The URL can be used to link to this page

12-09-14 CM Agenda Packet AGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room December 9, 2014 6:30 pm Paqes 1. Golden Valley Road Light Rail Station Parking (30 minutes) 2-11 2. Solid Waste Collection (20 minutes) 12-36 3. Snow Plowing Policy (15 minutes) 37-42 4. Lions Park Youth Athletics Usage (15 minutes) 43-46 5. Community Center Task Force Report (1 hour) 47-81 6. 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program (20 minutes) 82-84 7. Budget Adjustments (20 minutes) 85 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 i 763-593-$OOb (TTV: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may inclutle large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. �.:1��' t�� ''�r�- £- ,, ,�;;: � �� -� ��a� m�� Plannin De artment � r 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax} Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 1. Golden Valley Road Light Rail Station Parking Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Hennepin County representatives will attend the meeting to discuss potential management strategies for parking at the Golden Valley Road light rail station. Attachments • Golden Valley Road Parking Management Strategies Assessment (9 pages) METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Golden Valley Road Parking Management Strategies Assessment Purpose The purpose of the Parking Management Strategy Assessment is to provide a decision-making framework for staff and policy-makers regarding parking at the Golden Valley Road Station on the Bottineau LRT line. Context While parking is an important consideration for this station,access to the Golden Valley Road Station will be prioritized for riders arriving by bus, on-foot,and by bicycle,with the intention of encouraging use of these modes in favor of driving to the LRT station. Priority of access for bus, pedestrians,and bicyclists may be offered in the following ways: • Increasing frequency of service on nearby bus lines • Providing optimal locations for bus pick-up and drop-off points relative to the LRT station • Providing safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to the LRT station • Providing optimal locations for secure bicycle parking (both short term and long term) relative to the LRT station • Providing multiple pedestrian vertical circulation options such as elevators, escalators,and stairs to reach the LRT platform • Providing a "kiss and ride"drop-off area. Prioritizing access by bus, bicycle,or on foot enables valuable land near the station to be used for new development or preservation of existing uses. A parcel of land that provides space for 100 parked cars could instead provide space for hundreds of people to live or work.Also, parking lots and structures often act as deterrents to pedestrians,as they are visually uninteresting and can be intimidating at night. Lastly, providing parking is the most expensive way of bringing riders to a station:A single parking stall in a typical above ground structured parking ramp can cost$15,000—$20,000 and a single surface parking stall cost approximately$2,500 to$5,000.1 Both types of parking facilities require regular investments in maintenance. In fall 2014, Metro Transit estimated preliminary parking demand at the Golden Valley Road Station of approximately 100 cars.This memo explores various options for managing this level of parking demand near the Golden Valley Road Station. Parking Management Options The following eight parking management options were considered for this analysis: 1. Structured parking on MPRB land east of the station platform 2. Structured parking as part of new development 3. Surface parking lot on the fire station site 4. Agreement with St. Margaret Mary for use of their lot for park and ride 1 NCH RP 08-36,Task 109.Guidebook for Estimating the Cost of Non-Rail lnfrastructure Upgrades due to Passenger Rail Implementation.September 2012. 1 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning 5. Shared parking structure at Courage Center 6. On-street parking 7. Improved transit service 8. Improved pedestrian and bicycle connections These options were raised by Bottineau LRT Phase 1 Station Area Planning TAC members and Community Working Group members,or are ideas documented during previous planning efforts such as the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board eottineau Transitway Design Forum that were further considered during Station Area Planning.The pros and cons of each strategy are listed below. Strategy 1: Structured parking on MPRB land east of station platform Pros Cons • Park and ride structure would • Cost of underground parking is the highest of any option (underground, be completely hidden in the structure, or surFace) view from the east • Low demand for parking at this station likely would result in a low benefit cost ratio2 • Structure would require ongoing maintenance • Access to the parking structure is likely to be complex • View from the park(west)could include the park and ride structure • Structure would be on park property;would require MPRB approval, Met Council approval • MPRB and Metropolitan Council policy does not permit transit uses, including parking,on regional park property;would require policy change by both agencies o Development of this option would present additional risk to the LRT project: Policy changes needed to implement the park and ride would add time and complexity to the local project approval process o The park and ride would add additional costs to the project • Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have walked, bicycled,or taken transit • Addition of park and ride at the station could affect New Starts ratings for the project in the economic development and land use categories which award high ratings for: o Concentration of development around regional transit o Plans and policies to enhance transit-friendly character of station-area development o Increased density and reduced parking in station areas o Development proposals in transit station areas Note:At their October meeting,the TAC agreed not to pursue this option further Z Metro Transit estimates parking demand at the Golden Valley Road station at 100 cars per day. Regional Policy does not support structured parking for low-demand stations. 2 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning St►-ategy 2: Structured parking as part of new development Pros Cons • Shared arrangement could • Cost of underground parking is still the highest of any option result in sharing of costs for • Low demand for parking at this station likely would result in a low benefit cost Metro Transit and the ratio developer • Structure would require ongoing maintenance • Shared arrangement could be . Structure would be part of private development,so timeline for park and ride the most efficient use of is uncertain; it may not be available on opening day of LRT service parking built for the . Park and ride could be difficult for users to locate development . Ingress and egress is likely to be complex • Potentially creates a competition for parking spaces between transit users and development residents/visitors • Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have walked, bicycled, or taken transit Strategy 3: Surface parking lot on fire station site Pros Cons • Land is in public ownership • Lost opportunity to return the property to a taxable use • A surface park and ride would • Cost of developing and maintaining a surface lot be consistent with regional • Adjacent flood plain would not benefit from any new impervious surface guidelines . Park and riders would need to cross Golden Valley Road at-grade unless • Holding the land in public vertical circulation is provided on north side of GVR ownership could facilitate . Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have eventual redevelopment walked, bicycled, or taken transit • Addition of park and ride at the station could affect New Starts ratings for the project in the economic development and land use categories which award high ratings for: o Concentration of development around regional transit o Plans and policies to enhance transit-friendly character of station-area development o Increased density and reduced parking in station areas o Development proposals in transit station areas 3 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRTj Phase 1: Station Area Planning Strategy 4:Agreement with St.Margaret Mary for use of their lot for park and ride Pros Cons • Minimal new infrastructure • Requires consent of church required • Cost of leasing space from church • Monitoring of parking lot for parking compliance (St. Mary parking vs park and ride) • Potentially creates a competition for parking spaces between church users and transit riders—especially when the church has day time events such as funerals • Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have walked, bicycled, or taken transit Note:This option has not been discussed with St. Margaret Mary Church Strategy 5:Shared parking structure at Courage Center Pros Cons • Shared arrangement could result in • Courage Center is an approximate 0.3 mile walk from the station sharing of costs for Metro Transit • LRT and Courage Center users would demand parking at similar times of and Courage Center day Note:This option has not been discussed with Courage Center Strategy 6: On-street parking Pros Cons • No new infrastructure required • Residents may object to additional traffic on local streets • No new costs • Local parking management program may be needed • Supports regional goals for • Potentially creates a competition for parking spaces between transit users increased walking, biking, and and existing residents/visitors to the area taking transit to stations • All land near the station is available for other uses • Efficient use of available on-street parking • Approximately 561 on-street spaces are legally available for parking near the station3 which is ample parking supply for projected demand Note:See Attachment A for more information on available parking supply near the proposed station 3 Please see Attachment A for details on the calculation of available on-street parking spaces near the station. 4 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Strategy 7: Improved transit service Pros Cons • Supports regional goals for increased walking, • Requires relocation of existing shelters or construction of biking,and taking transit to stations new shelters and signage • All land near the station is available for other uses • Costs of operating additional buses • Supports regional goals for increasing transit ridership • Would not contribute to traffic congestion near the station • Supports regional goals for air quality standards Strategy 8: Improved pedestrian and bicycle connections Pros Cons • Supports regional goals for increased walking, • Cost of implementing and maintaining infrastructure biking, and taking transit to stations improvements • All land near the station is available for other uses • Retrofitting existing roadway or pedestrian facilities to add or improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations is much lower cost compared to expansion of roadway or parking facilities • Would not contribute to traffic congestion near the station • Supports regional goals for air quality standards Conclusion Recommendations regarding next steps are as follows: • Strategy 1 should be immediately dismissed because it lacks policy support, is the most expensive option,and presents implementation challenges. • Strategies 2, 3,4 and 5, present higher costs and are less consistent with regional policy than Strategies 6, 7,and 8 and should be retained only if there is no support for Strategies 6, 7, and 8 as stand-alone actions. Strategies 6,7,and 8 are most consistent with regional goals of increasing access to the stations via transit, bicycle,and pedestrian connections. Explicit disclosure of the availability of on-street parking,Strategy 6, may encounter some resistance from nearby residents and increase the number of drivers to the station, but non-promoted use of nearby on- street parking is a viable option for accommodating the low level of demand for parking at the Golden Valley Road Station. 5 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning ATTACHMENT A: Existing On-Street Parking Supply Analysis Data regarding availability of on-street parking was collected by Hennepin County staff in fall 2014. Data was collected on the street segments highlighted in Figure 1. Given existing pedestrian networks and one planned connection,these locations were considered convenient to the station for parking purposes. Data collected on each street included: • Approximate length of each street segment • Approximate width of each street • Existing parking restrictions:signed restrictions,driveways,curb cuts,and hydrants • Land uses along each street Assumptions • Calculation of available spaces assumed that existing parking restrictions remain in effect. • Narrow roadways assumed new parking restrictions limiting parking to one side of the street. • It was assumed that each on street parking space would require 25 feet of curb space.. • Golden Valley City Code Section 9.02 specifies that it is unlawful for any person to stop,stand,or park a vehicle except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic in compliance with the specific directions of a policy officer or traffic control device within ten (10)feet of the point of the curb nearest the fire hydrant. For purposes of this analysis, 10 feet on either side of a hydrant(20 feet total)was assumed as unavailable for parking • Number of spaces available was always rounded down to the nearest whole number. • Metro Transit estimates parking demand at the Golden Valley Road station at approximately 100 cars per day. Findings As shown in Figure 1,this data collection effort found that in total 561 on-street parking spots currently exist within a convenient walk of approximately% mile of the Golden Valley Road Station. Attachment A 1 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Figure 1: On Street Parking Supply Ol1Cf S 26ch A�;e'J N 2�th.=.ve .� `y , G'rr �� y� � b' �^q�H*k"�� d �. y `� �:,, ��.~ � ��° 0 � � �a�. a �� t� z � � r� c�� YalleyVrewPark � ^. "Ny y�d � & � '.�» '9t;?AvF N v N S6 - o � w c � FN 7/ �� ? � � r. � ti'�'`' _ � ,0�2' 's'ass�� s- ..1ti`' � ' — ff . � � �� `�-� Se�nerrt Available � �¢.; Mary7li��sNatureArea 1 +�-Z h � ID Sp�eS a � � Z J 1 3� m ! � � a aSeti�S � 2 40 a r atiM� L./ �:f Z 3 ao F - 1 '' 4 17 � -�. - a , Lovewoncs�+cade-rp . '� 5 3d � d � (o-viNal and �e� ro�°�' �6 = a �� 1 �' 6 28 � r. = 1 p,�y - � 7 38 A � �,,, �� e�,"� 15 ' 8 51 � = Golden Valley � 9 109 � ,e, � Road Station - d �� 14 10 28 � -- 11 35 m 12 13 � �� Golder 14 12 N �.