Attributable to Development (49%) 4,405,786 Northwest Area Size (Net Acres) 1,104.09 Cost Per Acre $3,991 Assuming an average of four units per acre within the study area equates to a cost per unit of roughly $1,000 per unit. There is an expected increase in the number of households in the Northwest Area from 2005 to 2030 of 1,813 households. The total assessed would be 1,813,000 or a total of 20% of the construction cost. Dunkirk Lane: Dunkirk Lane is proposed to be funded through special assessments to abutting properties. The roadway is proposed as a 32 -foot wide street and assessments would be based on this width. 54th Avenue: 54th Avenue is proposed to be funded through special assessments to abutting properties. The roadway is proposed as a 32 to 44 -foot wide street. A portion of the street abuts property that is not currently zoned as residential. Assessments to these properties would be based on the full street width while residential properties would be based on a 32 -foot width. 54th Avenue is also currently on the City's MSA system. This would allow the use of MSA funds for the construction of the roadway. 14 Existing ADT 2030 ADT Difference Peony 5,300 10,400 5,100 49.0% This percentage was then used to calculate a fee based and equivalent percentage of the cost divided into the potential number of units to be developed, which was extracted from the net area of land in the Northwest Area of 1,104.09 net acres. The assessment per unit was calculated as follows: Total Construction Cost (less R/W) $8,991,400 Attributable to Development (49%) 4,405,786 Northwest Area Size (Net Acres) 1,104.09 Cost Per Acre $3,991 Assuming an average of four units per acre within the study area equates to a cost per unit of roughly $1,000 per unit. There is an expected increase in the number of households in the Northwest Area from 2005 to 2030 of 1,813 households. The total assessed would be 1,813,000 or a total of 20% of the construction cost. Dunkirk Lane: Dunkirk Lane is proposed to be funded through special assessments to abutting properties. The roadway is proposed as a 32 -foot wide street and assessments would be based on this width. 54th Avenue: 54th Avenue is proposed to be funded through special assessments to abutting properties. The roadway is proposed as a 32 to 44 -foot wide street. A portion of the street abuts property that is not currently zoned as residential. Assessments to these properties would be based on the full street width while residential properties would be based on a 32 -foot width. 54th Avenue is also currently on the City's MSA system. This would allow the use of MSA funds for the construction of the roadway. 14 58th Avenue: 58th Avenue is proposed to be funded through special assessments to abutting properties. The roadway is proposed as a 32 -foot wide street and assessments would be based on this width. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain As identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan the City uses two main sources of funding to finance construction of trunk utilities. They are area charges and connection fees. In addition to these two sources the City could reduce expenditures or apply a lateral assessment to Developers or property owners for utility extensions through developments that could be utilized for individual lot service. The City could require the Developer to oversize and/or have increased bury depth on mains that could be utilized as both lateral and trunk mains. The City would have to fund only the additional costs above and beyond a typical 8 -inch main for both the sewer and watermain. Using all of these funding mechanisms results in excess funds being generated by the extension of the proposed segments; however these excess funds would be needed to provide for additional wastewater treatment capacity and water production, treatment, and storage. Summary of Financing The construction cost of each phase is compared to the funding mechanisms that have been identified for the corresponding improvements. 15 Phase 1 Overall Cost 12,740,000 REC Charges 1,610,000 Area Charges 1,300,000 Lateral by Developers 600,000 Development Fee (Peony) 1,813,000 Municipal State Aid 4,000,000 Street Assessments 3,382,750 Shortage/Excess 35,000 Shortage Phase 2 Overall Cost 3,900,000 REC Charges 940,000 Area Charges 915,000 Lateral by Developers 145,000 Municipal State Aid Street Assessments 2,204,000 Shortage/Excess 304,000 Excess Generated Phase 3 Overall Cost 1,475,000 REC Charges 225,000 Area Charges 455,000 Lateral by Developers 170,000 Street Assessments 1,796,200 Shortage/Excess 1,171,200 Excess Generated Phase 4 Overall Cost 685,000 REC Charges 615,000 Area Charges 295,000 Lateral by Developers 125,000 Shortage/Excess 350,000 Excess Generated The overall cost for Phase 3 assumes the construction of 58th Avenue. None of the construction costs provided above include engineering, administration, and legal expenses. The assessment numbers generated are based on construction cost and right-of-way. In addition, the street 16 assessment amounts are only dollar amounts received from property owners but are based on a front footage amount that accounts for the City parcels also being assessed. Summary The construction of Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane and the watermain segments contained with Phase 1 will open up the Northwest Area to the potential for five (5) additional years of residential development at the current consumption rate. The City could reduce the cost of extending utilities to areas outside of Phase 1 by requiring that the majority of the trunk utilities be installed as development occurs and thereby incurring only the oversizing costs. However, this would result in staged development and properties outside of the logical sequencing would have greater difficulty in developing outside of the time line driven by this sequencing. This would also require the City to work with developers to ensure that improvements can serve the upstream properties in an appropriate manner. Development pressure from individual properties will most likely drive the final phasing plan that occurs for the overall area; however the City can anticipate the need to construct 54th Avenue or upgrade Dunkirk Lane within 5 years of the completion of Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane. 17 Appendix A Exhibits Le end N Parcels Study Boundary Existing Paved Public Street Access Wetlands Proposed Development City Owned Parcels W ILTIA NG EXHIBIT 1 EXISTING STREET NETWORK 0 E k NUMB 400. Paof 25 Le end Parcels Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole Existing Sanitary Sewer Study Boundary Wetlands Proposed Development City Owned Parcels Existing Gravity System Access EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LIM N S E NUMB 401. Padbt'26fl 3s Legend Parcels Existing Watermain Study Boundary Wetlands Proposed Development City Owned Parcels Ex. Water System Access EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING WATERMAIN N S E 11faI NG k NOWTIS TRUE HRR Le end Parcels Study Boundary Future Street Extensions Existing Paved Public Street Access Wetlands Proposed Development City Owned Parcels W N ILTIA NG EXHIBIT 4 PROPOSED STREET EXTENSIONS 0 E k NUMB 400. Paf 2e Parcels Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole Existing Sanitary Sewer Proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer Route Study Boundary Future Street Extensions Wetlands Proposed Development City Owned Parcels Existing Gravity System Access Segment 1A Segment 1 B/Segment 0 Segment 2 Segment 3A Segment 3B W Segment 4A Segment 4B S 11 EXHIBIT 5 