The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 09-28-2017CITY OF PLYMOUTH COUNCIL INFO MEMO September 28, 2017 EVENTS / MEETINGS Planning Commission Agenda for October 4th ................................................................................... Page 2 Official City Meeting Calendars ......................................................................................................... Page 3 Tentative List of Agenda Items ........................................................................................................... Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE Fire Department Open House Set for October 14th ............................................................................ Page 8 Reguiding, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Variance for Greenway West Located West of Troy Lane at 58th Avenue North (217083) ........................................................................ Page 9 REPORTS & OTHER ARTICLES OF INTEREST Real World Economics: Developer Assessments Seen as Good Economics, Pioneer Press ............ Page 11 St. Paul Leaders Say They Support Restriction of Menthol Tobacco Sales but Will Wait a Month, Star Tribune ........................................................................................................... Page 14 Page 2 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Tour of Public Works Maintenance Facility 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Discuss minimum age to purchase tobacco Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 October 2017 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 OFFICIAL CITY CALENDAR Phone: 763-509-5000 Fax: 763-509-5060 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Small Cell Wireless Ordinance Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC) MEETING Plymouth Ice Center 7:00 PM HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) MEETING Medicine Lake Room SUN TUES MON WED THUR FRI SAT CHANGES ARE NOTED IN RED 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM Fire Department Open House Fire Station III CHA 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room 6:30 PM Volunteer Recognition Event Plymouth Creek Center 6:00 PM - 8:30 PM Halloween at the Creek Plymouth Creek Center Page 3 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 November 2017 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 OFFICIAL CITY CALENDAR Phone: 763-509-5000 Fax: 763-509-5060 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Budget Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC) MEETING Medicine Lake Room THANKSGIVING 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 5:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Median/Beautification Projects Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers SUN TUES MON WED THUR FRI SAT THANKSGIVING Observed CITY OFFICES CLOSED CITY OFFICES CLOSED VETERANS DAY Observed CITY OFFICES CLOSED Plymouth Arts Fair Plymouth CreekCenter Plymouth Arts Fair Plymouth Creek Center Page 4 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Board & Commission Interviews Medicine Lake Room 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 December 2017 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 OFFICIAL CITY CALENDAR Phone: 763-509-5000 Fax: 763-509-5060 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Therapeutic Massage Ordinance Hotel Licensing Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC) MEETING Council Chambers CHRISTMAS DAY CITY OFFICES CLOSED 7:00 PM HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) MEETING Medicine Lake Room SUN TUES MON WED THUR FRI SAT 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC) MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Old Fashioned Christmas Plymouth Creek Park 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM New Years Eve Event Plymouth Ice Center 31 CHRISTMAS EVE Observed CITY OFFICES CLOSED AT NOON Page 5 Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. EDA refers to the Economic Development Authority Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items October 10, Special, 5:30 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Small Cell Wireless Ordinance October 10, Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers •Announce School District 284' s levy referendum on November 7 (Superintendent Chace Anderson and Executive Director of Business and Finance Jim Westrum) •Approve 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Schedule •Approve Work Orders No. 21-25, Change Orders No. 1 and 2, and Reduce Retainage for Vicksburg Lane Reconstruction and Expansion Project (16001) •Public Hearing on the Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easement within Banner 2nd Addition •Approve Preliminary Plat and Variance to allow the subdivision of a 0.84 acre parcel for property located at 2930 Urbandale Lane (Jon Stamps – 2017070) •Approve Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for residential subdivision for property located at 3835 Dallas Lane (Lake West Development, LLC – 2017072) October 17, Special, 5:30 p.m. •Tour of Public Works Maintenance Facility, 14900 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth October 24, Special, 5:30 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Discuss minimum age to purchase tobacco October 24, Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers •Approve 2017-2018 snow removal for parking lots, trails, and sidewalks •Approve name of Horseshoe Hill Park •Approve name of Harvest Park November 