^�� c` 15 39 � � `�LO� t Ett,n ve n� 16 19 ` o ,� �� Total 561 � SQm Spaces U Assumptions Parking on 1 side of street �� Newtrail connection assumed � Parking on 2 sides of street xXX Total on-street parking stalls depicted � No on-street parking Note:A/fstreets 6ndicatedwith colorwere�nckadeB�n inventorks Attachment A 2 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning ATTACHMENT B: Policy References Regional Guidance on Park& Ride Siting and Sizing Transportation Policy Plan (Page 128): Future facilities should be surface lots rather than structured ramps where feasible,given the higher cost of structured parking. However, structured ramps are appropriate where land is expensive, or where a joint-use venture or transit-oriented development is possible. Regional Transitway Guideline 4.4(Chapter 4 page 30):Where parking is identified as a need per Guideline 3.3, park- and-ride lots may be surface lots or multi-level structures. SurFace lots are generally preferred for cost reasons, but the type,size,and footprint of the parking facility should be evaluated to achieve the best balance between available space, cost, and funding.As discussed in Guideline 3.3,the Metropolitan Council's Park-and-Ride Plan provides design guidance for park-and-ride lots; parking areas should be sized based on the market analysis methodology provided in Chapter 5 of the plan. In general,the amount of parking provided at stations is inverse to the density of surrounding land uses; i.e., less parking is provided at stations with higher surrounding population and employment densities. Regional Transitway Guideline 3.3(Chapter 3 page 16):Park-and-ride demand for a station should be analyzed. According to Guideline 10.7.Transitway Travel Demand Forecasting,the regional travel demand forecast model is the preferred method for developing transitway travel demand forecasts; however,the methodology outlined in Section 5.3 of the Park-and-Ride Plan may be appropriate,especially for estimating park-and-ride demand at Highway BRT express or Commuter Rail stations. 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (Chapter 5 page 83): Each site should have the following characteristics,though a deficiency on one criteria may not necessarily be a fatal flaw for continued project development: • Serving Lower-Density Areas with Less than Full Transit Service Coverage Park-and-ride facilities are typically located in lower density developing areas, as designated in the Regional Development Framework. However, facilities may be implemented in more urbanized areas if they support or bolster (and do not undermine) existing walk-up express transit services. Park-and-rides are discouraged in center cities, except in rare or atypical circumstances. • Located on a Major Travel Corridor to a Major Regional Activity Center Facilities should be located in areas with high levels of travel demand at major activity center(s). Currently, park-and-ride demand focuses on downtown Minneapolis,with additional demand to downtown St. Paul and the University of Minnesota. • Convenient Access to Regional Highway System Facilities should be located within % mile of the nearest interchange (or intersection) accessing the regional highway system (usually principal arterial). • Convenient Vehicle Access Facilities should be located to optimize vehicle travel (transit and personal) into and out of the facility. In addition, connections to external bicycle and pedestrian networks should be included as design elements to provide equivalent access. • Minimum Capacity/ Anticipated Demand Facilities should be sized to accommodate a minimum of three exclusive, peak-period, express bus trips. This translates to a need for at least 150 spaces, though specific sizes may depend on site factors and corridor service design.A small facility should not be located near a large facility, as increased service at the large facility will likely outcompete the smaller facility for nearby users. • Local Area Factors There are three groups of local area factors that need to be acknowledged, considered and satisfied for local consent of a potential park-and-ride site: community or land use compatibility, environmental constraints and economic implications. Attachment B 1 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning DraR 2040 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan (page 46): • Strategy 2.5:Work with transit partners early in the planning phase of corridor and station area planning to incorporate bicycle supportive facilities at key transit locations. • Strategy 2.6 Work with major transit providers and local communities to provide direct bicycle connections to transit stops and stations,and increase secure bicycle parking and storage to meet demand. Draft 2040 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan:Attachment F Bicycle Parking Standards(page 8): • Bike lockers are NOT recommended for urban or suburban settings.They may be appropriate in rural or exurban settings where demand for long term bike parking is limited to less than six spots. Attachment B 2 �'�� , � �� ,� . Public Works Department 763 S93 8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 2. Solid Waste Collection Prepared By Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mark Ray, PE, Street Maintenance Supervisor/Recycling Coordinator Summary Staff will provide a summary of what solid waste collection services are provided by the City through the City's Recycling/Conservation efforts, what programs residents must contract for, and what other services some residents use. When discussing this topic, staff will be using the terms below (as defined in City Code) and it is important that they are not considered interchangeable. � Garbage: means animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food. Some of these items are organics. � Recyclables: means items of refuse designated by the Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy to be part of an authorized recycling program and which are intended for pracessing and remanufacture or reuse. � Yard Waste: grass/lawn clippings, leaves, weeds, garden waste (tomato vines, carrot tops, cucumber vines, etc,), soft-bodied plants (flower and vegetable plants), shrub or tree trimmings and twigs (1/4-inch diameter maximum), pine cones and needles. � Woody Yard Waste: hedge or tree trimmings and twigs (1/4-inch diameter or greater) or Christmas trees which can be hauled to a commercial compost facility. Todd Olson, Metro Cities Government Relations Specialist, will be in attendance to address any questions related to consolidated hauling statutory requirements. Staff would like input from City Council on direction for further study or consideration. Attachments • League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo on City Solid Waste Management (1$ pages) • 2013 Residential Survey (6 pages) O � INFORMATION MEMO L'MINNESOTA City Solid Waste Management CITIES Understand city authority and requirements to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste and the roles of state and county oversight. Read about city licensing authority and permitted assessments and fees. Learn about open and organized systems of solid waste collection, including their advantages and disadvantages. Includes a flowchart showing the process for adopting organized collection. RELEVANT LINKS: �. Authority, oversight, and definitions A. Authority to regulate M�nn.s,�t.;a�z.zz�,s„ba. All cities are authorized to provide for or regulate by ordinance the disposal 22(3).Minn.Stat.§41033. Troje n.Ciry Counci!of Ciry of sewage, garbage, and other refuse. This broad grant of police power ofxasr�ngs,310 Minn.183, authorizes cities to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste. 245 N.W.2d 596 p976). B. Authority to acquire, construct, and operate solid waste facilities—first class cities Any first class city(Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester) is authorized: M�nn.stat.�aa3.i s.M;nn. • to acquire by purchase or condemnation lands on which to build plants s�r.�aio.oi. for the destruction of garbage and other refuse • to purchase, build, operate, and maintain such plants for the destruction of garbage and other refuse • to provide for the collection of all such garbage or refuse and its delivery to destruction plants or other places � to pay and contract to pay for the same in such annual installments and at such a rate of interest on deferred payments as the city council determines s�M��.s�t.§§aa3.�s- Each of these actions must be authorized by at least a three-fourths vote of 443.35 for more information about f;r5c��ass�;t;es° all members of the city council. First class cities have additional authority a°�,°"ty ana resm°t'°"S and restrictions regarding solid waste management. regarding solid waste management. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.Consult your attomey for advice conceming specific situations. 145 University Ave.West www.lmc.org 4/30/2014 Saint Paul,MN 55103-2044 (651)281-1200 or(800)925-1122 O 2014 Alf Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: C. State oversight s�I°f°""at'°°B°ef, Before the 1970s, open burning and open dumping were the most common Minnesola Solid Waste �rrs�o,-y,M�,eSo�xouse of forms of solid waste management. Beginning in the 1970s, a variety of Represe°'at'°es. waste management regulations were adopted, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) was given regulatory oversight over solid waste and recycling. M��.s��.� �i sA.ab. The MPCA develops and enforces the state's solid waste management MPC'A Local Govcmment a,ss;stan�e u�;t. regulations. It is also responsible for approving the solid waste plans that counties must adopt. The MPCA has a Local Government Assistance Unit that helps counties, cities, and townships develop solid waste systems designed to recover resources and manage waste to reduce its environmental impact. s�M�nn.sc:jc.�h. �isn. The Minnesota Legislature adopted the Waste Management Act in 1980. It establishes the following order of priority for waste management: Minn.Stat.�� I15A.02. • Waste reduction and reuse • Waste recycling • Composting of source-separated compostable materials, including, but not limited to, yard waste and food waste • Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration • Land disposal that produces no measurable methane gas or that involves the retrieval of inethane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on-site or for sale • Land disposal that produces measurable methane and that does not involve the retrieval of inethane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on-site or for sale D. County oversight M�,n.s�t.� i isA.ab.M��. Minnesota counties have primary responsibility for solid waste management, Stat.§400.16.Minn.Stat.§ a�3.i a9.M;nn.R.�h.9z�s. including recycling. All counties are required to adopt a solid waste plan that Tt'e MpcA'na�r��s a must include waste reduction and recycling provisions, as well as provisions database of county contacts for Soi�a Wasc�ana re�y��ng. to minimize the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. For more information about recycling in your caunty, visit Recycle More Minnesota's website. M;nn.s�t.� �isA.a�sub�. After the MPCA has approved a county's solid waste plan, a city located in s. that county may not enter into a binding agreement governing solid waste management activity or develop, or implement solid waste management activity(other than activity to reduce waste generation or reuse waste materials)that is inconsistent with the county's plan without the county's consent. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: M�„n.sc��.�a�3.�ay.s� Metropolitan counties must develop solid waste management plans that are Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan consistent with the most recent"metropolitan long-range policy plan." 2010-2030. E. Definitions 1. Mixed municipal solid waste "''°°.stal.� "5'`.°3,s°ha. Mixed municipal solid waste is defined as"garbage, refuse, and other solid 2i. waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates for collection." Mixed municipal solid waste does not include "auto hulks, street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, and other materials collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams." 2. Solid waste M�nn.s��.� i isA.os,sued. Solid waste is defined as "garbage,refuse, sludge from a water supply 31.Minn.Stat§ 116.06, suba.zz. treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and sludges, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities." Solid waste does not include: • hazardous waste • animal waste used as fertilizer • earthen fill, boulders, rock • concrete diamond grinding and saw slurry associated with the construction, improvement, or repair of a road when deposited on the road project site in a manner that is in compliance with best management practices and rules of the agency • sewage sludge • solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents or discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows • source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. M�nn.sc�t.�>>sa.9s�. State 1aw specifically prohibits certain items from being included in mixed Minn.Stat.§115A.96.Minn. s�c.��isa.o3,suba.»a. municipal solid waste or in solid waste including telephone directories, M�nn.s�c.�>>sA.9s6s. major appliances, electronic products containing a cathode-ray tube, yard Minn.Stat.§115A.931. Minn.Stat.§115A.935. W1St0� tires, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, various mercury-containing Mtnn.s�c.�>>sA.9s2. thermostats and equipment, fluorescent tubes, and certain batteries. Minn.Stat.§ 115A.9155. Mina Stat.§115A.9157. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: 3. Yard waste m;nn.s��.,>>sn.oa,s�e�. yard waste is defined as "garden wastes, leaves, lawn cuttings, weeds, shrub 38. and tree waste, and prunings." 4. Recyclabie materials M�nn.s�,.��isa.os,sued. Recyclable materials are defined as "materials that are separated from mixed 25a. municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling or composting, including paper, glass,plastics, metals, automobile oil,batteries, and source-separated compostable materials." Recyclable materials do not include refuse-derived fuel or other material that is destroyed by incineration. 5. Source-separated recyclable materials M;��.s��.� i isA.o3,s�ba. Source-separated recyclable materials are defined as "recyclable materials, 32b. including commingled recyclable materials that are separated by the generator." 6. Source-separated compostable materials Source-separated compostable materials are defined as materials that: M�nn.sr�t.� i isA.o3,sUba. • are separated at the source by waste generators for the purpose of 32a.Minn.Stat.