Loading...
12-14-10 CM Agenda PacketAGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room December 14, 2010 6:30 pm 1. Presentation of City Logo Refresh 2. Proposed 2011 Legislative Priorities 3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment -Rainwater Collection Devices 4. Residential Fence Permit Fee 5. Cable Commission Franchise 6. Paperless Council Agendas Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. ~: ~~'" .:; This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593'-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats '~ ~."~:' _...~ ma_include large pr}nt, electronie, Braille, audiocassette, etc. ~((\ ( ~ (~ (~~ ~ ~ City Administration/Council V V 763-593-8006 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 14, 2010 Agenda Item 1. Presentation of City Logo Refresh Prepared By Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator Summary Recent changes to Golden Valley's web address and email address are requiring updates to City stationery and business cards. Design meetings for these items prompted staff to consider the pros and cons of updating the City logo. Staff will present the results of research and strategy sessions that build a case for a Golden Valley logo refresh that strengthens the City's established image, delivers on Envision Golden Valley's call for continued innovation, and provides a final product using in-house resources in line with current budget constraints. Golden galley .. City Administration/Council 763-593-8014 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 14, 2010 Agenda Item 2. Proposed 2011 Legislative Policies Prepared By Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Clerk Summary For a number of years the City Council has adopted Legislative Policies in order to share local priorities with area legislators and seek their assistance in forwarding these priorities. In 2010 the Council adopted policies in two areas, Fiscal Disparities and Inflow and Infiltration (I/I). Copies of the adopted policies are attached. Inflow and Infiltration -There was significant progress related to the Metropolitan Council's approach to I/I, including continuing and expanding local mitigation of I/I instead of creating a demand charge (unless there is local reticence to comply) and approval of a $3 million bonding bill to fund grants with a 50 percent match for the cost of local I/I improvements to publically owned sanitary sewer systems. (See attached memo from Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works.) Director Clancy has recommended that in 2011 the Council policies advocate continued funding for the I/I grant program and revisions to the grant process to make it less costly and onerous for local governments. Fiscal Disparities -The Legislature acted to create a new Fiscal Disparities Study: The study is to be undertaken by the Commissioner of Revenue in January of 2011, issuing a report by February 2012. Since there will be a new Commissioner of Revenue and the legislature will be dealing with significant budget issues, there is a chance that the Study might not be started on schedule. The Council may wish to identify issues to present to the Commissioner to be included in the study. Chapter 389, Section 28, calling for the study is attached. Attachments City of Golden Valley 2010 Legislative Policies (adopted February 3, 2010) (2 pages) Memo from Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, 2010 Legislative Policies, Update on Inflow and Infiltration dated December 7, 2010 (2 pages) Chapter 389 - (H.F. No. 3729), Sec 28, Fiscal Disparities Study (1 page) Discussion Issues The Council should discuss the 2010 policies and determine whether it wishes to drop or update the policies related to I/I and Fiscal Disparities in 2011. The Council should identify other possible legislative issues to consider including in its 2011 Legislative Policies. e ~ ague o ides s Adopted by the City Council February 3, 2010 1. Fiscal Disparities Issue Since enacted in 1971 and implemented in 1975, Fiscal Disparities has required cities to share a portion of their commercial and industrial tax base growth with other jurisdictions. The contri- bution amount is based on the relative fiscal capacity of each community, which is measured by the market value per capita. Because Golden Valley has a high fiscal capacity, it contributes more to the pool than it receives. In 2010, Golden Valley will contribute $4,826,466 in net tax capac- ity. In recent years, more commercial and industrial parcels have petitioned for market value chang- es. It may take a number of years to settle a petition, and the ruling can allow valuations to be revised for the contested year as well as up to two years prior. The City's contribution to the fiscal disparities pool is based on valuation established in the previous year and does not take into ac- count retroactive changes to the valuation that are made in the future. Therefore, the city must pay the full amount of the credited adjustment to the petitioner's back taxes, but the city gets no credit for this payment in its future fiscal disparities contributions. For example, for taxes payable 2010, the 2008 taxable market values for commercial and indus- trial properties were used to establish Golden Valley's contribution to the fiscal disparities