PROPOSED TRUNK SANITARY SEWER Padbtvy 3s Parcels Existing Watermain Legend Proposed Trunk Watermain Route Study Boundary Future Street Extensions Wetlands F77 Proposed Development City Owned Parcels Ex. Water System Access Segment Al Segment A2 Segment A3 Segment A4 Segment A5 Segment A6 Segment B Segment B1 Segment C Segment D1 N S E 11faI NG k NOWTIS EXHIBIT 6 PROPOSED TRUNK WATERMAI N TMHNU Le end Parcels Phase 1 Study Boundary - Phase 2 Future Street Extensions MMY Phase 3 A Wetlands Phase 4 Proposed Development City Owned Parcels EXHIBIT 7 ANTICIPATED PHASING W N 0 E ILTIAM k WMATIS 400. Pa fit Appendix B Plan and Profile t -. •L t r I hr 122+06,' 22 0, 00 19+-00 k i SEGMENT 1S 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION10062FLANDERSCTNEDESIGNEDBY. KJE DRAWN BY: SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 55449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY rrII rr rrnn u// ! (( r( PH: (763) 780-0450 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 16000tE THE LAYS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IiSIIIV ,p))O I,pT{) FAX: (763) 780-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN SEGMENT 1, SEGMENT 1A, AND SEGMENT IB CAD FILE: CAD\180001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE PLAN AND PROFILE Pa 3 P1 TRUE NDRAI PRINTED NAME LIC.NO. NORTH o t00 0 VERT. 10 o ti i Ski 2+00 ., 3+00 1 t , + Do I) , 1µ1M • ,`+ I'• SEGMENT 2 s+ oo` Do l - I SEGMENT f r 0+ 60 r 910 t I1 11• I 15+ 00 t4.+00 13+0 12+lob ' i14b0- JOt00 9+QO 8+00 j 7+00 8too' 5+06 4+00 ,3+00 2+d()., cc 1/+ 5U 1/+UU 16+50 16+UU 15+50 15+00 14+50 14+00 13+50 13+00 12+50 12+00 11+50 11+00 10+50 10+00 9+50 9+00 8+50 8+00 7+50 7+00 5+50 8+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT N0. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY: SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET NO. BLAINE, MN 55449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: ( 763) 780-0450 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 180001E THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IRNG SSDi T S FAX: ( 763) 780-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN SEGMENT 2 AND SEGMENT 0 CAD FILE: CAD\ 18000 1 E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE PLAN AND PROFILE Pa 3 PZ iAU NIUlill PRINTED NAME UC.NO. NORTH / 0100 0 VERT. 10 t 00 0 VERT. 10 SEGMENT 3 ry 0 100 tj VERT. 10 SEGMENT 3A I % , 20- NFoo ISf5x Ir! I K SEGMENT 3S Do i 20 T-oo l 00 00 C I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT N0. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY: SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET NO. BLAINE, MN 55449 THAT I AM A DULY UC SED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY rrrnNr n(r Trr PH: (763) 780-0450 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER t60001E THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SEGMENT 3, SEGMENT 3A, AND SEGMENT 3BKIIIVtl ))O I{) FAX: (763) 780-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN P r 3CADFILE: CAD\ 180001 E\DWG\ PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE PLAN AND PROFILE iA0lNtlQAI PRINTED NAME LIC.NO. NORTH I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT SEGMENT 4B 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY: SMM t SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 55449 p O0VERT. 46+006' _ 49+00` 5+00- t 44+00 NORTHWEST AREA STUDY 00 51 A 43+00- _42+ DO_ 41+00 40+ o, 0 r PH: (763) 780-0450 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 180001E THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. NORTH I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT SEGMENT 4B 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY: SMM 0 100 SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 55449 p O0VERT. 46+006' _ 49+00` 5+00- t 44+00 NORTHWEST AREA STUDY 00 51 A 43+00- _42+ DO_ 41+00 40+ o, 0 r PH: (763) 780-0450 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 180001E THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SEGMENT 4A AND SEGMENT 4B FAX: (763) 780-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CAD FILE: CAD\180001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN PLAN AND PROFILE Pa 7"'P4 r , md i I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY: SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 55449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: (763) 780-0450 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 180001E THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. m SEGMENT 4A AND SEGMENT 4B FAX: (763) 780-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CAD FILE: CAD\180001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN PLAN AND PROFILE Pa 7"'P4 jAO NORM PRINTED NAME UC.NO. NORTH 0100 0I VERT. 10 NORn-I 00 0I VERT. 10 PROPOSED 54TH AVE. ou —uu ci+au ci+uu —ou [u+uu 1H+5u lu+uu to+5u lu+uu 1/+5u 1/+uu 1E+5u 1E+uu 15+5D 15+00 14+50 14+00 13+50 13+00 12+50 12+00 11+50 11+00 10+50 10+00 9+50 9+00 8+50 8+00 7+50 7+00 6+50 6+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+DO 2+50 2+DO 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 PROPOSED 54TH AVEe xp0 L9k00 ; J 39+50 39+00 38+50 38+00 37+50 37+00 36+50 36+00 35+50 35+00 34+50 34+00 33+50 33+OD 32+50 32+00 31+50 31+00 30+50 30+00 29+50 29+00 28+50 28+00 27+50 27+00 26+50 26+00 25+50 25+00 24+50 24+00 23+50 23+00 22+50 . l0 23+0o 22+00 21+0o zo+oo is±oor - _ae+oo - n+oo moo-" 1577. Z a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 1 r mmmmm g WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND 1t t BLAINE, MN 5 5449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY ou —uu ci+au ci+uu —ou [u+uu 1H+5u lu+uu to+5u lu+uu 1/+5u 1/+uu 1E+5u 1E+uu 15+5D 15+00 14+50 14+00 13+50 13+00 12+50 12+00 11+50 11+00 10+50 10+00 9+50 9+00 8+50 8+00 7+50 7+00 6+50 6+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+DO 2+50 2+DO 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 PROPOSED 54TH AVEe xp0 L9k00 ; J 39+50 39+00 38+50 38+00 37+50 37+00 36+50 36+00 35+50 35+00 34+50 34+00 33+50 33+OD 32+50 32+00 31+50 31+00 30+50 30+00 29+50 29+00 28+50 28+00 27+50 27+00 26+50 26+00 25+50 25+00 24+50 24+00 23+50 23+00 22+50 . 11Ml I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION mmmmm g WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 5 5449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: (763 7554. 49 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 15OOOtE THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PROPOSED 54TH AVE. FAX: (763) 750-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN P ma CAD FILE: CAD\780001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE TAUS NOAAI PRINTED NAME OC.NO. agamm Mom WMALl ou —uu ci+au ci+uu —ou [u+uu 1H+5u lu+uu to+5u lu+uu 1/+5u 1/+uu 1E+5u 1E+uu 15+5D 15+00 14+50 14+00 13+50 13+00 12+50 12+00 11+50 11+00 10+50 10+00 9+50 9+00 8+50 8+00 7+50 7+00 6+50 6+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+DO 2+50 2+DO 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 PROPOSED 54TH AVEe xp0 L9k00 ; J 39+50 39+00 38+50 38+00 37+50 37+00 36+50 36+00 35+50 35+00 34+50 34+00 33+50 33+OD 32+50 32+00 31+50 31+00 30+50 30+00 29+50 29+00 28+50 28+00 27+50 27+00 26+50 26+00 25+50 25+00 24+50 24+00 23+50 23+00 22+50 . 11Ml I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION mmmmm g WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 5 5449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: (763 7554. 