§ 1 ISA.93. preparing them for use as compost • are collected separately from mixed municipal solid waste, and are governed by the licensing provisions of section 115A.93 • are comprised of food wastes, fish and animal waste, plant materials, diapers, sanitary products, and paper that is not recyclable • are delivered to a facility to undergo controlled microbial degradation to yield a humus-like product meeting the MPCA's class I or class II, or equivalent, compost standards, and where process residues do not exceed 15 percent by weight of the total material delivered to the facility • may be delivered to a transfer station, mixed municipal solid waste processing facility, or recycling facility only for the purposes of composting or transfer to a composting facility, unless the commissioner determines that no other person is willing to accept the materials 7. Organized collection M�nn.s�t.§ i�sa.9a.see Organized collection is defined as "a system for collecting solid waste in Section IV,Solid waste and recyding collection,for more which a specified collectar, or a member of an organization of collectors, is "'f°""a"°°ab°°t°rga°'Z�a authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areas some or collection. all of the solid waste that is released by generators for collection." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: 8. Open collection Open collection is generally defined as a system for collecting solid waste or recyclable materials where individual residents and businesses are free to contract with any collector licensed to do business in the city. II. City regulation and licensing A. Required regulation There are three situations where cities are required to regulate solid waste collection. 1. County organized collection ordinance M�„n.s��., i isn.9a,suna. Any county can adopt an ordinance requiring cities or towns within its 5.See Section IV,Solid waste and recycling boundaries to organize collection of solid waste. If a city does not comply �°lle�r�°n,f°r"'°re with the county's organized collection ordinance, the county can organize infonnation about organized �oue�t;on. collection itself. M�nn.s�t.� >>sa.9a,suha. A county's organized collection ordinance—in addition to requiring solid s. waste collection—may also require the separation and separate collection of recyclable materials, specify the material to be separated, and require cities to meet any performance standards for source separation contained in the county's solid waste plan. 2. Cities in the metropolitan area M�nn.s�t.�a�3.s>>,suba. Cities in the metropolitan area must adopt an ordinance regulating the 5.Minn.Stat.§473.I21. collection of solid waste within its boundaries. The metropolitan area includes the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota(excluding the city of Northfield), Hennepin(excluding the cities of Hanover and Rockford), Ramsey, Scott(excluding the city of New Prague), and Washington. If a city is located in a metropolitan county that has adopted a collection ordinance, the city must adopt either the county ordinance by reference or a stricter ordinance. If a city is located in a metropolitan county that has adopted a recyclable-separation ordinance,the ordinance applies in all cities within the county that have failed to meet the local abatement performance standards stated in the most recent annual county report. 3. Cities with a population of 1,000 or more M�n,,.s�t.�iisA.ea�. Any city,regardless of where it is located, with a population of 1,000 or more must ensure that every residential household and business in the city has solid waste collection service. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: M;nn.s�t.; i isn.9ai.see To comply with this requirement, cities are authorized to organize solid Section IV,Solid waste and recycling collection,for more waste collection, provide collection by city employees, or require by 'nf°""at'°n ab°°t°rga°'Z�a ordinance that every household and business has a contract for collection �o��ecc�on. services. An ordinance with such a requirement must also provide for enforcement. Cities must follow specific procedural requirements before adopting organized collection of solid waste. m;nn.s�c��isA.9ai. A city with a population of 1,000 or more may exempt a residential household or business from the requirement to have solid waste collection service if the household or business ensures that an environmentally sound alternative is used. B. Recycling required at city facilities M;nn.s�t. >>sA.�si. A11 statutory and home rule charter cities are required to ensure that facilities under their control, from which mixed municipal solid waste is collected, have containers for at least three recyclable materials such as,but not limited to,paper, glass,plastic, and metal. Cities must also transfer all recyclable materials collected to a recycler. C. Licensing 1. Solid waste collectors M�„n.s�a�.s >>s,a.ys,suba. State law prohibits any person from collecting mixed municipal solid waste �. for hire without a license from the jurisdiction where that waste is collected. M�„n.s�t.� i�sa93,suba. Cities are authorized to license solid waste collectors. County boards are 2.Troje v.Ciry Counci!oJ� c�ry ofxas�,ngs,3io M�nn. required to adopt by resolution the licensing authority of any city that does is3,aas N.w.aa s96�i9�6�. not license solid waste collectors. If a city acts as a licensing authority, it may impose requirements that are consistent with the county's solid waste policies. In addition, state law establishes several requirements that must be imposed far any license issued to a solid waste collectar. M�nn.s��.� i isn.93,suba. First, a license must require collectors to impose charges for collection of 3. mixed municipal solid waste that increase with the volume or weight of the waste collected. For example, a solid waste collector could charge fees that increase with the increasing volume of solid waste generated by customers. Garbage carts of different sizes measured by their volume in gallons could be issued to customers who can decide what size garbage cart best suits their disposal needs. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: M�»,,.stat.� i isA.ya,subd. The commissioner of the MPCA may exempt a licensing authority from this 3. requirement if the county in which the city is located has an approved solid waste plan that concludes that variable rate pricing is not appropriate for that jurisdiction because it is inconsistent with other incentives and mechanisms implemented that are more effective in attaining the goals of discouraging on-site disposal, littering, and illegal dumping. The commissioner may also exempt a collector from this requirement while revisions are being made to the county's solid waste plan if certain conditions are met. The exemption is only effective until the county solid waste plan is revised. "''°°.s,��.fi"5^.93,s°b�. Second, a license that requires a pricing system based on volume instead of 3(d). weight shall determine a base unit size for an average small quantity household generator of waste and establish, or require the licensee to establish, a multiple unit pricing system that ensures that amounts of waste generated in excess of the base unit amount are priced higher than the base unit price. M�nn.s��.s>>sA.y3,suba. Third, a license shall prohibit collectors from imposing a greater charge on 3. residents who recycle than on residents who do not. 2. Recycling collectors M�nn.s��.� �isA.ss3, Counties can require either county or municipal licenses for the collection of suba.2. recyclable materials. Each county must ensure that materials separated for recycling are taken to markets for sale or to recyclable material processing centers.No county may prevent a person that generates or collects solid waste from delivering recyclable materials to a recycling facility of the � generator's or collector's choice. M�n�.s��.� i isA.a6,SUba. If a city acts as a licensing authority, it may impose requirements that are s. consistent with the county's recycling policies. A city can also impose requirements that are in addition to or different from the county's policies if the city's requirements are designed to reduce waste generation or promote the reuse of waste materials. 3. License fees orrV.czryofno�hesteY i93 State law does not address the amount that cities can charge for licenses for Minn.371,258 N.W.569 ��93s�. collection of solid waste or recyclable materials. Generally, a license fee must be reasonable. It should not be viewed as a source of revenue and should be in an amount that is close to the direct and indirect costs in issuing the license and in regulating the licensed activity. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: D. Requiring use of specific waste facility was��s�:s��,,,s co,�. ��.c•�r„�. Some municipalities have adopted ordinances that regulate the flow of solid ojMar�in,Minn.,985 F.2d i3si�sr�c��.i993�.c�a waste, for example,by designating where it can be disposed. This is caraone,rn�. ,�. cra,-�s�on�,,, generally done as a tool to achieve solid waste management goals. Flow New York,511 U.S.383 (1994).Ben Oehrleins and control ordinances may raise constitutional issues under the Commerce so„s a„a Dau�titeY,�„�.,�. Clause of the United States Constitution if they interfere with the flow of Hennepin Cnt}e,I15 F.3d i3�z�s�n c�r.�99��. interstate commerce. c�r,�o>Yr„raderPhra,�.New Courts have recognized a distinction under the Commerce Clause that Jersey,437 U.S.617(1978). �n;rea yQuters ass�n,rn�.v. generally allows municipalities more authority to take actions affecting solid onerda-Herk,meY sorrd waste if they are acting as a"market participant"instead of as a government Waste Management Au[h., sso u.s.330�zoo�>. regulator. When a municipality is providing for or contracting for waste management services, it is generally thought to be acting as a market participant. M�n,,.s�at.�� >>sa.ss- State law authorizes counties or sanitary districts to adopt a designation 115A.86. ordinance requiring that all solid waste generated within a specific geographic area must be delivered to a specific solid waste facility. A designation ordinance does not apply to the following materials: M�nn.s�t.� �isA.a3.M;nn. . Materials se arated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their Stat.§ I15A.03,subds.27 p ana za. original form or for use in manufacturing processes • Materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time that the designation plan is approved by the commissioner of the MPCA • Materials that are separated at a permitted transfer station located within the boundaries of the designating authority for the purpose of recycling the materials i£ (1)the transfer station was in operation on Jan. 1, 1991; or(2)the materials were not being separated for recycling at the designated facility at the time the transfer station began separation of the materials • Recyclable materials that are being recycled, and residuals from recycling if there is at least an 85 percent volume reduction in the solid waste processed at the recycling facility and the residuals are managed as separate waste streams M�nn.stac.� �isA.9a,suba. If a city organizes collection by contract or as a municipal service, it may 3.Minn.Stat.� I15A.86. include a requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste be delivered to a waste facility identified by the city. This requirement would not apply to recyclable materials and materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time the requirement is imposed. In a district or county where a resource recovery facility has been designated by ordinance, organized collection must conform to the designation ordinance's requirements. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: n��nn.sc�t.�a�3.s i 3.M;,,n. Cities in the metropolitan area have authority to directly negotiate and enter Stat.§473.121.LMCIT staff �an ass;st,n�e,,;eW;,,g�;ri into contracts—for a term not to exceed 30 years—for the delivery of solid �°"�a�ts,esp�'a�ly waste to a waste facility, and the processing of solid waste. Contracts made provisions related to insurance and liability.For by direct negotiations shall be approved by resolution. Before a city in the I"°re"'f°""at'°n,�°"�°t metropolitan area enters into a contract for a period of more than five years, Chris Smith,Risk n,r�agement attorney,at it must submit the proposed contract and a description of the proposed �S�„�tn��>>»�.��or 6s�-2s�- activities under the contract to the commissioner of the MPCA for review i z69. and approval. E. Customer lists M�nn.s�a�.;>>sn.93,s„ed. Customer lists provided to cities by solid waste collectors are private data on 5.Minn.Stat.�� 13.02,subds. 9,�2. individuals, or nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. III. City assessments and fees A. Assessments for unpaid services M�nn.s��.�aa3.o�s.see �y statutory city or city of the fourth class that provides, by contract or LMC Sample Resolution aaopt�ng Ass�ss,,,�nts ror otherwise, for garbage collection and disposal may by ordinance require the unpa�a cnarg�s r�r ca�t,ag� owners of all property served to pay the proportionate cost of the service to Collection and Disposal s�,��;�es.s�sampie their properties. The city council may annually levy an assessment equal to ora�an�e rro��a�g for the unpaid cost as of Sept. 1 of each year against each lot or parcel of land. Assessment of Unpaid cha�ge5 for carbage The assessment may include a penalty not to exceed 10 percent of the c<�u�c��n ana o;s},�,tai unpaid amount, and shall bear interest not exceeding 6 percent per year. se��es. Such assessments shall be certified to the county auditor and shall be collected and remitted to the city treasurer in the same manner as assessments for local improvements. M;��.s�t.�aa3.z9. First class cities (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester) have additional authority to collect unpaid charges for rubbish disposal in a civil action, or to assess them against the property receiving the service and collect them as other taxes are collected. 6. City fees 1. Operators of disposal facilities M�nn.sc�t.� �isA.vz�, A city may charge a fee that cannot exceed $1 per cubic yard of waste, or its 5�ba. �. equivalent, on operators of facilities for the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste located in the city. The fees must be credited to the city's general fund. Revenue produced by 25 cents of the fee must be used only for purposes of landfill abatement or for mitigating and compensating for the local risks, costs, and other adverse effects of the facilities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: Revenue produced by the balance of the fee may be used for any general fund purpose. "''°°.s��.� "SA.92', There is an exemption from this fee for waste residue from recycling SUba. �. facilities at which recyclable materials are separated or processed for the purpose of recycling, or from energy and resource-recovery facilities at which solid waste is processed for the purpose of extracting, reducing, converting to energy, or otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse if there is at least an 85 percent weight reduction in the solid waste processed. M�nn.s��.; i isa.yzi, A city may also charge a fee not to exceed 50 cents per cubic yard of waste, subd.2.Minn.Stat.