for- mula. In 2010, Golden Valley had 22 parcels petition to lower their valuations. Because Golden Valley's contribution to the fiscal disparities pool is based on the 2008 valuations, and because future adjustments to those values are not reflected in the current fiscal disparities formula, Golden Valley would does not see a credit due to loss of value even if the valuations are reduced and it must credit the taxes paid. Response The City of Golden Valley supports revising the fiscal disparities formula. The new formula should include a way to credit cities for adjustments brought about by petitions that change the value used for the fiscal disparities contributions from previous years. Additionally, the City of Golden Valley supports a comprehensive study of fiscal disparities to evaluate how it is meeting its original intent and whether revision to the law are in order. i i ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ Paga 1 2. Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Issues More than 100 metro area communities own and operate local sewer systems that are connected to the regional interceptor system. In 2009, at least 32 of these communities were experiencing problems with excess inflow and infiltration (I/I). I/I allows clear water (ground and storm) into sanitary sewer pipes where it eventually get treated, unnecessarily, at wastewater treatment plants. I/I also uses sewer pipe capacity needed for wastewater throughout the region and can cause sewage backups into homes and spillages into regional waterways. If I/I issues are not addressed through repairs to local and private infrastructure, additional sewer capacity will be needed at a cost currently projected to be nearly $1 billion. By contrast, Metropolitan Council Environ- mental Services (MCES) estimates that addressing the problem locally will cost $150 million. If excess inflow and infiltration is not addressed, the potential for impaired waters is increased. Issue 1: To reduce I/I, MCES will institute a demand charge in 2013 on cities determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of I/I to the wastewater treatment system. Currently, 46 cit- ies have been identified as excessive I/I contributors. This number is subject to change, depend- ing on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area could be affected. Since 2007, Golden Valley has spent $6 million on public infrastructure improvements and other activities to reduce I/I. In addition, private property owners in Golden Valley have spent an estimated $4 million on repairs to sanitary sewer services, predominantly to address I/I issues. The City of Golden Valley recognizes the importance of eliminating I/I and is recognized by the MCES as a leader in the I/I reduction program. However, Golden Valley has found that during its point of sale inspection program, approximately 88 percent of the properties failed the in- spection and the sewer services were in need of rehabilitation. The average cost of rehabilitation is $3,600, but costs range from $500 to approximately $10,000. Issue 2: Metro Cities is requesting $14 million in capital bonding for grants for metro area cities to mitigate I/I problems in municipal wastewater collection systems. Cities eligible for I/I miti- gation grants would be required to match each grant dollar. Mitigating I/I at the local level will cost much less than at the regional level, but cities will need financial assistance. Response Issue 1: The City of Golden Valley recommends that demand charges not be imposed against cities that have an active and MCES-approved I/I reduction program. The City of Golden Valley also recommends implementation of a demand charge be delayed until: • verifiable benchmarks can be established so the progress of I/I reduction efforts can be mea- sured (recent dry weather conditions do not allow for an accurate measurement of I/I reduc- tion efforts) • state financial assistance can be established to reduce the burden of local utilities Issue 2: The City of Golden Valley supports including $14 million in capital bonding authoriza- tion in the current bonding bill to fund grants for metro area cities to mitigate I/I problems in municipal wastewater collection systems. P898 2 'Golden Valley _. ~ _ _ Public Works 763.593.8030 1763.593.3988 (fax) Date: December 7, 2010 To: Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Clerk From: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Subject: 2010 Legislative Policies -Update on Inflow and Infiltration Since meeting with Golden Valley's state legislators in early 2010, the following has been accomplished relevant to Inflow/Infiltration (I/I): The Demand Charge for communities that have excessive I/I has been replaced with an extended surcharge program. The intent of the demand charge was to defray the cost of providing storage of excessive I/I to avoid overloading downstream facilities. In August 2009, the Council established a Demand Charge Task Force to develop specific recommendations for the demand charge. The Task Force met from September 2009 to August 2010, generally on a bi-monthly basis. Since the beginning of the Council's I/I program in January 2007, 46 communities have participated in the program. A total of $46 million of local I/I mitigation work has been documented through 