49 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 15OOOtE THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PROPOSED 54TH AVE. FAX: (763) 750-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN P igCADFILE: CAD\780001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE TAUS NOAAI PRINTED NAME OC.NO. agamm Mom WMALl 39+50 39+00 38+50 38+00 37+50 37+00 36+50 36+00 35+50 35+00 34+50 34+00 33+50 33+OD 32+50 32+00 31+50 31+00 30+50 30+00 29+50 29+00 28+50 28+00 27+50 27+00 26+50 26+00 25+50 25+00 24+50 24+00 23+50 23+00 22+50 . I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY: SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET N0. BLAINE, MN 5 5449 THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: (763 7554. 49 APPROVED BY: LWE JOB NUMBER 15OOOtE THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PROPOSED 54TH AVE. FAX: (763) 750-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN P igCADFILE: CAD\780001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE PLAN AND PROFILE TAUS NOAAI PRINTED NAME OC.NO. t 0100 0I VERT. 10 NORTH 0 100 0 VERT. 10 PROPOSED 58TH AVE. WA 23+00 25+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 20+00 20+50 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEZICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY. SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET NO. BLAINE, MN 55449APPROVED BY: LWE ITHAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: 763 780-0450 JOB NUMBER 180001E THE LAYS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. RIN6 -OSSO(I T S FAX: (763) 78D-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN PROPOSED 58TH AVE. CAD FILE: CAD\180001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE PLAN AND PROFILE Pa 3PP6 Tnurunnm o.,FlFl I—u I ti I 23+00 25+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 20+00 20+50 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEZICATION, OR REPORT NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION 10062 FLANDERS CT NE DESIGNED BY: KJE DRAWN BY. SMM WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND SHEET NO. BLAINE, MN 55449APPROVED BY: LWE ITHAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER NORTHWEST AREA STUDY PH: 763 780-0450 JOB NUMBER 180001E THE LAYS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. RIN6 -OSSO(I T S FAX: (763) 78D-0452 CAD DATE: MAY 2012 CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MN PROPOSED 58TH AVE. CAD FILE: CAD\180001E\DWG\PLAN & PROFILE SIGNATURE DATE PLAN AND PROFILE Pa 3PP6 Tnurunnm o.,FlFl I—u Appendix C Watermain Modeling 4 51 gp - 9p 475 gp 402 55 pm 473 9p 9P 9p 3727 gp 32, 9p 3066 YPI 5778 3869 gp 1 gp 2790 g WA 9p 2894 1 9401 gp 1 gpm 8592 gp 2525 g 8 0 1340 gpn 0 9739 4950 m$ 0 ;' 8 9P M__, p2955gpm 2 9pm, 3067 gpm 8189 gp 9196 gp 988W 16 m 0, Of 7604 9p 32 0- 7624 gp 12 9 VMS 78 3500 3274 gp90 2495 gpm 4616 gp 3002 gp m V 0 U Page 40 Legend City of Plymouth, Minnesota NW Water Main Phasing PipeScenario1 - Maximum Day Available Fire Flow No Loop to Dunkirk Ln Watermain Diameter Less than 12 Inch Initial Model Conditions: 12 Inch 16 Inch Maximum Day Demands All Wells Running Greater than 16 Inch Towers 10 feet Below Overflow Available Flow at 20 psi Residual ANNO-1 4 51 gp - 9p 475 gp 402 55 pm 473 9p 9P 9p 3727 gp 32, 9p 3066 YPI 5778 3869 gp 1 gp 2790 g WA 9p 2894 1 9401 gp 1 gpm 8592 gp 2525 g 8 0 1340 gpn 0 9739 4950 m$ 0 ;' 8 9P M__, p2955gpm 2 9pm, 3067 gpm 8189 gp 9196 gp 988W 16 m 0, Of 7604 9p 32 0- 7624 gp 12 9 VMS 78 3500 3274 gp90 2495 gpm 4616 gp 3002 gp m V 0 U Page 40 City of Plymouth, Minnesota NW Water Main Phasing Scenario1 - Peak Hour Pressure No Loop to Dunkirk Ln Initial Model Conditions: Peak Hour Demands All Wells Running Towers 10 feet Below Overflow psi 65 p 65 43 73 Legend Pipe Watermain Diameter Less than 12 Inch 12 Inch 16 Inch Greater than 16 Inch 54 0i .. I 71 ' ire • • o• f 0si 3: 57 ps, ato44ps r iV_ i 14 1IR 1111lac 41QW I, R4 psi allliMi quill3135 4A, - 42 ps .•. 3:51 si 44 • • / •4 DO • si, 0 48 psi 5 5• 111% 1&K si 1 • • •si Page 41 City of Plymouth, Minnesota NW Water Main Phasing Scenario 2 - Maximum Day Available Fire Flow Looped to Dunkirk Ln Initial Model Conditions: Maximum Day Demands All Wells Running Towers 10 feet Below Overflow Available Flow at 20 psi Residual 3081 g 9 38 3519 at 9 9 14 gpi 4824 11796 10856 c 9854 g 9734 g Legend Pipe Watermain Diameter Less than 12 Inch 12 Inch 16 Inch Greater than 16 Inch ANNO-1 rid. • • •• •i q 3336 gpRO 6 9p 34771 O 0 2493 gpm 4615 gr 3000 gp m 9 0 Page 42 City of Plymouth, Minnesota NW Water Main Phasing Legend Scenario 2 - Peak Hour Pressure Looped to Dunkirk Ln Pipe Watermain Diamter Initial Model Conditions: Less than 12 Inch Peak Hour Demands 12 Inch All Wells Running Towers 10 feet Below Overflow 16 Inch 42 72 63 pq 63 Greater than 16 Inch P w Nar 40 p 358 40 ps1 3$Wp1 9 psi 00 48 psi 40 Page 43 M City of Plymouth, Minnesota NW Water Main Phasing Scenario3 - Maximum Day Available Fire Flow No Loop to Dunkirk Ln, CR 101 Looped Initial Model Conditions: Maximum Day Demands All Wells Running Towers 10 feet Below Overflow Available Flow at 20 psi Residual 3452 aor 3502 3379 g 3500 gpm oo It gpi 4528 9 8592 g 8189 g 7604 g 7624 g 47568 3274 gpP 3 gpKe 426 gpm 9 Legend Pipe RUN_DIAM Less than 12 Inch 12 Inch 16 Inch Greater than 16 Inch 75 q P 2894fvp141340gp), w 067&INK 1654 0 2495 gpr 4616 3002 gp rem Page 44 City of Plymouth, Minnesota NW Water Main Phasing Legend Scenario4 - Maximum Day Available Fire Flow Looped to Dunkirk Ln, CR 101 Looped Pipe Watermain Diameter Initial Model Conditions: Less than 12 Inch 12 Inch Maximum Day Demands All Wells Running 16 Inch Towers 10 feet Below Overflow Available Flow at 20 psi Residual Greater than 16 Inch 4009 g 77 9 3989 4010 gprrl / .P 1 717 gpm 9Pm 1 1 11891 10930 g 9914 g 9789 4 0 2892 9430 ar Page 45 Appendix D Trunk Utility Construction Cost Estimates Table 1 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Extension Construction Cost Funding Sources Segment Length Number of Parcels Served Developable Acres Served Number of Residential Lots Size inches Total Estimated Segment Cost Sewer REC Charge Sewer Area Charge Lateral Construction Cost by Developer 1 1,492 12 138,710 59,680 1A 1 1,446 1 7 1 67.5 1 217 1 10 124,180 90,055 69,120 57,840 1B 421 9 66.9 401 8 76,015 166,415 68,506 16,840 Total Phase 1 338,905 256,470 137,626 134,360 2 1,491 5 95.1 570 10 194,845 236,550 97,382 59,640 Total Phase 2 194,845 236,550 97,382 59,640 3 832 8 57,900 3A 1,324 11 60.2 251 8 80,325 104,165 61,645 3B 1,685 10 68.8 68 8 92,725 28,220 70,451 67,400 Total Phase 3 230,950 132,385 132,096 67,400 4A 958 6 36 70 10 52,685 29,050 36,864 4B 1,335 7 35.3 - Residential 6.0 - Commercial 385 8 63,250 159,775 42,291 53,400 Total Phase 4 115,935 188,825 79,155 53,400 Optional 1,793 9 66.9 401 8 99,200 166,415 68,506 71,720 Notes 1. Number of developable lots is estimated based on maximum density allowed by zoning x developable acres. 