$ i isn.o3,sUed.�. or its equivalent, on operators of facilities for the disposal of construction debris located within the city. The revenue from the fees must be credited to the city or town general fund. Two-thirds of the revenue must be used only for purposes of landfill abatement or for purposes of mitigating and compensating for the local risks, costs, and other adverse effects resulting from the facilities. M�nn.s�t.� �isA.9z i, There is an exemption from 25 percent of this fee if the facility has suba.2. implemented a recycling program that the county has approved, and 25 percent if the facility contains a liner and leachate collection system the MPCA has approved. Two-thirds of the revenue from this fee must offset any financial assurances required by the city for a construction debris facility. The maximum revenue that may be collected for this type of fee must be determined by multiplying the total permitted capacity of a facility by 15 cents per cubic yard. Once the maximum revenue has been collected for a facility, the fees in this subdivision may no longer be imposed. 2. Accounting for fees M�nn.s,��.�>>sn.9a9. Cities that provide for solid waste management shall account for all revenue collected from waste management fees, together with interest earned on revenue from the fees, separately from other revenue collected by the city. Cities must report revenue collected from the fees and use of the revenue separately from other revenue and use of revenue in any required financial report or audit. M�nn.s��.� >>sa.os,5ubd. A city provides solid waste management and is subject to this requirement 36. for a separate accounting and reporting if a city engages in any activities that are intended to affect or control the generation of waste, or engages in any activities that provide for or control the collection,processing, and disposal of waste. State law defines waste management fees as: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: nn;,,�,.s��.� i isA.yz�.For • All fees, charges, and surcharges collected under sections 115A.921 of more infonnation about these fees see Section N.B.,Ciry t�le M1T1110SOt1 StltUteS. Fees."''°°.s,�`.� . All ti m fees collected at waste mana ement facilities owned or i isn.9a9. PP g g operated by the city. • All city charges for waste collection and management services. • Any other fees, charges, or surcharges imposed on waste for the purpose of waste management,whether collected directly from generators, indirectly through property taxes, or as part of utility or other charges for city-provided services. M;,»,.s,��.��i s�.9as. �y city that provides or pays for the costs of collection or disposal of solid waste must, through a billing or other system, make the prorated share of those costs for each solid waste generator visible and obvious to the generator. IV. Solid waste and recycling collection A. Types of collection systems—open collection and organized collection nnarys;s o�wus�e corre�r,on The two main types of collection systems for solid waste and recycling are Service Arrangements, M;nneso�rouut;on con�o� commonly referred to as "open collection" and "organized collection."A Agen�y,��e aoo9. 2009 study authorized by the MPCA estimated that the number of cities with open solid waste collection was between 65 to 80 percent, and the number of cities with organized solid waste collection was between 20 to 35 percent. The same study indicated that the number of cities with open recycling was estimated to be between 40 to 60 percent, and the number of cities with organized recycling was estimated to be between 50 to 60 percent. Open collection is generally defined as a collection system where individual residents and businesses are free to contract with any collector licensed to do business in the city. M�„n.srat.�>>sa.ya,subas. Organized collection is defined as a"system for collecting solid waste in l,3. See Section IV.D., P,-o�eauYarYegu,YemenrsfoY which a specified collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is adopting organized authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areas some or collection,far more �fo,,,,anon. all of the solid waste that is released by generators for collection."A city must comply with certain procedural requirements in the organized collection statute before adopting organized collection of solid waste. M�nn.sc�r.� i isA.9a,suba. A city may organize collection as a municipal service where city employees 3. collect solid waste from a defined geographic service area or areas. In the alternative, cities may organize collection by using one or more private collectors or an organization of collectors. The agreement with the private collectors may be made through an ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or by other means. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: M�,,,,.s��.�a��.3as.M�nn. The competitive bidding requirements in state law do not apply to contracts Stat.§412.311.Schwandt s�n,�ar�on o��Pav„�s,�;rr�,�. for solid waste collection because they do not meet the definition of a c,r,�orPa��r�s��ur�,az3 "contract" subject to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. N.W.2d 59(Minn.Ct.App. 1988). M��n.sc�t.` �isA.9a,sUba. Organized collection accomplished by contract or as a municipal service 3.Minn.Stat.� 1ISA.86. may include a requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste—except recyclable materials and materials that are processed at a resource-recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time the requirement is imposed— be delivered to a waste facility identified by the city. In a district or county where a resource-recovery facility has been designated by ordinance, organized collection must conform to the ordinance's requirements. M�n�.s�c.> >i sn.9a,sUba. Cities are prohibited from establishing or administering organized collection 3. in a way that impairs recycling. Further, cities must exempt recyclable materials from organized collection upon a showing by the person who generates the recyclables or a collector of recyclables that the materials are or will be separated from mixed municipal solid waste by the generator, separately collected, and delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in a manufacturing process. M��.stat.; i isA.9a,sUbas. It is not absolutely clear whether a city that decides to enter into an 1,3. Minn.Stat.§1 ISA.03, subas.zsa ana 3�.M;n,,. agreement for the collection of recyclable materials with one collector or an stac.� 1��.o�,s�ba.zz. organization of collectors is required to comply with the procedural requirements in the organized collection statute. The answer likely depends on whether the definition of"solid waste"referenced in the organized collection statute should be interpreted to include recyclable materials. The MPCA has taken the position(while advising cities that they should consult their city attorneys) that recyclable materials are not subject to the organized collection statute because they are not a part of solid waste or mixed municipal solid waste once they have been separated out for separate collection and recycling. wa,re Ke��o��eYY coop.o� The Minnesota Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, considered a Minnesota v.County oJ' HennePrn,a�s N.w.2a s9z similar issue of whether telephone directories collected for recycling were �M"'n.ct.App.i99��. subject to a county's designation ordinance requiring mixed municipal solid waste to be disposed of at a county-designated facility. The court of appeals concluded that the telephone directories did not meet the definition of mixed municipal solid waste or of solid waste because they were being collected for recycling in a"separate waste stream" and were not being"discarded" as solid waste. If a city is considering entering into an agreement for the collection of recyclable materials with one collector or an organization of collectors, it should consult its city attorney to determine whether it must follow the procedural requirements in the organized collection statute. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: B. Organized collection is generally optional M�n,,.s�a�.� i isa.9a,suha. The organized collection statute provides that the authority to organize the e. collection of solid waste is optional and is in addition to authority governing solid waste collection granted by other law. The statute also provides that a city may exercise any authority granted by any other law, including a home rule charter, to govern collection of solid waste. A city would only be required to organize collection if the county in which it is located has by ordinance required cities within its jurisdiction to organize collection. M;nn.stat.� i isA.o3,suea. The Waste Management Act defines cities as"statutory and home rule 4.Minn.Stat� I15A.94. charter cities authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364." Therefore, both statutory and home rule charter cities may adopt organized collection using the procedures outlined in the organized collection statute. C. Open collection versus organized collection: pros and cons 1. Open collection A„Qi,s�s o�wasre coue�r�on There are several frequently cited advantages of open collection: Semice Arrangements, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,June 2009. • Residents have more choice and are free to select a solid waste collector based on their preference. • There is a direct relationship between the solid waste collector and its customers. • There are minimal administrative costs for cities. • Smaller solid waste collectors are better able to enter the market in an open collection system by servicing a portion of city residents. anai,:r;s oi wasr�c�rr��ron In contrast, there are several frequently cited disadvantages of open Sernice Arrangements, Minnesota Pollution Control C0110Ct1011: Agency,June 2009. • Open collection generally results in a more expensive monthly cost for residents. • Multiple collectors means more truck traffic and the resulting negative side effects, including the potential for added street maintenance costs, and increased vehicle noise and emissions, fuel consumption, and vehicle accidents. • There may be inconsistent charges for the same level of service in a city. • Cities have reduced ability to manage solid waste collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: 2. Organized collection The ae„�>��s ofoYgan�Zea There are several frequently cited advantages of organized collection: Collection,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Feb.2012. Analysis of Was/e Collection Seri�ice Arrangements,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June 2009. • The price paid by households in an organized collection system is generally lower per month for similar service levels than in an open collection system due to increased efficiencies from serving every household or business in the community or on a particular route. • Limiting the number of solid waste collectors allows cities to decrease the impacts of increased truck traffic, including the potential for added street maintenance costs, vehicle noise and emissions, fuel consumption, and vehicle accidents. • Cities have greater ability to manage solid waste collection and can establish service requirements. • Standardized service makes public education easier. • Cities' ability to seek requests for proposals on a regular basis helps lower costs. anar,,.s�s o>wa.rr�coue��r�on In contrast, there are several frequently cited disadvantages of organized Sernice Arr-angements, Minnesota Pollution Control COIIeCtlOri: Agency,June 2009. • Households and businesses do not get to choose their collector. • Cities have greater administrative involvement and costs. • Small collectors have higher entry costs to get into the market and competitive opportunities are limited to contract openings. • The statutory requirements for switching from open to organized collection are time consuming and can be difficult politically. D. Procedural requirements for adopting organized collection M�nn.stat.� i isA.9a.zo�3 There are several procedural steps a city must take before it is authorized to Minn.Laws ch.45.See appena�X a,organ�Zea adopt organized collection of solid waste. The Minnesota Legislature c°v�t'°"Fl°"'�hart. adopted significant changes to the organized collection statute in 2013 that were designed to simplify the process for adopting organized collection. Any city that has adopted organized collection as of May 1, 2013, is exempt from the new requirements. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: M�nn.sc��.� i�sA.o3,s�ba. The Waste Management Act defines cities as"statutory and home rule 4.Minn.Stat.§ 115A.94. charter cities authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364." Therefore, both statutory and home rule charter cities may adopt organized collection using the procedures outlined in the organized collection statute. 1. Notice to public and to licensed collectors M;nn.stat.� �isa.9a,s„ba. A city must first give notice to the public and to any licensed collectors that 4d.Minn.Stat§331A.03. it is considering adopting organized collection. State law does not specify how notice should be provided. The League recommends providing both published notice and individual mailed notice to each licensed collector. 2. 60-day negotiation period with licensed collectors M;,,n.stdt.� i�sA.9a,sUba. After the city provides notice of its intent to consider adopting organized 4d. collection, it must provide a 60-day negotiation period that is exclusive between the city and any collectors licensed to operate in the city. A city is not required to reach an agreement with the licensed collectors during this period. The purpose of the negotiation period is to allow the licensed collectors to develop a proposal in which they, as members of an organization of collectors, will collect solid waste from designated sections of the city. M��n.s�t.� �isA.9a,suba. The proposal must contain identified city priorities, including issues related aa. to zone creation, traffic, safety, environmental performance, service provided, and price, and must reflect existing collectors maintaining their respective market share of business as determined by each hauler's average customer count during the six months before the beginning of the 60-day negotiation period. M��,n.stat.� i�sa.9a,sUba. If an existing collector opts to be excluded from the proposal, the city may 4d. allocate its customers proportionally based on market share to the participating collectors who choose to negotiate. M�nn.s�t.�>>sA.9a,sUba. If an organized collection agreement is established as a result of the 60-day 4d. M�nn.s�t.