2009. The recent drought in the region has made assessing the overall effectiveness of the program difficult. However, the decline in influent flow at the region's wastewater treatment plants measured since 2002 is at least partly the result of this investment in I/I mitigation. With a desire to continue the I/I program's progress and with the understanding that investing in local mitigation rather than storage is the region's preferred approach to reducing I/I, the Demand Charge Task Force recommended that: a. MCES implement an ongoing I/I reduction program similar to but improved from the existing program rather than a demand charge in 2013. b. In cases where a community is not meeting its I/I goal(s) or the community has not been implementing an effective I/I reduction program in the determination of MCES or if regulations and/or regulatory permits require MCES to ensure regulatory compliance, MCES may institute a wastewater rate demand charge. c. MCES amend the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan to reflect these recommendations. These recommendations have been accepted by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Metro Cities, with assistance from the cities of West St. Paul and Golden Valley, championed inclusion of a $3 million grant program in the 2010 bonding bill for the purpose of providing grants to municipalities for capital improvements to public infrastructure to reduce I/I. This $3 million was approved in the bill with language as follows: For grants to cities within the metropolitan area, as defined in MN Statutes, Section 473.121, subdivision 2, for capital improvements in municipal wastewater collection systems to reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration to the Metropolitan Council's metropolitan sanitary sewer disposal system. To be eligible for a grant, a city must be identified by the Metropolitan Council (MCES) as a contributor of excessive inflow and infiltration. Grants from this appropriation are for up to 50 percent of the cost to mitigate inflow and infiltration in the publicly owned municipal wastewater collection systems. MCES must award grants based on applications from eligible cities that identify eligible capital costs and include a timeline for inflow and infiltration mitigation construction, pursuant to guidelines. I recommend that the City seek assistance from our legislative representatives through: a. Continued funding from the state for I/I mitigation programs; and b. Revision of grant agreements for the current program, developed by the State of Minnesota Office of Management and Budget, so that the agreements are less onerous and costly for local governments to implement. Sec. 28. FISCAL DISPARITIES STUDY. The commissioner of revenue shall conduct a study of the metropolitan revenue distribution program contained in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473F, commonlyknown as the fiscal disparities pro rg am. By February 1, 2012, the commissioner shall submit a report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate tax committees consisting of the findings of the study and identification of issues for policy makers to consider. The study must analyze: (1) the extent to which the benefits of economic growth of the region are shared throughout the re jog n, especially for growth that results from state or regional decisions; (2 the program's impact on the variability of tax rates across jurisdictions of the rem ~3~ the program's impact on the distribution of homestead property tax burdens across jurisdictions of the region; and ~4) the relationship between the impacts of the program and overburden on jurisdictions containing_properties that provide regional benefits, specifically the costs those properties impose on their host jurisdictions in excess of their tax payments. The report must include a description of other property tax, aid, and local development programs that interact with the fiscal disparities pro rg am. EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective January 1, 2011. Citw o en a e Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 14, 2010 Agenda Item 3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment -Rainwater Collection Devices Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary The Environmental Commission and the Planning Commission have informally reviewed the proposed regulations for rainwater collection devices in the City. Recommended actions for rainwater collection devices are as follows: • Rainwater collection devices should be defined to include rain barrels and rain bladders (flexible and expandable water collection systems). • Each residential property should be allowed a maximum of one rainwater collection device per gutter downspout. • This regulation should be put in the Residential Property Maintenance section of City Code to enable enforcement by City inspectors and prevent "grandfather clauses" that are associated with zoning ordinances from being applicable. A draft of the proposed code language is attached for your reference. Staff seeks direction from Council on whether or not to proceed with public hearings to adopt these regulations. Attachment Underlined/Overscored Version -City Code Section 4.60, Subdivision 3(P, Q, and R) and Subdivision 5(R) (1 page) § 4.6Q