2. City Sewer Connection Charge (REC) is based on current rate of $415 per unit. 3. City Sewer Area Charge is based on current rate of $1,024 per developable acre. 4. Lateral construction cost is the cost to install an 8 -inch main through the property for lateral service. The developer would be responsible for this cost. 5. If the developer installs the utility the City would be responsible for the oversizing cost, which is the total segment cost minus the lateral cost. Page 47 Table 2 Watermain Trunk Extension Construction Cost Funding Sources Segment Length feet Number of Parcels Served Developable Acres Served Number of Residential Lots Size inches Total Estimated Segment Cost Water REC Charge Water Area Charge Lateral Construction Cost by Developer A 2,086 16 198,170 Al 1,534 1 13.7 27 16 145,730 29,808 52,033 A2 - Alt 1 2,524 9 61.1 174 16 239,780 192,096 232,058 A3 1,958 14 68.3 384 16 186,010 423,936 259,403 A4 1,957 7 69.1 332 12 146,775 366,528 262,442 110,081 A5 1 1,471 1 10 49.7 1 73 1 12 110,325 80,592 188,761 82,744 A6 3,830 8 44.1 235 16 363,850 259,440 1 $167,492 272,888 Total Phase 1 1,390,640 1,352,400 1,162,188 465,713 B 3,842 13 58.1 - Residential 62.8 - Church 67 12 288,150 73,968 459,178 B1 1,558 5 95.1 570 12 116,850 629,280 361,190 87,638 Total Phase 2 405,000 703,248 820,368 87,638 C 3,970 13 84.9 84 12 297,750 92,736 322,450 73,969 C1 542 12 40,650 30,488 Total Phase 3 338,400 92,736 322,450 104,456 D 962 12 72,150 D1 1,315 9 37.9 - Residential 13.0 - Church 6.0 - Commercial 385 12 98,625 425,040 216,106 73,969 E 5,211 12 390,825 Total Phase 4 561,600 425,040 216,106 73,969 A2- Alternate 2 3,098 1 9 1 61.1 1 174 1 16 1 $294,310 1 $192,096 1 $232,058 1 $220,733 Notes 1. Number of developable lots is estimated based on maximum density allowed by zoning x developable acres. 2. City Water Connection Charge (REC) is based on current rate of $1,104 per unit. 3. City Water Area Charge is based on current rate of $3,798 per developable acre. 4. Lateral construction cost is the cost to install an 8 -inch main through the property for lateral service. The developer would be responsible for this cost. 5. If the developer installs the utility the City would be responsible for the oversizing cost, which is the total segment cost minus the lateral cost. Page 48 Appendix E Transportation Development Fee TRIPS GENERATED - 2030 LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Traffic Analysis Zones Total 1,813 17,585 Page 50 2005 Data 2030 Data 2005-2030 Comparison Plymouth TAZ Met Council TAZ TAZ Population Households Employment Retail Non -Retail Total Employment Employment Population Households Retail Employment Non -Retail Employment Total Employment Difference in HH Trips (9.7/du) 8 674 8 20 8 0 0 0 406 174 0 0 0 166 1,612 9 674 9 13 5 0 0 0 476 205 0 0 0 200 1,941 10 674 10 98 38 0 253 253 1,594 685 0 226 226 647 6,274 14 674 14 948 368 0 0 0 2,717 1,168 0 0 0 800 7,757 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Traffic Analysis Zones Total 1,813 17,585 Page 50 TRIPS GENERATED - 2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENT Existing ADT 2030 ADT 1300 X9,200 l r,3Of1 +iy 0,4170 a i jj1_ _ o 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Existing and Future Average Daily Traffic Page 51 Existing ADT 2030 ADT Difference Peony 5,300 10,400 5,100 49.0% CR 47W 3,175 6,000 2,825 47.1% CR 47E 3,715 8,300 4,585 55.2% 54th 0 5,000 5,000 100.0% Total 12,190 29,700 17,510 59.0% Existing ADT 2030 ADT 1300 X9,200 l r,3Of1 +iy 0,4170 a i jj1_ _ o 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Existing and Future Average Daily Traffic Page 51 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext Page 1 of 7 Country Joe, Inc, v. City of Eagan Supreme Court of Minnesota. -, March 6, 1997 560 N.W.2d 681 (Approx. 10 pages) SELECTED TOPICS I Original Image of 560 N.W.2d 681 (PDF) Zoning and Planning 56o N.W.2d 681 Fees, Bonds, and in Lieu Payments Supreme Collet of Minnesota. Unpaid Building Permit Fees Judicial Review or Relief COUNTRY JOE, INC., et al., Respondents, Residential Property City Board of Adjustment V. CITY OF EAGAN, petitioner, Appellant. Municipal Corporations Governmental Powers and Functions No. C8-95-2289. March 6, 199'7. Existence of General Inherent Powers of Municipalities Building contractors brought action against city, challenging legality of road unit connection charge imposed by city as condition of issuance of building permits. The District Court, secondary sources Dakota County, Thomas M, Murphy, J., granted summary judgment for city, and contractors 6:31.Fees—Impact fees appealed. The Court of Appeals, 548 N.W.2d 281, reversed and remanded. City appealed. The Supreme Court, Keith, C.J., held that: (1) connection charge was not valid exercise of 1 Subdivision Law and Growth Mgmt. § 6:31 2d ed.) city's implied municipal planning authority under Municipal Planning Act; (2) connection A variation on the theme offees in lieu of charge was not "impact fee'; and (3) connection charge was unlawful tax. dedication is the impactfee. Impactfees reflect the factthat all new development Affirmed. imposes costs on the community.. Costs for additional services, expansion ... West Headnotes (6) 6:29.Fees 1 Subdivision Law and Growth Mgmt. § 6:29 2d ed.) Change View Exactions are imposed in recognition of the fact that new development imposes 1 Municipal Corporations Powers and functions of local government in substantial additional costs to the delivery of general community services, costs not reflected in on- site improvements. Communitie... Municipal Corporations 4; Powers incident to execution of those granted As limited statutory creation, statutory city has no inherent powers beyond those 167:2.Fees for schools expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers 7American Land Planning Law § 167:2 (Rev. Ed.) which have been expressly conferred. M.S.A. § 410.015. An issue of considerable importance in Califomia, and particularly following the 2 Cases that cite this head note passage of Proposition 13, has been how to finance school construction in newly developing areas, Increasingly this iss... i 2 Zoning and Planning yx^ Fees, bonds and in lieu payments Authority to impose road unit connection charge as condition of issuance of See More Secondary Sources building permits could not be implied from city's municipal planning authority Briefs under Municipal Planning Act; legislature had specifically provided funding Petition for Writ of Certiorari mechanism for road improvements, and thus, no funding mechanism had to be implied to effectuate legislative grant of authority to undertake road 1995wL 17047636 640 BROADWAY RENAISSANCE CO., improvements. M.S.A. §§ 412.221, subd. 6, 429.021, subd. 1(1), 462.351. Petitioner, v. John EISNER, et al. and 15 Other Cases Consolidated for Purposes of a Joint Appeal, Respondents. Supreme Court ofthe United States, 3 Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments December 05, 1995 There was insufficient evidence that road unit connection charge imposed by city The Plaintiff is a privately held New York partnership, with no publicly owned interests. as condition of issuance of building permits within its borders was proportionate to All the names of the Defendants - need created by development upon which burden of payment fell to qualify Respondents in the sixteen consolidated cases are as follows: John Eisner, Maur... charge as "impact fee," even if such fees were authorized; city ignored its own consulting engineers' recommendation that connection charge be periodically Petitioners' Brief updated to account for changes in costs, revenue projections, or patterns of 1976 WL 181305 development. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, etal., Respondents, v. THE VILLAGE OF 2 Cases that cite this headnote ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, et al., Petitioners, Northwest Opportunity Center and Eluteria D. Maldonado, Intervening, Respondents. 4 Taxation ` Distinguishing "tax" and 'license" or "fee" Supreme Court of the united States. Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments January 23, 1976 Road unit connection charge imposed b city as condition of issuance of buildingTne9PYb opinion of the united states Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reported in permits was unlawful "tax," rather than regulatory or license fee authorized under 517 F. 2d 409 and appears as Appendix to city's general welfarepowers; there was already separate building Permit fee the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed herein, The opinion of the ... covering regulatory costs, plain language of resolution enacting charge indicated that it was expressly intended to raise revenue, and revenues collected were not Petitioners' Brief. earmarked for projects necessitated by new development, but funded all major 1976 WL 194239 Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation v. The Village of Arlington https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/1872aflfbff771ld9bf60cl... -f/!Y/2415 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext street construction, as well as repairs of existing streets. M.S.A. § 412.221, subd. 32. 7 Cases that cite this headnote 5 Zoning and Planning Fees, bonds and in lieu payments Statute recognizing city's authority to impose "other special taxes authorized by law" did not authorize road unit connection charge imposed as condition of issuance of building permits. M.S.A. § 412.251, subd. 11. 2 Cases that cite this headnote g Zoning and Planning Preservation below of grounds of review Claim by amicus curiae that building contractors waived right to challenge road unit connection charge by failing to challenge charge at earlier date would not be addressed on review, as issue was neither reached by trial court nor raised by party before appellate court. 1 Case that cites this headnote 681 Syllabus bythe Court A statutory city lacks express or implied authority to impose a road unit connection *682 charge as a condition to issuance of building permits within its borders. Attorneys and Law Firms Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P., Clifford M. Greene, John M. Baker, Minneapolis, Sheldon, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, James F. Sheldon, Michael G. Dougherty, Apple Valley, for Appellant. Thomas H. Goodman, Gerald S. Duffy, Wood R. Foster, Jr., Anthony J. Gleekel, Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P.A., Minneapolis, for Respondents. Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A., Roger N. Knutson, Eagan, amicus curiae. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. OPINION KEITH, Chief Justice. This case requires us to decide whether the City of Eagan may lawfully impose a road unit connection charge as a condition of issuance of all building permits within its borders. The city adopted such a charge in 1978 for the purpose of funding major street improvements. The respondents, home building contractors, challenged the city's authority to impose such a charge and sought a refund of all charges collected within the six-year statute of limitations. They also sought class certification on behalf of themselves and all others subjected to the charge. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a stipulation calling for the district court to initially consider only the question of the city's authority to impose the charge. After a hearing, the district court concluded that the city had the authority under its police powers to impose a road unit connection charge. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the charge was unauthorized either by statute or case law. Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 548 N.W.2d 281, 284 (Minn.App.1996). We affirm. On February 14, 1978, the Eagan city council adopted a resolution imposing a road unit connection charge payable as a condition to issuance of all building permits within the city. t The resolution stated that its purpose was to provide "an equitable source of funding for major county and city street construction * * * in order to accommodate new development and traffic generated from future anticipated residential, commercial and industrial construction * * * " The charge was prompted by a study conducted by the city's consulting engineers in 1977, which projected a shortfall of $1.11 million in funds available to finance major street construction in the city through the year 2000. The consulting engineers proposed that the city make up this shortfall by imposing a road unit connection charge, patterned after the water and sewer connection charges already imposed by the city pursuant to state law. See Minn.Stat. § 444.075, subd, 3 (1996). Page 2of7 Heights Supreme Court of the United States, January 23, 1976 The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reported in 517 F. 2d 409 and appears as Appendix A to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari fled herein. The opinion of the ... See More Briefs Trial Court Documents In re Msr Resort Golf Course LLC 2011 WL 2752260 In re Msr Resort Golf Course LLC United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. February 01, 2011 FN1. The debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each debtor's federal tax identification number include: MSR Resort Golf Course LLC 7388); MSR Biltmore Resort, LP (5736)... In re MSR Resort Golf Course LLC 2011 WL 2752262 In re MSR Resort Golf Course LLC United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. February 01, 2011 FN1. The debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each debtor's federal tax identification number include: MSR Resort Golf Course LLC 7388); MSR Biltmore Resort, LP (5736)... In re Advanced Living Technologies, Inc. 2013 WL 1857803 In re Advanced Living Technologies, Inc. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas, April 30, 2013 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED thatthe below described is SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2013. «signature» H. CHRISTOPHER MOTT UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE (Chapter 11) This Interim Order (1) ... See More Trial Court Documents https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I872aflfbff7711d9bf60c1... 71/' 23/N15 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext Page 3 of 7 The city deposits road unit connection charges collected into a Major Street Fund account, along with other sources of road funds.2 Funds are not earmarked for any particular project and the city does not attempt to link expenditures to any particular funding source. In addition to major street construction costs, miscellaneous charges such as sealcoating and the purchase of signal lights are occasionally paid out of the account. 683 The original plan recommended that the charge "be reviewed annually and totally revised every 5 years in order to adjust for any significant changes in construction costs, revenue projections or changes in the development pattern within the City of Eagan." In December 1979, the city revised its estimated costs of construction upward to include the addition of pedestrian walkways to the city's street design. As a consequence, the city increased the road unit connection charge for a single family residence from $75 to $185. Except for annual increases based on an inflationary index, the plan has not been updated since this initial revision of 1979. The inflation-adjusted charge for a single family residence had increased from the initial $75 to $410 at the time this lawsuit was filed in 1994. On appeal, the city contends that the imposition of a road unit connection charge is a lawful exercise of its implied powers under Minnesota law. The city suggests that the authority to finance road improvements can be implied from several sources, including the city's municipal planning authority under Minn.Stat. ch. 462; the implied power to impose an impact fee" to fund infrastructure improvements, as currently recognized in numerous other states; and the city's power to collect regulatory and license fees pursuant to its general welfare powers under Minn.Stat. § 412.221, subd. 32. 