�i�sa.9a,sUba negotiation period, it must be in effect for a period of three to seven years. a°. Upon execution of an agreement between the participating licensed LMCIT staffcan assist in re�,eW;,,g�;ri�on��S, collectors and the city, the city shall establish organized collection through espe°'any pr°°'S'°"S relatea appropriate local controls. The city does not need to establish an organized to insurance and liability. For,,,ore;,,fo,�,,,at,o,,, collections options committee if it reaches an agreement with the licensed �onc��c cnri5 stn�th,R�sk haulers during the 60-day negotiation period; however, the city must first Management Attorney,at �s�„�tn�i,,,�.o�g or 6si-aai- provide public notice and a public hearing before officially deciding to �269. implement organized collection. Organized collection may begin no sooner than six months after the effective date of the city's decision to implement organized collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: 3. Organized collection options committee M��,n.s�t.; i isA.9a s�� If a city does not reach an agreement with its licensed collectors during the 4a.Minn.S4�t.ch. 13D. 60-day negotiation period, it can form by resolution an "organized collection options committee"to study various methods of organized collection and to issue a report. The city council appoints the committee members. The committee is subject to the open meeting law and has several mandatory duties. M;n�,.s,��.s i�sa.ya,suba. First,the committee sha11 determine which methods of organized collection 4b. to examine, which must include: a system in which a single collector collects solid waste from all sections of the city; and a system in which multiple collectors, either singly or as members of an organization of collectors, collect solid waste from different sections of the city. M�,»,.s�a�.� i�sn.9a,suha. Second, the committee shall establish a list of criteria on which the 4b. organized collection methods selected for examination will be evaluated, which may include: costs to residential subscribers, miles driven by collection vehicles on city streets and alleys, initial and operating costs of implementing the organized collection system, providing incentives for waste reduction, impacts on solid waste collectors, and other physical, economic, fiscal, social, environmental, and aesthetic impacts. M�nn.stat.; i�sa.9a,suba. Third, the committee shall collect information regarding the operation and 4b. efficacy of existing methods of organized collection in other cities and towns. Minn.StaL� i isn.9a,sUhd. Fourth, the committee shall seek input from, at a minimum: 4b. • the city council • the city official responsible for solid waste issues • persons currently licensed to operate solid waste collection and recycling services in the city • city residents who currently pay for residential solid waste collection services. M�nn.s�c.�>>s.a.9a,S�ba. Finally, the committee must issue a report on its research, findings, and any 4b. recommendations to the city council. 4. Public notice and public hearing M�nn.sr�c.� i�sA.9a,suba. A city council shall consider the report and recommendations of the 4c. organized collection options committee. A city must provide public notice and hold at least one public hearing before deciding to implement organized collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: 5. Implementation nn;�,�,.s�t.� i i sn.9a,s„ea. A city can begin organized collection no sooner than six months after the 4c. M;nn.s�at.a�i sa.ya,s�ea_ effective date of the city's decision to implement organized collection. A -�� city may organize collection as a municipal service where city employees collect solid waste from a defined geographic service area or areas. In the alternative, cities may organize collection by using one or more private solid waste collectors or an organization of collectors. An agreement with private collectors may be made through an ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or by other means. V. Conclusion Cities have broad authority to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste. Cities exercise this authority subject to state and county oversight. Cities should work closely with their city attorneys when exercising this authority by requiring licenses, imposing fees and assessments, entering into contracts, and adopting ordinances. Cities must comply with procedural requirements in the organized collection statute before they may adopt organized collection of solid waste. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 17 Appendix A: Organized Collection Flowchart City council provides notice of its intent to consider organized collection to the public and to any licensed solid waste collectors. City exclusively negotiates with its licensed collectars for 60 days to see if an agreement for organized collection can be reached. Collectors reach an agreement and provide ciry Collectors do not City council decides council with a proposal for reach an not to implement organized collection. agreement. organized collection. City council provides Ciry council adopts a resolution to public notice and holds establish an organized collection options a public hearing on the committee to identify, examine, evaluate, proposal. and seek input regarding various methods of organized collection. The committee is subject to the open meeting law. Organized collection options City council approves City council rejects committee studies organized proposal and decides to collectors' proposal. collection and issues a report with its implement organized findings and recommendations. collection.Any agreement reached must be in effect for three to seven years. City council considers the report. City council implements organized collection according to After city council provides public notice City council decides not the agreement. Organized and holds a public hearing,it decides to to implement organized collection may begin no sooner implement organized collection. collection. than six months after the Organized collection may begin no effective date of the city sooner than six months after the effective council's decision to implement date of the city council's decision to organized collection. implement organized collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/30/2014 City Solid Waste Management Page 18 "Traffic safety"troubled: • those with high knowledge levels about city government "Residential crimes" is stated more often by: • Precincts Five and Six residents "None of the above" is cited more frequently by: • Precincts One and Two residents Curbside Pick-Up of Recyclables Residents were asked: The City of Golden Valley switched to a single-sort curb- side recycling program in 2012. Since this change, is your household recycCing more, about the same amount or less? Sixty-two percent are recycling"about the same" amount: MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31% ABOUT THE SAME.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62% LESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Thirty-one percent are recycling"rnare." "More" is reported more often by: • households with seniors Next, residents were asked about their preference for the new program: Do you like or dislike the single-sort curbside recycling program? Do you feel strongly that way? Ninety-one percent"like" the single-sort curbside recycling program: 66 STRONGLY LIKE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25% LIKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66% DISLIKE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% STRONGLY DISLIKE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% Only five percent"dislike" it "Like"is indicated more frequently by: • residents for eleven to thirty years • those with high knowledge levels about city government • homeowners • Precincts Five and Six residents Finally,residents were asked: Are there any changes or improvements you would make to the singte-sort recycling program? Seventy-three percent have no suggestions: DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% TAKE MORE ITEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% LARGER BINS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% WEEKLY PICKUP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% SCATTERED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% "Larger bins" and"take more items" are each posted by 12%. "No"is stated more often by: • households with seniors • empty nesters "Larger bins" is posted at a higher rate by: • households with ck�ildren • eighteen to forty-four year olds 67 City Leaf Drop or Mighty Tidy Day Interviewees were asked: Have you participated in the City Leaf Drop or Mighty Tidy Day? Sixty-five percent report participation in the City Leaf Drop ar Mighty Tidy Day: YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65% NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% "Yes" is cited more often by: • residents for eleven to thirty years • those with no plans to move in the next ten years • forty-five to sixty-four year olds • those with high knowledge levels about city government • homeowners "No"is mentioned most frequently by: • residents for less ten years ar less • those expecting to move in six to ten years • over sixty-four year olds • those with low knowledge levels about city government • renters Next,participants were queried: How would you rate the City Leaf Drop or Mighty Tidy Day —excellent,good, only fair or poor? Ninety-six percent rate the pragrams highly, while five percent are more critical: EXCELLENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32% GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64% ONLY FAIR.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% There are no statistically significant sub-group differences. 68 The very small sub-sample of critics were asked a follow-up question: What changes or improvements would you rrtake to these programs? Forty-six percent would like to these days held more often: DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% TAKE MORE ITEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% MORE OFTEN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46% MORE DROP-OFF AREAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15% CURBSIDE PICKUP.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15% LOWER FEES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Fifteen percent each suggest"more drop-off areas" or"curbside pickup." There are na statisrically significant sub-group differences. Refuse Collection Golden Valley residents were asked: Most communities have or�e of two systems for refuse col- lection. In a multiple collection system, like the Ciry of Golden Valley, residents choose their hauler from several drff'erent companies serving the community. Other cities use an organized collection system, where the Ciry contracts with one hauCer for the entire community. In a multiple collection system, residents have the ability to choose, but many neighborhoods may have numerous trucks collecting garbage on their street at different times throughout the day. In an organized collection system, aCC residents are assigned a specific hauler, but only that company's truck appears in the neighborhood on a specifrc.day. Wauld you favor or oppose the City of Golden Yalley changing from the current system in which residents may choose from several different haulers to a system where the City chooses a hauler for alC or part of the City? Do you feeC strongly that way? By a 54%-39%margin, residents oppose changing from the current system to a system where the City chooses a hauler: 69 2006 2013 STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%. . . 5% FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%. . 34% OPPOSE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%. . 34% STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%. . 20% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%. . . 7% Support increases among: • those expecting to move in the next five years • those with high knowledge levels about city government It decreases among: • those with no plans to move in the next ten years • homeowners Respondents stating.an opinion were asked a follow-up question: Why do you feel that way? Supporters af the current hauling systern indicate "want choice," "like current hauler,"and "choice system is cheaper." Opponents say"organized collection is cheaper," "less truck traffic," and "less road maintenance:" DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% WANT CHOICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36% LIKE CURRENT HAULER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18°fo CHOICE IS CHEAPER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% ORGANIZED CHEAPER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12% LESS TRUCK TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% LESS ROAD MAINTENANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4% SCATTERED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l% "Want choice"is posted more often by: • men "Less truck traffic"is indicated more frequently by: • Precincts Seven and Eight residents "Like current hauler"is stated at a higher rate by: • over sixty-four year olds • homeowners �o Next, residents were queried: In another option, the Ciry could continue to give residents the option of choosing their own hauler, but require all haulers to pick-up garbage on the same day in a neighbor- hood Would you favor or oppose the City of Golden VaCley con- tinuing to allow residents to choose their own hauler, but require all haulers to pick-up garbage on the same day in a neighborhood? Do you feel strongly that way? By a 63%-28%majority, residents favor requiring all haulers to pick-up garbage on the same day in a neighbarhaod: 2006 2013 STRONGLI�FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%. . 12% FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%. . 51% OPPOSE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%. . 21% STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%. . . 7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%. . 10% Support is higher amang: • those with high knowledge levels about city govemment • Precincts Seven and Eight residents It is lower among: • Precincts Three and Four residents Senior Programs Respondents reporting the presence of seniors in their household were asked: Have any househoCo members participated in any senior programs offered by the City of GoCden Valley? Twenty-seven percent report senior household members participated in City-sponsored programs: 2001 2006 2013 YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%. . 19%. . 27% NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%. . 81%. . 74% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%. . . 1%. . . 0% 71 �°�� ;��uP��'an ��_ � i�� `�� µ� �� :��° �=;� � � �., �.�.