14, Special, 5:30 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Budget November 14, Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers November 28, Special, 5:30 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Median/beautification projects November 28, Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers •Public hearing on tobacco ordinance December 5, Special, 6:00 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Board and Commission interviews •2018 Council Coordinating Representatives •2018 Deputy Mayor •Schedule Board and Commission Recognition Social •Quarterly City Manager’s Update Page 6 December 12, Special, 5:00 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Therapeutic Massage Ordinance •Hotel licensing December 12, Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers •Recognize Police Citizen Academy graduates •Public hearing on 2018 budget, general property tax levy, HRA levy, and 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program •Approve 2018 Target and Trap Shooting License renewal •Approve 2018 Amusement License renewals •Approve 2018 Tobacco License renewals January 9, Special, 5:30 p.m. Medicine Lake Room •Goals and Legislative Priorities for 2018 Page 7 City of Plymouth News Release For Immediate Release Sept. 27, 2017 Contact: Sara Lynn Cwayna Public Safety Education Specialist City of Plymouth 763-509-5198 scwayna@plymouthmn.gov Plymouth Fire Department Open House set for Oct. 14 Plymouth, Minn. – The Plymouth Fire Department will hold its annual open house 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 14 at Fire Station III, 3300 Dunkirk Lane N. The free event offers an environment for children and families to have fun while learning about safety. Attendees will have the opportunity to meet firefighters and police officers who serve their community, climb inside a fire truck, shoot water from a fire hose and enjoy complimentary refreshments. Additional features include: •North Memorial ambulance and helicopter, depending upon availability •Live burn trailer •Children’s firefighter obstacle course •SWAT team Plymouth firefighters and police officers will also compete in a friendly “mystery” eating contest during the open house. Attendees may bring non-perishable food items to contribute to the Fill the Truck Food Drive for PRISM and Interfaith Outreach. Cutline: The annual Plymouth Fire Department Open House, set for Oct. 14, offers free family-friendly activities and safety education. -30- Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 NEWS > BUSINESS Real World Economics: Developer assessments seen as good economics By Edward Lotterman | stpaul@edlotterman.com | September 23, 2017 at 2:21 pm As economists read news of a recent ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals denying certain infrastructure charges imposed on land developers, many probably reacted: “Where was Judge Posner when we need him?” Sometimes law and economics are in basic agreement on public policy issues. And sometimes they differ. This is one of those times, although some jurists might reach a different conclusion than this court. Richard Posner, who stepped down after 36 years as a Federal Appeals Court judge three weeks ago, is relevant because he pioneered a movement within legal scholarship to weigh practical economic considerations when reaching decisions. This has had greatest impact on antitrust and patent law, but also involves myriad other legal issues. The policy question here in Minnesota is whether a municipality, in this case Woodbury, can charge a property developer for future infrastructure improvements not actually part of a proposed project. Developers clearly can be made to pay for new infrastructure such as sewer mains, street widening and storm water channeling that are directly and immediately related to a new development. The question was about upfront payments imposed to fund more general municipal infrastructure capacity for impact that may be caused by the development at some future date, and at perhaps at a distant location. Most municipalities have not used such mandatory fees, although many negotiate payments as part of general regulatory approval of projects. That’s fine. But the court of appeals ruled that mandatory fees are not legal. This is an old issue in urban planning and in microeconomics. At heart it is about whether the process for managing new urbanization is economically efficient in using resources to meet the needs of society. Decades ago, research indicated that usual practices were not efficient. Page 11 The problem is one of “average costs” versus “marginal costs” of new development and how these are born by purchasers of new homes versus existing property owners in the municipality in question. Say a new development of 100 houses will mean that an existing sewer main will need to be 24 inches in diameter instead of 18 or that increased traffic will require widening of a half mile of two-lane street and installation of signals at two intersections. The increase in the costs of operating and amortizing the sewer or street systems, compared to what these costs would have been with the 100 new houses, is the marginal cost of the project. Existing homeowners will be no better off than before. The increment to societal benefits goes to those who can have a new suburban home. This increase in total satisfaction to society is the marginal benefit. If the policy of the municipality is to simply build the new infrastructure in response to developer initiatives, and then pay the increased costs by upping utility