1 2 The city of Eagan is a "statutory city," meaning it is a municipal corporation that has not adopted a home rule charter as provided for under Minnesota law. See Minn.Stat. § 410.015. As a limited statutory creation, the city has no inherent powers beyond those expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred." Mangold Midwest Co, v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820 (1966). We first consider the city's contention that the road unit connection charge is a valid exercise of its implied municipal planning authority under Minn.Stat. ch. 462, the Municipal Planning Act. The policy statement introducing the act clearly expresses the legislature's intent to confer broad planning authority on cities: "It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning." Minn.Stat. § 462.351. The city asserts that the road unit connection charge is merely an example of its lawful exercise of the broad planning authority conferred upon it under the act. The city relies on our decisions in two municipal planning cases in support of its assertion. In Naegele Outdoor Advec Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, we upheld an ordinance adopted by the village requiring advertisers to phase out billboards located in exclusively residential zones. 281 Minn. 492, 505, 162 N.W.2d 206, 215 (1968). We concluded that while no statute expressly authorized such an ordinance, the power to do so must necessarily be implied to effectuate the village's express statutory authority to create exclusively residential districts. Id. at 504, 162 N.W.2d at 215. In Almquist v. Town of Marshan, we upheld the town's adoption of a zoning moratorium against a landowner's contention that, by expressly extending the authority to adopt such a moratorium to county boards while remaining silent on the power of municipalities to adopt similar moratoria, the legislature evinced an intent to withhold the authority from municipalities. 308 Minn. 52, 64, 245 N.W.2d 819, 825 (1976). We rejected the negative inference urged by the landowner, noting that, among other arguments, "an equally persuasive argument may be made that the legislature * * * simply assumed that municipalities had inherent power to enact such ordinances." Id. Thus, the city urges that after Almquist, absent an explicit expression of a contrary purpose by the legislature, cities are presumptively endowed with broad municipal planning powers -including the power to finance municipal improvements -subject only to the limitations of good faith and nondiscrimination. Id. at 65, 245 N.W.2d at 826. Relying on Almquist, the city contends that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the legislature's failure to explicitly authorize *684 the road unit connection charge in the tax statute was an "explicit expression" of its intent to withhold such authority. CountryJoe, 548 N.W.2d at 284. To the contrary, the city asserts that not only is the construction of roads to meet new development needs reasonably related to the welfare of its citizens, see Minn.Stat. § 412.221, subd. 32, but also the implied authority to finance such construction https:Ha.next.westlaw.com/Document/1872aflfbff771 I d9bf60c 1... T/l 615 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext Page 4 of 7 can be derived from the Municipal Planning Act, see id. § 462.351, as well as from the city's authority to make public improvements under Minn.Stat. § 429.021, subd. 1 and Minn.Stat. § 412.221, subd. 6. Finally, the city cites a Virginia case in arguing that the "authority to finance public activity is implicit in [the] authority to undertake it[.]" In TidewaterAss'n of Homebuilders, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the contention of an association of contractors that statutory authorization for a $200 million water project alone was insufficient and that "the financing mechanism or fee chosen by the City must be authorized separately 241 Va. 114, 118, 400 S.E.2d 523, 526 (1991). The court noted, In order to exercise the duty and authority to provide a water system then, the corresponding ability to pay for the system must exist. We agree with the trial court that the ability to finance the cost of providing this service is inherent in the authority to provide it, and the specific mechanism chosen by the City to finance the project need not be defined by statute. Id. at 119, 400 S.E.2d at 526 We agree that Naegele, and Almquist broadly define a city's ability to plan for the use of property within its borders. That the Municipal Planning Act expressly confers broad municipal planning powers on cities does not necessarily imply that the legislature similarly intended to confer broad financing powers under the act. In fact, the legislature's actions support the opposite conclusion. Although the legislature expressly provided for the sewer and water charges after which the city patterned its road unit connection charge, see Minn.Stat. § 444.075, subd. 3, it failed to provide such authorization for a road charge. That this lack of express statutory authorization was not the result of legislative oversight is evidenced by statutory provisions expressly establishing special assessments as the mechanism by which cities are empowered to finance road improvements. See Minn.Stat. 429.021, subd. 1(1), 412.221, subd. 6. The Virginia court's decision in Tidewater is thus readily distinguishable.I In Tidewater, the court noted that the Virginia legislature provided no funding mechanism at all for the water project which it had authorized. 241 Va, at 119, 400 S.E.2d at 526. In contrast, the Minnesota legislature has specifically provided a funding mechanism for road improvements; therefore, no funding mechanism need be implied to effectuate the legislative grant of authority to undertake road improvements. Cf. Naegele, 281 Minn, at 503-04, 162 N.W.2d at 215 (holding that the powerto amortize nonconforming uses must necessarily be implied in face of legislative silence in order to effectuate the village's express power to create residential zones); Almquist, 308 Minn. at 63-65, 245 N.W.2d at 825-26 (holding that the power to adopt a zoning moratorium may be implied to effectuate the town's zoning powers despite the legislature's silence on whether cities, as well as counties, possessed such authority). Accordingly, we conclude that the authority to impose a road unit connection charge cannot be implied from the city's municipal planning authority. See Mangold, 274 Minn. at 357, 143 N.W.2d at 820. 3 The city next contends that the court of appeals erred in rejecting case law from other jurisdictions approving of similar charges as "impact fees." Impact fees have been lauded by local governments in recent years as a welcome means to "shift a portion of the cost of providing capital facilities to serve new growth from the general tax base to the new development generating the demand *685 for the facilities." Martin L. Leitner & Susan P. Schoettle, A Survey of State Impact Fee Enabling Legislation, in Exactions, Impact Fees and Dedications; Shaping Land -Use Development and Funding Infrastructure in the Dolan Era 60 (Robert H. Freilich & David W. Bushek eds., 1995). An impact fee has been defined as a form of development exaction that is: in the form of a predetermined money payment; assessed as a condition to the issuance of a building permit, an occupancy permit or plat approval; pursuant to local government powers to regulate new growth and development and provide for adequate public facilities and services; levied to fund large-scale, off-site public facilities and services necessary to serve new development; https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I872aflf6ff7711 d9bf60c 1... 