� � �� !' �, � � �: � �_. Public WorksiDepartment 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax} Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 3. Snow Plowing Policy Prepared By Bert Tracy, Maintenance Manager Mark Ray, PE, Street Maintenance Supervisor Summary Staff will review the City's snow plowing policy with the City Council in advance of winter 2014- 2015. Attachments • Snow Plowing and Ice Control Policy for City Streets, Alleys, Parking Lots, Trails and Sidewalks, Amended October 18, 2011 (5 pages) ; , ,` �� .^., p� ,��.��'� � � � .¢� �..� � fi�� ` �;�� u'��.' �' Snow Plowing and Ice Control Policy for City Streets, Alleys, Parking Lots, Trails and Sidewalks January 20, 2009 Amended October 18, 2011 1. Introduction The City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, finds that it is in the best interest of the residents of the City to assume basic responsibility for control of snow and ice on City streets. Reasonable ice and snow control is necessary for routine travel and emergency services. The City will attempt to provide snow and ice control in a safe and cost-effective manner, keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel, and environmental concerns. The City will use City employees and City-owned equipment, and private equipment when necessary. This policy does not relieve the operator of private vehicles, pedestrians, property owners, residents and all others that may be using public streets, alleys, parking lots, sidewalks and trails, of their responsibility to act in a reasonable, prudent and cautious manner, given the prevailing conditions. 2. Initiation of Snow and Ice Control Operations The Public Works Maintenance Manager, or his designee, will decide when to begin snow or ice control operations. The criteria for that decision are: a. New accumulation of finro (2) inches or more; b. Drifting of snow that causes problems for travel; c. Icy conditions which seriously affect travel; and d. Time of snowfall in relationship to heavy use of streets. Snow and ice control operations are expensive and involve dedication of a significant amount of personnel and equipment. Consequently, snow plowing operations will not generally be conducted for snowfall of less than finro (2) inches. However, an accumulation of consecutive snowfall events of less than two (2) inches may constitute initiation of snow plowing operations. 3. Plowing Method Snow will be plowed in a manner so as to minimize traffic obstructions. The center of the roadway will be plowed first. The snow shall then be pushed from left to right. When a plow goes on a bridge, the driver shall slow down so snow does not go over the bridge, if possible. In times of extreme snowfall, streets may not be immediately cleared of snow. Plowing procedures will be adapted to address field conditions. s 4. Maintenance Priorities and Schedule of Streets, Alleys, Municipal Parking Lots, Sidewalks and Trails A. Streets, Alleys and Municipal Parking Lots The City has classified city streets based on the street function, traffic volume and importance to the welfare of the community. Those streets classified as minor arterials and collectors will be plowed first. These are high volume routes, which connect major sections of the City and provide access for emergency, fire, police and medical services. The second priority streets are those streets providing access to schools and commercial businesses. The third priority streets are low volume residential streets. The fourth priority areas are alleys and City parking lots, except for those parking lots needed for Public Safety and Public Works functions. Each year the Public Works Department prepares a map of the City showing the City's streets system. The City is divided into routes, in which ice control and snow removal will be perFormed. The routes are periodically revised to correspond to budgetary, equipment and personnel resources. Within each route, the major streets are designated as well as areas of steep grades (hazardous areas) that require extra care. Equipment is assigned for the control of snow and ice. The start of snow and ice control operations for any storm is dependent upon immediate and forecasted weather conditions. The most critical time periods are weekday mornings and evening rush hours. Collector and arterial streets under the City's jurisdictional authority are the first priority. When feasible, the City will attempt to remove snow and ice from the City's collector and arterial streets prior to the rush hour periods. Once the collector and arterial streets are plowed and opened, the remaining streets and cul-de-sacs in the residential, commercial and industrial areas will be plowed and de-iced. The goal is to complete this work within 8 hours of the end of the snow event. During significant and severe storms, the City must be prepared to move personnel and equipment to maintain priority routes first. In fulfilling the need to have all collector and arterial streets safe and passable, when resources are limited, plowing of all other streets may be suspended at any time so resources can be shifted to the priority routes. Unforeseeable circumstances may cause delays in completing assigned plow routes. Such circumstances may include weather conditions that endanger the safety of snowplow operators and/or safe and effective operation of equipment, commuter traffic, disabled vehicles, poor visibility conditions, parked cars along streets, assistance to emergency response vehicles, equipment breakdown, and personnel shortages. z B. Sidewalks and Trails The City will maintain some of the sidewalks and trails in the City. A map of the trails and sidewalks is prepared annually and the sidewalks and trails have been prioritized based on function and use. As there are a limited number of personnel available, the City will only maintain these sidewalks and trails in accordance with personnel and equipment availability. a. Priority 1 and 2 trails and sidewalks are typically plowed within 24 hours after a 2-inch snow event occurs, if resources allow. b. The City may plow only Priority 1 trails if a snow event occurs with excessive accumulation (greater than 2 inches), in the event of an ice storm, or if equipment or manpower issues require an adjustment in the City's schedule. c. Priority 3 trails are plowed only after the maintenance effort for Priority 1 and 2 trails has been completed. This may typically be 48 to 72 hours after a 2-inch snow event. The trails may not be completed if consecutive snow events occur, or if manpower or equipment issues do not allow for plowing. 5. Hauling Snow from Rights-of-Way The Public Works Maintenance Manager, or designee, will determine if and when snow will be removed from City-owned parking lots and rights-of-way. Such snow removal will occur in areas where there is room on the boulevard for snow storage and in areas where accumulated piles of snow create a hazardous condition. Snow removal operations will not commence until other snow plowing operations have been completed. Snow removal operations may also be delayed depending on weather conditions, personnel and budget availability. The snow will be removed and hauled to a snow storage area. The snow storage area will be located so as to minimize environmental impacts. 6. Work Schedule for Snowplow Operators In severe snow emergencies, operators may have to work in excess of 12-hour shifts. Operators may be allowed a 10-minute break every 2 hours with a 20-minute meal break after 4 hours. Except for special emergency situations, the operators will be replaced after a 12-hour shift if additional qualified personnel are available. Ideally, snow removal operations should be conducted during early morning hours to avoid interfering with traffic, and allow property owners the time to clear their driveway approaches before traveling to work. 7. Traffic Regulations The City recognizes that snowplow operators are exempt from traffic regulations set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169, while actually engaged in work on streets, except for regulations related to driving while impaired and the safety of school children. Pursuant to this authority, snowplow operators engaged in snow removal or ice control on City streets have discretion to disregard traffic laws set forth in Chapter 169, except for laws relating to impaired driving and school children safety, 3 when in their judgment, it is safe to disregard such laws. The privileges granted herein to operators of snow removal and ice control vehicles shall apply only if the vehicle is equipped with one lighted lamp displaying a flashing, oscillating, or rotating amber light placed in such a position on the vehicle as to be visible throughout an arc of 360 degrees. 8. Weather Conditions Snow and ice control operations will be conducted only when weather conditions do not endanger the safety of snowplow operators and equipment. Factors that may delay snow and ice control operations include: severe cold, significant winds, and limited visibility. 9. Use of Sand, Salt, and Other Chemicals The City will use sand, salt, and other chemicals when there are hazardous ice or slippery conditions. The City is concerned about the effect of such chemicals on the environment and will limit its use for that reason. With the exception of Winnetka Avenue, south of TH 55, the City of Golden Valley does not strive to achieve bare pavement. Sand, salt, and other chemicals are not placed on City trails and sidewalks, except for those which immediately service a City building that is programmed for use during the winter. 10.Mailboxes Mailboxes, which are generally an obstruction in City's right-of-way, are sometimes impacted by snow removal operations. The City will conduct a review of each mailbox incident to determine whether a snowplow came into direct contact with the mailbox or support structure. The City will only repair mailboxes actually hit by a snowplow and installed to United States Postal Service Residential Mailbox Standards (see detail below). The City will not be responsible for damage to mailboxes or support posts caused by snow or ice coming into contact with the mailbox. Based on the City's review, the City will repair the mailbox to an operational state, or if the mailbox is unable to be adequately repaired, the City will replace the mailbox with a standard size, non-decorative metal mailbox. The City may also replace the support post as necessary with a 4" x 4", decay resistance wood support post, if necessary. Dents, scratches, or other superficial damage that does not prohibit � normal use of the mailbox will be considered normal wear and tear and will not be repaired or replaced by the City. NOTE: BOTTOM OF MAILBOX 3HOULD BE 47-45 INCHES � ABOVE ROAD 3URFACE.FACE OF MPJLBOX SHOULD BE BETWEEN 8 AND B INCHES FROM FACE , I� B"TD FROM OF CURB. � FACE CURB ROAD SURFACE a 4 11.Complaint Procedure Complaints will be recorded on telephone logs. Calls requiring service will be transferred to a work request and forwarded to the appropriate supervisor for scheduling. Emergency complaints will be handled in an expeditious manner as resources are available. 12.Suspension of Snow Removal OperationsNVeather Conditions The Public Works Director, or designee, may suspend plowing operations. Generally, suspension of plowing operations will be considered only when weather conditions endanger the safety of City staff and equipment. Factors that may suspend snow and ice control operations include: severe cold, significant winds and limited visibility, or the weather forecast calls for temperatures of 40 degrees within 12 hours. s �'��' t7� �'��,,. : �� , ��,, City Administrataion/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax) u q � � � � �� ; �rz��. �x�a,'�NI�,!��h�9q�,`�'��..�:. _ .. �:� ��+:.�,. . _.... _..<�:..��ili�uHr�,`��,.: =: , !�ii��ilOi�Vs�a�_m�,�. �...., Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 4. Lions Park Youth Athletics Usage Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary Mayor Harris requested this item be placed on the agenda. A number of Lion's Park neighborhood residents will be present to discuss the use of Lions Park for youth athletics on weeknights and weekends during the summer season. Lion's Park residents have presented their concerns to the Open Space and Recreation Commission (OSRC). OSRC hosted a listening session in July of 2014. At that meeting commission members requested staff to work with Golden Valley Girls Softball League representatives on a plan to improve the parking and traffic issues presented at the listening session. The results of the staff/league representatives work session are outlined in the attached memo which was reviewed and unanimously approved by the OSRC at the October 2014 meeting. As part of this process, a Lion's Park resident requested a usage analysis of the athletic facilities for the summer seasons of 2013 and 2014. The usage analysis has been attached to this summary. At#achments • Memo to the Open Space and Recreation Commission dated Octaber 17, 2014 (2 pages) • Golden Valley Summer Season Park Usage Totals (1 page) C1��' t�� , . . � : . .�M � � �. � . .,� Park and Recreafiion Department 763-512-2345/763-512-2344(fax) ,�,,:: =�=; ��d��6��iMS�i.��w�kw��;;i�a 3 v' .-• ��,°,, ' .�._ . ii,tir,i�Hq��u4��4�u��;�„�. . �"��'� Date: October 17, 2014 To: Open Space & Recreation Commission Members From: Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Subject: Recommended Actions for Lions Park :. . ...:: ..?��`�k�� S�P��,�I�iPai��m��, �� . ��:eu.�.��31��n�'�'I�Ip�'IIpiN1�i 6'IW��N�!I�i��..