user fees or local property taxes, the average cost rises. All residents or property owners pay more. New ones don’t pay any more than existing ones. The increase in benefit goes to a few but the increase in cost goes to all. It is a central principal in microeconomics that any time marginal benefits do not equal marginal costs, resources are wasted. That is another way of saying economic efficiency is reduced. In this case, the outcome is that too many resources will go into development of non-urbanized land at the fringes of cities. This is the problem of “urban sprawl.” This is not a controversial topic among economists that varies with their political orientations or which school of thought within the discipline they identify. It is a consensus view. As this inefficiency became clear to economists, urban planners and local government managers decades ago, there was a move to make developers pay for needed infrastructure upgrades — the pass-through being higher prices for the homes in the development, not higher taxes throughout the city. Directly related increments to water or sewer system capacity, streets and roads, surface water drainage and the like were charged to new projects. These charges are no longer being challenged in court. Their legality is clear. However, there are not clear demarcations between direct and indirect. One 50- house project taken alone doesn’t necessitate a major increase in a sewage treatment plant or changing a two lane arterial street with signals at half-mile intervals to a six-lane one with signals every two blocks. But as multiple small developments accumulate over time, at some point major projects are triggered. Page 12 To economists, the fact that identifiability gets harder does not change the fact that when new homeowners don’t face the marginal costs to society, resources are wasted, And it is pretty clear to economists that it is home purchasers rather than property developers who ultimately pay the costs. But developers must write the initial checks, and it does skew the attractiveness of their product relative to alternatives. If a young double-income no-kids couple is considering a loft in a renovated warehouse right on the Green Line versus a townhouse in Eagan, an extra $5,000 added to the price of the latter because of municipal assessment for future general infrastructure improvement will affect their decision. So the developers are the ones who went to court. Economists also know that, at some point, transaction costs and imperfect information overwhelm the efficiency benefits of allocating every possible future cost to specific current projects. Some costs of municipal growth eventually must be spread across general taxpayers. So what might Judge Posner say? The economics of the underlying issue are neither complicated nor controversial among economists. Drawing a workable administrative line is. It is not clear that Woodbury or other municipalities with similar fees will appeal or seek new legislation authorizing their practice. I think the chances of the latter are slim to none in the existing political climate. But Posner has a gift for identifying the practical legal issues and economic tradeoffs inherent in situations precisely like this. If he had been available as an expert witness or to draft a friend- of-the-court brief two years ago, perhaps the appeals court decision might have been different. At least the level of the debate and of public understanding of the issue and why it mattes could have been higher. St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com. Page 13 ST. PAUL 448353393 St. Paul leaders say they support restriction of menthol tobacco sales but will wait a month Council members plan to work with businesses before moving forward with regulations. By Jessie Van Berkel Star Tribune SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 — 9:58PM KAYLEE EVERLY The St. Paul City Council will wait a month before considering restrictions on the sale of menthol tobacco products. St. Paul leaders emphasized Wednesday that they want to restrict the sale of menthol tobacco, but opted to hold off for a month to work with affected business owners. Page 14 Community groups and health organizations spurred the City Council to consider restrictions on menthol tobacco products, as well as mint- and wintergreen-flavored tobacco. The city already restricts fruit- and candy-flavored tobacco products. The proposed regulations would allow only specialty tobacco shops — not other retailers like gas stations — to sell menthol tobacco products. Council Member Dan Bostrom proposed they go further and ban menthol tobacco sales at all retailers, but it was unclear Wednesday whether that proposal could gain enough council support to pass. The emotional debate over restrictions has pitted health and neighborhood advocates against retailers. Supporters of the change brought photos of family members killed by lung cancer to Wednesday’s public hearing and held them up for council members to see. Meanwhile, gas station and convenience store owners and workers threw their keys down at public hearings, saying they could lose their businesses or jobs. “These are the keys to my store, you are taking it from me,” Todd Knudten, who owns Capitol City Station on Shepard Road, said last week. Council members opted to hold off on the vote for a month as they look at ways to ease the transition for businesses. “This change is inevitable,” Council Member Amy Brendmoen said, but it could be better with more input from retailers. Jessie.VanBerkel@startribune.com Page 15