'T15 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext Page 5 of 7 in an amount which is proportionate to the need for the public facilities generated by new development. Brian W. Blaesser & Christine M. Kentopp, Impact Fees: The "Second Generation, " in 1991 Zoning and Planning Handbook 255, 264 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 1991). Commentators suggest that an impact fee differs from a tax in that an impact fee is levied as compensation for the services rendered." Id. at 266 (citation omitted). Thus, key to the concept of a true impact fee is that the amount assessed a developer must reflect the cost of infrastructure improvements necessitated by the development itself. Conversely, "a charge having no relation to the services rendered, assessed to provide general revenue rather than compensation, is a tax." to. Impact fees have also been distinguished from special assessments: "The primary difference is that special assessments represent a measure of the benefit of public improvements on new or existing development, whereas impact fees typically measure the cost of the demand or need for public facilities as a result of new development only." Id. at 267 (emphasis added). The contractors argue that impact fees are lawful only if such fees are authorized, or appropriately limited, by state enabling legislation. They cite a number of cases from other jurisdictions in support of their contention that it "is well-settled that impact fees, such as the Road Unit Connection Charge, are illegal without specific enabling legislation. ,4 They also point to the failure of a bill proposing an impact fee in a recent session as evidence that the Minnesota legislature has not endorsed the concept of impact fees. See H.F. 988, 79th Leg. Minn.1995) (a bill to amend § 462.358 of the Municipal Planning Act to authorize school impact fees). The city responds by citing a number of decisions from other states that allegedly uphold the imposition of impact fees without express statutory enabling legislation.5 We conclude, however, that we need not reach the issue of whether impact fees are authorized in Minnesota in order to pass on the validity of the road unit connection charge imposed by the city. By definition, an impact fee must be "in an amount which is proportionate to the need for the public facilities generated by new development." Blaesser & Kentopp at 264. In this case, however, the city essentially ignored its own consulting engineers' recommendation that the road unit connection charge be periodically updated to account for changes in costs, revenue *686 projections, or patterns of development. Thus, for the period in question, there is insufficient evidence that the charge was proportionate to the need created by the development upon which the burden of payment fell. Accordingly, we reserve the issue of whether impact fees are authorized under Minnesota law, but reject the city's contention that the road unit connection charge draws its authorization as such a fee. III. 4 The city's final argument is that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the road unit connection charge is an unlawful tax.6 The city argues that the charge is not a tax and suggests that the charge is authorized as a regulatory or license fee under its general welfare powers. See Minn.Stat. § 412.221, subd. 32. We have consistently rejected the argument that the general police power extends to permit revenue raising measures by municipalities. When it has been apparent that a city's true motivation was to raise revenue -and not merely to recover the costs of regulation -we have disregarded the fee label attached by a municipality and held that the charge in question was in fact a tax. See State v. Labo's Direct Serv., 232 Minn. 175, 182, 44 N.W.2d 823, 827 1950) (striking down a fee on gasoline pumps as "a tax for the purpose of producing more revenue for the municipality"); Barron v. City ofNinneapolis, 212 Minn. 566, 570, 4 N,W.2d 622, 624 (1942) (invalidating a license fee after concluding that "tw]hat the city council sought to accomplish, and did accomplish, was the enactment of a revenue measure"). The contractors assert that the road unit connection charge cannot find validity "under the cloak of the city's police power" for two reasons: first, there is already a separate building permit fee which covers the purely regulatory costs of building permit issuance and enforcement; and second, the plain language of the resolution enacting the charge indicates that it was enacted "for the purpose of funding oversizing of major streets" as well as to provide "an equitable source of funding" for such development and was, thus, expressly intended to raise revenue. We agree. We conclude that the charge is a revenue measure, benefiting the public in general, and is not an authorized exercise of the city's police powers. In reaching this conclusion, we find it https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I872afl fbff7711 d9bf60c 1... 7p/ 2T 15 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext Page 6 of 7 significant that revenues collected from the road unit connection charge are not earmarked in any way to fund projects necessitated by new development, but instead fund all major street construction, as well as repairs of existing streets. Because it is not a purely regulatory or license fee but instead a revenue measure, the road unit connection charge is a tax which must draw its authorization, if at all, from the city's powers of taxation. Accord Eastern Diversified, 319 Md. at 54-55, 570 A.2d at 854-55 (determining that a road improvement impact fee was a tax because "[n]othing * * * suggests that * * * [the] fees are charged solely on the basis of service provided to the property owner, or to defray expenses of the development regulatory process"); Hillis Homes, 97 Wash. 2d at 808, 650 R2d at 194-95 holding that park assessments, "although characterized by the Counties as fees * * * are taxes, rather than fees' because the ordinances were designed to raise revenue); Idaho Bldg. Contractors, 126 Idaho at 743, 890 P.2d at 329 (concluding that development impact fee not limited geographically or to improvements to be used solely by those creating the new development was a tax and not a fee); Wielepski, 98 Md.App. at 730, 635 A.2d at 47-48 taking judicial notice of the fact that "improvements to public roads benefit the public in general, not only the bordering property owners" in concluding that fee was an illegal tax). 