�:" .. , :�=�'s��iP�4'��I��"�-' � -�� City of Golden Valley staff and Golden Valley Girls Softball Association (GVGS) representatives met to discuss issues brought to the Commission and Parks and Recreation staff by a number of residents living in close proximity to Lions Park. City staff from the Police, Street Maintenance, Park Maintenance, Engineering and the Parks and Recreation departments were in attendance. After extensive discussion regarding the issues, city staff and GVGS representatives are recommending the following actions be taken for the 2015 season. • GVGS evening game time limit will be reduced to 70 minutes. Explanation: To allow for a longer and smoother transition between games to reduce traffic and parking problems during the transition. • GVGS will schedule the second evening games at 7:30 PM rather than 7:20 PM. Explanation:To allow for a longer and smoother transition between games to reduce traffic and parking problems during the transition. • Weekend tournaments will use Schaper and Wesley Parks along with Lions for tournament game play if practical, depending on number of players and teams. No Saturday or Sunday tournament games at Lions will be scheduled to start after 4:30 PM unless absolutely necessary (some games may be played later because of weather delays or other unavoidable circumstances). Explanation: This will reduce the number of tournament games played at Lions Park and reduce the activity at Lions earlier on tournament Saturdays and Sundays. • Parks and Recreation Department will assign Schaper and Wesley Parks to GVGS for weekend tournaments. Explanation: This will ensure availability of both park locations during GVGS tournaments, • Parks and Recreation Department will not allow tennis tournaments to be scheduled at Lions Park during weekend GVGS tournaments. Explanation: This will open up parking space in the north lot during GVGS tournaments. • City staff will add No Parking signs in close proximity to the street where fire hydrants are located within Lions Park. Explanation: This will ensure fire hydrants remain accessible and assist with enforcement. • Police Department will increase presence during weeknight and weekend games at Lions Park. Explanation: Parking violations will be enforced. • GVGS will continue and improve league communication: o League will request participants and spectators to carpool as much as possible. o League will continue to communicate with participants regarding respectful use of the neighborhood park, including driving carefully, yielding to pedestrians, not blocking driveways and mail boxes, not parking illegally, not trespassing on private lawns, not littering, and approaching Lions Park from the south for games on south fields. • GVGS will continue its trash pickup and park policing program, and volunteer to become an Adopt-A-Park partner at Lions Park if the City requests. Explanation: League will provide assistance with care of the park through this program. • City staff will explore the addition of a pedestrian trail on the east side of the park. This trail would connect the north and south trails/sidewalks and create a park loop in conjunction with the trail on the west side of the park, The approximate expense for this trail addition is $18,000 if designed and constructed in-house by city staff. This project does not have any funding dedicated to it, therefore if implemented other scheduled projects within the park system would not be completed. Explanation: This provides an off-street pedestrian path for park users on the east side of the park. • City staff and league representatives will monitor traffic and parking during between- game transitions and tournaments during the 2015 season. Explanation: Data will assist staff in recommendations and decisions for the 2016 season. GVGS representatives and staff believe that implementing the recommendations listed above will effectively address resident concerns and have a positive impact for the continued use of Lions Park for youth athletics. Goiden Valley Summer Season Park Usage Totals A B C D E F G Cut-in/Off-street Number.of 2013 Games& 2014 Games& Park User Group Facility Level 1 Parking Spaces Fields/Courts Practices Practices 2 Brookview Adult Volleyball 121 2 Adult 0 47 3 Schaper Adult Softball S00 2 Adult 336 380 4 Lions PV Soccer 184 3 Youth 128 0 5 Lions GVGS 184 2-2013/4-2014 Adult 86 256 6 Lions P&R Baseball 184 4 Adult 22 20 7 Isaacson ll Baseball 0 3 Youth 299 342 8 Isaacson P&R Baseball 0 3 Youth 16 18 9 Scheid LL Baseball 20 2 Youth 125 144 10 Scheid P&R Baseball 20 2 Youth 40 34 11 Sandburg PV Soccer 350 3 Youth 0 173 12 Sandburg ACYBA 350 2 Adult 278 304 13 MN Arts School PV Soccer 160 1 or 2 Youth 126 132 14 Seeman LL Baseball 38 1 Youth 101 100 15 Seeman PV Soccer 38 1 Youth #'s not available #'s not available 16 5.Wesley PV Soccer 30 1 Youth #'s not available #'s not available 17 Wesley GVGS 40 2 Youth 65 32 18 Wesley P&R Baseball 40 2 Youth 0 6 19 Wesley#3 GVGS 40 1 Adult 25 0 20 Wesley#3 LL Baseball 40 1 Adult 8 0 21 Wesley#3 ACYBA 40 1 Adult 27 33 22 Medley GVGS 32 2-2013/1-2014 Youth 90 0 23 Medley LL Baseball 32 1 Youth 10 40 24 Stockman LL Baseball 0 1 Youth 23 31 25 Gearty None 0 1 Not safe for use 0 0 26 Hampshire GVGS 50 1 Youth 4 0 27 Hampshire P&R Baseball 50 2 Youth 30 20 28 Natchez LL Baseball 0 1 Youth 20 0 29 Natchez PV Soccer 0 1 Youth 0#'s not available 30 Lakeview P&R Baseball 0 1 Youth 10 0 31 South Tyrol LL Baseball 0 1 Youth 5 19 32 North Tyrol LL Baseball 0 1 Youth 4 15 33 •Usage totals are for the Spring/Summer season only(mid-April through July) 3q •Youth Athletic Associations provided usage figures listed above 35 •City staff provided numbers for programs&leagues implemented by the Parks&Recreation Department 36 •#'s not available is due to the merger of Golden Valley&St.Louis Park soccer associations 37 •Fields no longer in use due to conditions and safety concerns include Medley#2,Gearty,and the two softball fields at Sandburg(�ow used gg for soccer) �i'V�� / { ..�;j�;�Y�::,. � � 0.,„� � �� Y�� ..:� r � Park and Recreation Departrnent 763-512-2345/763-512-2344(fax) ., � � n�, ��.;��,�E��..<�� '° ��.h��i��i��;��wu,a�r�new��s��.��a��._..��. °. .r... ..�p�,�,� � ; , .... .�. �r�..�,�. �n .. � .. Executive Summary For Golden Valley City Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 5, Community Center Task Force Report Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks & Recreation Summary The Community Center Task Force has completed their task set forth by Council and will present their final recommendation and report at this meeting. Attachments • Golden Valley Demographic Analysis (21 pages) • Estimated Operations Analysis (13 pages) DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� ' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Section I — Demo�raphic Summary & Market Review Ballard*King & Associates as part of the HGA project team, has been tasked with the development of a competitive market analysis for a community recreation center in the City of Golden Valley. The following is a summary of the basic demographic characteristics of the identified service areas along with recreation and leisure participation standards as produced by the National Sporting Goods Association and with participation statistics developed by the National Endowment of the Arts. Service Areas: The goal of the proposed community center would be to serve the residents of the City of Golden Valley; as such the City has been identified as the Primary Service Area for a proposed facility. Understanding that many times facilities and programs draw participation from beyond municipal boundaries a 7-minute drive time has been established from the proposed location which will be used as the Secondary Service Area. Primary Service Areas are usually defined by the distance people will travel on a regular basis (a minimum of once a week) to utilize a facility or its programs. Use by individuals outside of this area will be much more limited and will focus more on special activities or events (tournaments, etc.). Service areas can vary in size with the types of components that are included in a facility. A center with active elements (pool, weight cardiovascular equipment area, gym, track, etc.) will generally have a larger service area than a more passively oriented facility. Specialized facilities such as a sports field house, ice arena or large competitive aquatic venue will have even larger service areas that make them more of a regional destination. Service areas can also be based upon a facility's proximity to major thoroughfares. Other factors impacting the use as it relates to driving distance are the presence of alternative service providers in the service area. Alternative service providers can have an impact upon membership, daily admissions and the associated penetration rates for programs and services. ��F..,.�. �_� � $AT,T.ARn�CI�ING Page 1 � & ASSOCIATES I, '1' D DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� h' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Service Area Comparison Chart: Cit of Golden Valle Secondar Service Area Po ulation: 2010 Census 20,371 267,983 2013 Estimate 20,419 270,328 2018 Estimate 21,004 279,652 Households: 2010 Census 8,816 118,486 2013 Estimate 8,860 120,035 2018 Estimate 9,124 124,562 Families• 2010 Census 5,417 61,370 2013 Estimate 5,416 61,701 2018 Estimate 5,537 63,423 Avera e Household Size: 2010 Census 2.26 2.22 2013 Estimate 2.26 221 2018 Estimate 2.25 2.20 Ethnicit : His anic 3.0% 5.5% White 85.0% 73.0% Black 7.0% 14.3% American Indian 0.4% 0.6% Asian 3.7% 6.1% Pacific Islander 0.02% 0.05% Other 0.9% 2.3% Multi le 2.9% 3.6% Median A e: 2010 Census 45.7 35.8 2013 Estimate 46.4 36.4 2018 Estimate 47.3 37.4 Median Income: 2013 Estimate $78,716 $55,417 2018 Estimate $95,399 $66,984 Household Bud et Ex enditures': Housin 143 115 Entertainment&Recreation 146 114 ' This information is placed on an index with a reference point being the National average of 100. � �iA,T,T.ARD�KING Page 2 �+� & A 9 9 q C I A T E g I, 'C D DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� 1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Age and Income: The median age and household income levels are compared with the national number as both of these factors are primary determiners of participation in recreation activities. The lower the median age, the higher the participation rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the median income level goes up. Table A—Median Age: 2010 Census 2013 Pro'ection 2018 Pro'ection City of Golden Valley 45.7 46.4 47.3 Secondar Service Area 35.8 36.4 37.4 State of Minnesota 37.3 37.8 38.3 Nationally 37.1 37.6 38.1 Chart A—Median Age: 50 _ ----__._ __..___.__ _..__�_____ . _____. 45 __._.._. _ .....___ _-- ---_� 40 7.1 7.3 7.8 �--- — , <, 35 __._ ._ ' _.. 30 _._...... _- ---- „�'` � 25 � r .____ 20 ., . . . 15 . _._. �. 10 � � � __. _ � . � � „ , , 5 ,.. ,,e . , _. �.� __._._., , 0 _ � 2010 2013 2018 ■City of Golden Valley ■Secondary Service Area ■Minnesota National The median household income in the City of Golden Valley is significantly higher than the Secondary Service Area, State and National numbers. In the case of Secondary Service Area it is less than the State and National numbers while the State number is slightly higher than the National number. In the City of Golden Valley proper the median age would reflect a population with more Baby Boomers and Senior Citizens. ��j_ B'AT,T.aRn�CKING Page 3 �'"x_ & nssocta •r � s l. �rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� tJ' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Table B—Median Household Income: 2013 Estimate 2018 Pro'ection City of Golden Valley $78,716 $95,399 Secondary Service Area $55,417 $66,984 State of Minnesota $56,704 $68,119 Nationally $51,314 $59,580 Chart B—Median Household Income: $100,000 , _ .. _ _.�.__ __._- ___.____. _ _.._.._. _ _ --�_. �� . �90,000 �� ____ ___. ._.. ....___ ____._ __... ___.... ._ ____ _m..._..m. �so,000 , �� ._ _.�.____._ ___ __� ` ''� __.__.._ ____.�___ __ � $70,000 � ,580 .�� 0 � $60,000 � �3i�--�-- -- � $50,000 ' ,. ------ �� ,�; �,� _.. ;ti $40,000 �r ---- � ~ �.. � $30,000 �� u:: .,_ ��-_.____ �.. ;� $20,000 " _, _._ � ,� �� ;�------- � $10,000 « . �� .�._ :'________7 $0 _ .. : 2013 2018 ■City of Golden Valley ■Secondary Service Area ■Minnesota National � a�� a�`�� BiAT,T.AR��KING Page 4 bk__. a� Associn �rr: s i. �rr� DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Based upon 2013 projections the following narrative can be provided for the service areas: In the City of Golden Valley the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 70.9% compared to 50.1% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with median income less than $25,000 per year is 11.7% compared to a level of 24.7%nationally. In the Secondary Service Area the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 55.4% compared to 50.1% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with median income less than $25,000 per year is 20.3% compared to a level of 24.7%nationally. The median household income in the City of Golden Valley, Secondary Service Area and State of Minnesota are all higher than the National Number. The income level in the City of Golden is significantly higher than the National number, by almost 50% whereas the income level in the Secondary Service Area and State is only slightly higher than the National number. This information will need to be balanced with the overall cost of living. �'t` er k��`�?£`� �, ? '�'��. �i��'��Y�. '"��'7v. . �� ,��'�" � � �j'�•��° ��"�� °y�'' 5��. rg, ,�� 3 y. $.��'» �"""'"��`�-•, �i a�f� ��Y,,- �� w a � ,��' ��°�,, �> �e��g� �"3�i'�� &�s. �� xA��sk. �� '1 . V��3,y D�� '�.s ��;; y. . "�"°r�`h ;��` '�'�.h�j �S�`,�� "3'�u'�',��E�i � ,� �'�'a`�,�k� . �� ,�� t�3°a , , � a y� �`�-�� ,"�,'�,� ' r^A ��t„�"�n ��..�� . ,.� � � ys J° x� ��"�.: a �,. �a'�� . � � Bi T,�[,�R11�KING Page s � s� A s soc i n �r r; s i, •t� n DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� f y� Community Center Operations Analysis In addition to taking a look at Median Age and Median Income, it is important to examine Household Budget Expenditures. In particular looking at housing information; shelter, utilities, fuel and public services along with entertainment & recreation can provide a snap shot into the cost of living and spending patterns in the services areas. The table below looks at that information and compares the service areas. Table C —Household Bud�et ExpendituresZ: Ci of Golden Valle SPI Avera e Amount S ent Percent Housin 143 $30,561.28 31.4% Shelter 145 $23,562.83 24.2% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 139 $6,988.45 7.2% Entertainment & Recreation 146 $4,757.69 4.9% Secondar Service Area SPI Avera e Amount S ent Percent Housin 115 $24,528.13 31.8% Shelter 117 $18,963.78 24.6% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 110 $5,564.34 7.2% Entertainment & Recreation 114 $3,706.46 4.8% State of Minnesota SPI Avera e Amount S ent Percent Housing 106 $22,592.51 30.8% Shelter 105 $17,147.1 S 23.4% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 108 $5,445.36 7.4% Entertainment & Recreation 111 $3,608.81 4.9% SPI: Spending Potential Index as compared to the National number of 100. Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent per household. Percent: 18 Percent of the total 100%of household expenditures. Note: Shelter along with Utilities,Fuel,Public Service are a portion of the Housing percentage. �<�- �Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2004 and 2005 Consumer Expenditure Surveys,Bureau of Labor Statistics. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2018. � B'ALI:�A.RD�KING Page 6 bk & A � q �� A � �: S �. mn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� tJ' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Chart C —Household Budget Expenditures Spendin� Potential Index: 160 140 --_.__.______ ____ _ ____ _. __.____ __ _. 120 -. ,:;�I 00._ �0 _ . 00 _ �0 � ,..� � 100 ` - , � pv _.._ _ _ _ .:.. ___ � 80 . . : _ ,.:_ �-, - -- _ vA", 60 . ,� 40 20 `'� � � , � ,�� ,, r � � �- � � � � _.��_.__w_.