Subdivision 3. Definitions For the purposes of this Section, the following terms are defined as follows: P. Rainwater Collection Device: a rain barrel or bladder used to capture and store rain water. Q_~. Residential: Activities within land areas used predominantly for housing. R. Q. Water Closet Compartment: Any space containing a wash basin and a water closet. It may also, but is not required to include a bathtub, a shower, or both. Subdivision 5. Minimum Exterior Standards All residential properties shall meet or exceed the following minimum exterior standards: R. Rainwater Collection Device. Only one (1) rainwater collection device shall be allowed per primary extension of any downspout. Golden Valley City Code Page `Golden galley ...t Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 14, 2010 Agenda Item 4. Residential Fence Permit Fee Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary At the August 2010 Council/Manager meeting, the Council discussed the possibility of requiring a permit for all new residential fences in the City. Council asked that staff review the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) data regarding fence permit costs. The following data was submitted to AMM pertaining to fence permits: Total number of cities reporting - 60 Total number of cities who require apermit - 33 Average fence permit cost for those cities that implement afee - $30.58 Staff seeks direction from Council on whether or not to proceed with implementing a permit and a permit fee for fence construction. Golden galley __,®, _ _~ ~ mi City Administration/Council 763-593-8014 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 14, 2010 Agenda Item 5. Cable Communications Franchise Prepared By Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Clerk Summary In 1980 the City entered a joint powers agreement to seek proposals to provide cable franchise services with nine other communities. The cities created the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communication Commission (NWSCCC). The benefits of jointly seeking service included offering a larger service area with more potential customers, thereby attracting more submissions and better proposals. The larger customer base also allowed the provider to spread the cost of more difficult cable installation over all of the customers, thereby assuring broader coverage. Through the joint powers agreement the cities have also combined their franchise and PEG (public, educational and government) fees and used them to provide premier cable access facilities and to fund services for cities such as cable casting equipment and staffing to cablecast City meetings. The joint powers agreement provides that each city appoint two commissioners to represent the city on the Commission that administers the cable franchise. Bob Shaffer and Joan Russell are Golden Valley's current commissioners. The Commission has created a separate non-profit board, Northwest Community Television (NWCTV), to provide cable access services and local programming such as 12 News, City meetings and Northwest Cities. NWCTV is fully funded by the Cable Commission. Each city has one representative on the Board of NWCTV. The City's current representative is Jeanne Andre. Some Board members are elected by the access producers or serve the community at-large. Joan Russell has been appointed by the Board to serve in the latter category. It is common for communities to have members serve on both the Commission and the Board, as the meetings are held at the same time, generally quarterly on the third Thursday of the month at 7:30 am. Meetings generally are over by 9 am, though sometimes they extend later. Both the Board and Commission have subcommittees which meet infrequently, generally just after their respective meetings. There is no requirement that Board and Commission members are elected officials or staff of the respective cities, but most members serve in one of these capacities. Council Member Shaffer has requested that the City Council discuss the City's participation in the joint powers operation of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission and Northwest Community Television as his term ends this year. Ciro of o en galley ~.~ '~ - L~- .. City Administration/Council 763-593-8003 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 14, 2010 Agenda Item 6. Paperless Council Agendas Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary At the request of Mayor Loomis staff has looked into the cost of the City Council going paperless. The cost of printing five agendas, including staff time, paper and photocopier maintenance is $80 per agenda or $2,880 per year. This would not eliminate large plans from proposed projects and is not included in the cost. Staff has looked into two possible options for computer equipment for Council, both options pay for themselves within a year. Netbook 10.1" screen Cost: $1,450 for 5 Laptop 15.6" screen Cost: $2,425 for 5 Both of these options assume Council Members would receive their agendas via email through their home ISP or staff could download the information on the device and have it delivered, similar to how packets are currently delivered. Staff would like direction from Council on how to move forward with the consideration of going paperless beginning in 2011.