5 6 The taxing authority afforded municipalities under state law is delineated in Minn.Stat. § 412.251. Although *687 Minn.Stat. § 412.251 specifies that municipalities are authorized to levy taxes for such far-reaching purposes as "provid[ing] musical entertainment to the public," "for band purposes," and "for the support of a municipal forest," we conclude there is nothing in the statute suggesting the authority to impose anything similar to a road unit connection charge. See Minn.Stat. § 412.251. Although paragraph 11 of Minn.Stat. § 412.251 operates as a catch-all provision, recognizing a city's authority to impose "other special taxes authorized by law," we conclude on the basis of our preceding analysis that the road unit connection charge is not so "authorized by law." Minn.Stat. § 412.251(11). Accordingly, we conclude that the road unit connection charge cannot find validity under the city's power of taxation .7 AFFIRMED All Citations 560 N.W.2d 681 Footnotes 1 The resolution resolved in part: 3. That the following unit connection charges be required to be paid at the time of acquisition of future building permits in the City: a. For single family, double bungalow and townhouse residential building units -$75 per unit. b. For multiple family residential units -80% of the normal residential unit connection charge. c. For commercial and industrial building permits -amount determined on an acreage basis or portion thereof with three residential units per acre and a minimum of one residential equivalent unit connection charge. The city's Finance Director testified that road unit connection charges collected are commingled with the city's "ad valorem tax levy, some special assessment collections, interest earnings" and other miscellaneous revenue sources in the Major Street Fund. As an initial matter, Tidewater did not involve road impact fees of the type enacted by the City of Eagan, which coincidentally were specifically provided for under Virginia law. 241 Va. at 118, 400 S.E.2d at 526. See Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc, v. Planning Comm'n of Danbury, 160 Conn. 109, 273 A.2d 880 (1970); Idaho Bldg. Contractors Assn v, City of Coeur d'Alene, 126 Idaho 740, 890 P.2d 326 (1995); Coronado Dev. Co, v. City of McPherson, 189 Kan. 174, 368 P.2d 51 (1962); Eastern Diversified Properties, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 319 Md. 45, 570 A.2d 850 (1990); Wielepski v. Harford County, 98 Md.App, 721, 635 A.2d 43, vacated on other grounds, 335 Md. 225, 642 A.2d 1357 (1994); Middlesex & Boston St. Ry. v. Board of https:Ha.next.westlaw.com/Document/I872afl fbff7711 d9bf60c 1... IN 15 Country Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan - WestlawNext Page 7 of 7 Aldermen, 371 Mass. 849, 359 N.E.2d 1279 (1977); New Jersey Builders Ass'n v, Bernards Township, 108 N.J. 223, 528 A.2d 555 (1987); Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wash.2d 804, 650 P.2d 193 (1982). See Associated Home Builders of Greater E. Bay, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal.3d 633, 94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606 (1971); Contractors & Builders Ass'n v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (Fla.1976); Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Township of Holmdel, 121 N.J. 550, 583 A.2d 277 (1990); TidewaterAss'n of Homebuilders, Inc, v. City of Virginia Beach, 241 Va. 114, 400 S.E.2d 523 1991). The court of appeals did not expressly state that the basis of its opinion was that the charge was an unlawful tax. However, the court did state, "A decision of this court upholding a road unit connection charge would, we believe, directly contravene the intent of the legislature in providing specific limitations on the power to tax." Country Joe, 548 N.W.2d at 286 (emphasis added). Because we conclude that the road unit connection charge is unauthorized under Minnesota law, we need not reach the contractor's argument that the charge is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The amicus curiae raises the additional argument that, based on the court of appeals decision in Crystal Green v. City of Crystal, the contractors waived their right to challenge the road unit connection charge by failing to challenge the charge at an earlier date. See 421 N.W.2d 393 (Minn.App,1988), pet forrev. denied Minn. May 25, 1988), However, because this issue was neither reached by the district court nor raised by a party before this court, we likewise decline to address it on review. See Thayer v. American Fin. Advisers, Inc., 322 N.W.2d 599, 604 (Minn.1982) (declining to consider an issue not "considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it"); State v. Applebaums Mkts., Inc., 259 Minn. 209, 216, 106 N.W.2d 896, 901 (1960) (holding that amicus curiae may not raise the issue of the constitutionality of a statute when the issue was not raised by any party to the action). End of Document 0 2015 Thomson Reuters.. No claim to onginal U,S. Government Works. WestlawNext, ©2015 Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement Accessibility Supplier Terms Contact Us 1-800-REF-AT(Y (1-800-733-2889) z _h Improve WestlawNext -, https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I872aflfoff7711d9bf60c1... '//815 rp)City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2015 Agenda 2BNumber: To: Mayor and Council Prepared by: Dave Callister, City Manager Reviewed by: Item: Set Future Study Sessions Council should also review the list of pending study sessions below and set meetings as desired. Calendars are attached to assist with scheduling. Pending Study Session Topics at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list) None at this time. Other Council requests for Study Session Topics: Joint meeting with Housing and Redevelopment Authority to discuss open parcels Transit update Quarterly City Manager update (suggested date - September 8) Page 1 r Plymouth Adding Quality to Life August 2015 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2:30-5:00 PM 7:00 PM Night to Unite PLANNING Kickoff COMMISSION Plymouth Creek MEETING Center Council Chambers 6:30-9:30 PM Night to Unite 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL HRA MEETING MEETING QUALITY Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers COMMITTEE EQC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5:30 PM 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING COMMISSION 2016/2017 Budget 8 MEETING2016-2020 Capital Improvement Council Chambers Program Medicine Lake Room 25 5:30 PM 26 27 28 29 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 2016/2017 BudgetZ30Y31MedicineLakeRoom 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers rLJAki-C ADr Anr 1\I DCA Page 2 r Plymouth Adding Quality to Life September 2015 Modified on 06124115 CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 7jjj 5:30 PM 9 10 11 12 SPECIAL COUNCIL 7:00 PM 7:00 PM MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL PARK Et REC LABOR DAY Crosswalk Improvement Implementation Plan QUALITY ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room COMMITTEE COMMISSION CITY OFFICES 7:00 PM EQC) MEETING PRAC) MEETING CLOSED REGULAR Medicine Lake Room Park Maintenance COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers ROSH HASHANAH Begins at Sunset 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 11:30 AM REGULAR HRA MEETING Plymouth on Parade COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers Celebration Council Chambers City Center Area YOM KIPPUR Begins at Sunset 27 28 29 30 Modified on 06124115 CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED Page 3 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life October 2015 Modified on 07116115 CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED - Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM Volunteer PLANNING PARK 8 REC 12:00-3:00 PM Recognition COMMISSION ADVISORY Fire Dept. Event MEETING COMMISSION Open House Plymouth Creek Council Chambers PRAC) MEETING Fire Station III Center Plymouth Ice 3300 Dunkirk Center Lane 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL COLUMBUS DAY MEETING QUALITY Observed Council Chambers COMMITTEE EQC) MEETING PLYMOUTH PUBLIC Medicine Lake Room WORKS DIVISION CLOSED 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7:00 PM 7:00 PM PLANNING HRA MEETING COMMISSION Medicine Lake Room MEETING Council Chambers 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 7:00 PM 6:00-8:30 PM REGULAR COUNCIL Halloween on MEETING the Creek Council Chambers Plymouth Creek Center Modified on 07116115 CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED - Page 4