��,�'' Housing Shelter Utilities,Fuel,Public Entertainment& Service Recreation ■City of Golden Valley ■Secondary Service Area ■Minnesota National Chart C, illustrates the Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index in the service areas. In the City of Golden Valley, Secondary Service Area and the State of Minnesota the SPI is higher than the National number, indicating that more dollars are being spent on these services. The Secondary Service Area and the State of Minnesota are closer to the National number while the City of Golden is significantly higher than all three numbers. It will be important to keep this information in mind when developing a fee structure and looking at an appropriate cost recovery philosophy for the community center. �� a ��°`�j<. � � �' �'°r`��R.= �� R'AT.T.ARI»jCj�NG Page 7 �'k � � � � « �: � .� � r: � �. � � DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� J' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Service Area Analvsis Each of the identified service area's demographic characteristics is now analyzed individually. Primary Service Area—City of Golden Valley. Secondary Service Area— 5-mile radius from Brookview Golf Course �.� ,��-,. �� "� �'��' ��u � �� g >� ��. �;�; � �c:s �� s � ��"' < '�',�" �,ti � �� . ��_` � �,� �� Ya �^�� *�r�� ,,„ �,� �� "� �{,��' �� r� ��.. �� ,��'�y� � � �� }�� .. ��+Y��f��+'.'�,y ��" . �` '4i'y� �.,.Y �. �,�'�'�y �'�'i d� '"'v"" $V°+�a:.... � �� `,Nr�iy�+ ��" �� -e, �; �� ° �. ��, °�� h ��.. °��, .. �� '�� . �� P� o r '�� ' � -��' r'�� r� ��, # y ��w.� �aa.'' �P. �� t�'t�} s�u � g�� - �� 8�° � �^' �a�;. y� a � � �� ``. �_ �q'" b� BAT.T,aRn�cKING Page 8 .�k � AssocrA7• r.: s i. �cn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Man A—Citv of Golden Vallev Map: �� . : a� < � � � . . , , . � . . ti : ; . � �.�.� � ._ , m � ;. . . .��: . � � . . i` .......... � �� ° ; , ri .�.+� ..�.,.. �. ,�,�*� �` $ �. • ;a�� ,�.,, �•_... '... .. : ..1 ,,.+ � S # � * # '�"�`K� �`"' . �"�� +�`��p � � . y # _ � : ,. � � � a�' � � � � a '+� � �� t[.,,.m>_, . » . . .� . 1 ' , _�., _�' , J »,�.., • , , , , � � � � �� .«_ ` w ' I �. � , � ' ; � �,�, , � <,�''- ..». � __ < , �,�, __.: .... ._,_., �.�,� ' ,�. �...«.r�:'�. . «; � .... ' �..........� � � ,� � �_ � t.:.�..m. f . .� �w j � wrvly.� # , � .y� '� ..rt .. . "'� I �'�•�s � � �,M,�� y�' � � � ..�� ,� � . - , . ; _....,.,, ,a . ,,,,� _ � .� - . � � � � � * � , . � ';,� � �� , ! � �< � i s t_. . < . . � ;` r ; r °: ,. " .. �. > � . � � . ..... .. . . : . '. ' . � _ . . a . , . ' .�r,�s .,. . . ... ..... . ^ x��'�.. . �� s ��;y;� ��v b� $AT,T,ARI��GKjNG Page 9 k � n s soc i n �r � s 1, �r n DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the City of Golden Valley, the following comparisons are possible. Table E—2013 Citv of Golden Valley A�e Distribution (ESRI estimates) A es Po ulation % of Total Nat. Po ulation Difference -5 1,027 4.9% 6.5% -1.6% 5-17 3,002 14.7% 17.2% -2.5% 18-24 1,148 5.6% 9.8% -4.2% 25-44 4,620 22.7% 26.5% -3.8% 45-54 3,169 15.5% 14.1% +1.4% 55-64 3,105 15.2% 12.3% +2.9% 65-74 1,982 9.7% 7.5% +2.2% 75+ 2,373 11.6% 6.1% +5.5% Population: 2013 census estimates in the different age groups in the City of Golden Valley. % of Total: Percentage of the City of Golden Valley/population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the City of Golden Valley population and the national population. Chart E—2013 Citv of Golden Vallev A�e Group Distribution _ _ _w_ _ 30 __ 26.5 ____.�M__.___� __ ___ .. __ ____.. __ __ __ _____ � 25 . : 0 .y � -- _ _ __ ___. __.._ _._ ¢, 20 "'' 17.2 s� a°, �� ,� -_�_____ _.____. _.__ _._�_�. _._�_ �.�___.._ ___..__ _.�..._.. �_....._..._ 0 15 ,3 a� �> cn r� � �, .....___�_.___,_.___. _.__- -._.._..._ _.. _.__._ .._ ._...._..._ __.____.__ � 1� ! 6.5 .5 �, .1 �, , _.__. ____ ___.._ ____ ___. _...._ _ _..___ __.___ a 5 p ' �..�..._, .:.a.. _,<.. �.v ___ ,.;�:�w:�.v �._ :_.__�.�.,:�_.�.��....._�_�w..�..v.�_� -5 5-17 yrs 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ ■City of Golden Valley ■National $AT,T,ARi»jcKING Page 10 �. & Assoc [ n �r � s i. r �� DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� J' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis The demographic makeup of the City of Golden Valley, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences with an equal or larger population in the -5, 5-17, 18-24 and 25-44 age groups and a smaller population in the 45-54, 55- 64, 65-74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 75+ age group with +5.5%, while the greatest negative variance is in the 18-24 age group with -4.2%. �$x��, �� . � ,. �r��"� ��r � �� . � �v$s �� '� .3��s� �� ,� �� •� ��Ler ��A. � Z,,rsi`' '� '��°*,a y� '.� � �'»,� �,�r� r �" ,r��h„�i�' > � 4 �''� r>��. . �k��`a,�,P& 1 `?"z�_'y5oy. 3��da� ��. .. � v�� z�� s��v e; � ,�.�yr" �,;' r .� � ��'��i�� S�� '�'�, 1'�� L°�r'��„�Q,�f, a�"'� . ��, � �� x- �s �i �o- 3„ 's�'�q � � 3?' � ��y 3,+r � n ��;�� , 5� � �.a+n,�s,y,�'".r��' +�,;'�' �y `�`. � � � ,�+,�� w a g {�s,5��`�' �,> -� r��y '��'� °��`q� ¢� ��,. �� °'� ?�'� +�, � ,��, ��"�° �� , „��',��V � ��'��'� , ��",� � �� 2� �" ' �, � i �� , �� ,,��_ �J s ��.,„ � ' �u s�r �� ,�,,__.,,,_�a:. ��'ac, •�: B'iAT,T,ARI��KING Page 11 bk__ & � q � � � � A -�� . � � DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� 1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the City of Golden Valley, the following comparisons are possible. Table F—2013 Citv of Golden Vallev Population Estimates (U.S.Census Information and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2013 2018 Percent Percent Pro'ection Pro'ection Chan e Chan e Nat'1 -5 1,097 1,027 1,033 -5.8% +4.7% 5-17 2,958 3,002 3,117 +5.4% +1.8% 18-24 1,034 1,148 1,173 +13.4% -2.4% 25-44 4,857 4,620 4,543 -6.5% +10.4% 45-54 3,387 3,169 2,868 -15.3% -6.2% 55-64 2,896 3,105 3,384 +16.9% +13.7% 65-74 1,801 1,982 2,426 +34.7% +32.9% 75+ 2,341 2,373 2,467 +5.4% +9.5% Chart F—City of Golden Vallev Population Growth _____.��_________.�____�_____.__m 1800 _ v---- �.._.��.. __._____�__ __..__.��..��__�____.. 1600 - � . �._ __. ______.__ 1400 � ,__ _---_ ____ _--.— � 1200 o _�_. �___._._�__.___._ _.. �� 1000 � � .� ._.__._.___�_...._ _....�___�__.___�_ .._. ....._ ___..._._. �n. 800 ___ .____...._...__._, o _�_____.__ __--- - -.- - __. p" 600 _...__ ____ _._. ___ __..._ 400 " _ __._ _ 200 -�' p .� _:� . � ; _ .._.�� ;" -5 5-17 yr 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ ■2010 ■2013 ■2018 Table-F, illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2018. It is projected that all of the age categories will see an increase or static growth in population, except-5 and 25-44. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. ��j� $AT.T.aRn�JcKING Page 12 �"n a� Assoctnrr: s i. •rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� tJ' .f Y� Community Center� Operations Analysis Be1ow is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the City of Golden Valley for 2013 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table G—Citv of Golden Vallev Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source—U.S.Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Median Age % of % of MN Po ulation Po ulation Po ulation Hispanic 604 25.7 3.0% 5.3% Table H—Citv of Golden Vallev Population bv Race and Median A�e (Source—U.S.Census Bureau and ESR� Race Total Median Age % of Population % of MN Po ulation Po ulation White 17,360 49.3 85.0% 84.6% Black 1,439 32.4 7.0% 5.3% American Indian 85 35.6 0.4% 1.2% Asian 754 33.3 3.7% 4.2% Pacific Islander 4 40.0 0.02% 0.05% Other 193 23.0 0.9% 2.2% Multi le 585 17.5 2.9% 2.5% 2013 City of Golden Valley Total Population: 20,419 Residents Chart G— Citv of Golden Vallev Non-White Population bv Race 0.4% 2.9% "_---� 0.02% ■I Black rM American Indian rM Asian r.#Pacific Islander �M Other I�Multiple b� B�T,J,AR��KING Page 13 k_ s� nssor, iA7� � s i. rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Tapestry Segments: In addition to exploring the age group distribution, population growth along with ethnicity and race of the service area, B*K can further study the service area by examining the various tapestry segments. The following table outlines the top 5 tapestry segments within the City of Golden Valley and provides definitions for each of the tapestries. Table I—Citv of Golden Vallev Tapestrv Se�ment Comuarison (ESRI estimates) Ci of Golden Valle U.S. Households Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Percent Percent Retirement Communities (30) 21.9% 21.9% 1.6% 1.6% In Style (13) 19.2% 41.1% 2.3% 3.9% Exurbanites (07) 15.1% 56.2% 2.5% 6.4% Pros erous Em t Nesters (14) 12.9% 69.1% 2.1% 8.5% Connoisseurs (03) 11.5% 80.6% 1.3% 9.8% Retirement Communities (30) — Most of the households in these neighborhoods are single seniors who live alone; '/a is married couples with no children living at home. This older market has a median age of 52.2 years and 1/3 of the residents and 44% of the householders are aged 65 years or older, with 23% of the population and 31% of the householders are aged 75 years or older. In Style (13) — These residents live in the suburbs but prefer the city lifestyle, professional couples predominate. Married-couple families represent 54% of households. Households with children comprise more than 2/3 of all households. The population is slightly older, with a median age of 39.9 years. There is little diversity in these neighborhoods. Exurbanites (07) — These residents prefer an affluent lifestyle in open spaces beyond the urban fringe. Although 40% are empty nesters, another 32% are married couples with children still living at home. To understand this segment, the lifestage is as important as the lifestyle. There is little ethnic diversity; most residents are white. Prosperous Empty Nesters (14) — Approximately 6 in 10 householders are aged 55 years or older, 40% of the households are composed of married couples with no children living at home. Residents are enjoying the move from child-rearing to retirement, with the median age of 48.6 years. These residents are not ethnically diverse; approximately 90% are white. Connoisseurs (03) — Residents of these neighborhoods are somewhat older, with a median age of 46.8 years and approximately 70% of the population is married. Although residents appear ��j_ $'A�.T.AR1)�CKI1�jC, Page 14 -"n- � Assocln �rr: s �. •�� o DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis closer to retirement than child-rearing age, 30% of the households are married couples with children livin at home. Ethnic diversit is ne li ible. , , .,� ._ - - _ �r _ e.<, ;; ,,�.�, z - r-,°. - '� s:u,a.r.r: . • _ �'' u i..�:rsk � '? ' � ii itoo ' �° ' � �. d� w,� n�<t� �� f `+o Rd ; � R �;cl,rnaa x � H�i�titc � a :,. : �� H�rv='oP� `�. �ti<.ttpr.ltrr � _ ' , �.. .. ... .. . . . . .. . ` _u a " Crval.d R.vi�t.i�aclak y $ 4 " ti _ w � p + �, un� ' £t ��csc�� cr �. I�k I.,•N . ��.� . t � R }fi � c < z j. - '� t1 4or��f� (.. � tit t.U�� ; = < C V M1 '�,..... �.. ' - MrJltxlt .atPM7 : � a� ; � f' - Yatld'K: �'j � Med�Cita . _ . � ...o1<�<r Y.t�o�R t r'•.r„i,�n�a �� t z . ��K 6 �.�(C K L airr - Fr�k ` : J . :: � �aOri�Ci� t 4 ` ��; 1/L��.ty ..r � �_ � -��,,.vt�� a Minneapolis � ,� � �,. ""'- ,'; �--a�t,' iot.�, tVayv.�tA"era:r�s . . ;�� ... ��r .,..r°'"" .':""v r. �._ .._. .o �. ,,,.,,,,,.,;-� �r . � �_...._ � _:._. � C`+i�� t � ' . ., .. �<a' �� c. (` �}: .rok'�, �, .� ,:.�;;..�, � . ' , a i �o ;a�'�� lab�: p` e . �,. � ti,k4 �tLpt�i: �>!t�r tMAna n�}i � �. c v�.,.�,.ti,.�.i�:,i . Nancr.��.q�,, �.4v�. � � ,s �,a v .. ...u2-.a � m .0 , ..�� P�.i � ` � 4 e Nnne:oltt� � �;. aw .� s�-. � � 4� !nw � t ? i v �_ ,�, ,,lt ar � 4 :7F th S 7 . . f C.h'� i r a,.�x.I r•• 3 � � � � j sYcv.a a • t .'NII` .2 �i � HOp4iflJ .'°� ..J'S4' .. S .. 5/ 1Ut� �*tmr<.,,; �. t<.... .�,a.: ' r �c "w-. p � °' . z . _ ¢ ` � �� ~\.. . VJ E�C fh S t t.t/ • ..,,< , ls:Lti� - + � vNna '.�: � }� � o ,. , � Y�,ar#s�. 'a � �,a- t'a r. r.<4i;,� A �'.>.. r ¢ �,a . �', u��. #3�" F� y•`,� . 111 4� � � r�� b� $AT,T.aRn�eKING Page 15 k e� �tssociar �; s i. �rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Secondary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table J—2013 Secondarv Service Area Age Distribution (ESRI esti�nates) A es Po ulation % of Total Nat. Po ulation Difference -5 16,913 6.4% 6.5% -0.1% 5-17 40,046 14.8% 17.2% -2.4% 18-24 23,602 8.7% 9.8% +1.1% 25-44 84,913 31.5% 26.5% +5.0% 45-54 35,885 13.3% 14.1% -0.8% 55-64 33,136 12.3% 12.3% +0.0% 65-74 18,530 6.8% 7.5% -0.7% 75+ 17,305 6.4% 6.1% +0.3% Population: 2013 census estimates in the different age groups in the Secondary Service Area. % of Total: Percentage of the Secondary Service Area population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the Secondary Service Area population and the national population. Chart A—2013 Secondarv Service Area Age Group Distribution ______ _ __ . __ _ �.�_..�.. _ . _ _._._...__._ 35 _, _. _. __ . 30 �^ .5 o ._ _..._ _.. � � 25 � a, .___ ___.___. , __ o � a 20 �:r,< 17.2 w ��. o _ __... _._.__.__��_�.�..__._ � 15 t:�� 12.3 `� ''�� __._.,..9...8._. � 10 �.�`"'______-- - - — 7.5�_________ a� 6.5 6.1 a _...: _.�. __. �.__ _e_ ,n__. 5 ,. ; _�_ p ; _ .,...,__ . ; . .. ..w::_-_r_,�..�.... ' w_:.�.__.. ..�.� . � ... _._ . u,v .:._.. ' -5 5-17 yrs 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ ■Secondary Service Area ■National �: RAT.T,AR1l�C�NG Page 16 bk x� nssor, � nrr: s i, �rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� t1' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis The demographic makeup of the Secondary Service Area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences with an equal or larger population in the 18-24, 25-44, 55-64 and 75+ age groups and a smaller population in the -5, 5- 17 45-54 and 65-74 age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 25-44 age group with +5.0%, while the greatest negative variance is in the 5-17 age group with -2.4 �,� .�� , �r� �k��;� j�� ya�'.: a' �� . �7 d"�''��. �� *.� � '��,J�j ��'� �� ~~ � ��vJd�� d � 1� �� . �t��a°� ��A'i�:. �� . �83�taAi� � ti. "�,�. �`,��"� � � �s�� . F�� .,��` � �`�"+��`�� t `'"a '�k`",�., 3'' �s,�. ,��.�� e��`,,�'�'o �� F� ' �St�� . . J�.� ��2�;zP��' *d° _ ,�� .,f tl„"S ; �? .ro � �,�� vv' � �..�r�4�� ;i�� $i � � .3�'��.�', M �F ��,`3' � �"i` �V �� M �,�4�.�. �4a�r'"<`" ��g � u2t� A � �t, 4 �� , �;e �° e:�,#�� : ;� �3a� ,„��a,��, ,� .. a q=" ; � '��{� ��;� � 4 r �� .�� v��.;, ��:�,��, . b� B'�'�LLA,RI'7�KING Page 17 k � nssor � ,� mr: s i. �rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle NfN �� tJ' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the Secondary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table K-2013 Secondarv Service Area Population Estimates (U.S.Census Infonnation and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2013 2018 Percent Percent Pro'ection Pro'ection Chan e Chan e Nat'1 -5 17,474 16,913 17,334 -0.8% +4.7% 5-17 39,767 40,046 41,422 +4.2% +1.8% 18-24 23,418 23,602 23,883 +2.0% -2.4% 25-44 85,671 84,913 85,648 -0.03% +10.4% 45-54 37,539 35,885 33,847 -9.8% -6.2% 55-64 30,945 33,136 35,295 +14.1% +13.7% 65-74 16,118 18,530 23,510 +45.9% +32.9% 75+ 17,050 17,305 18,713 +9.8% +9.5% Chart I- Secondarv Service Area Population Growth _ ___ 90,000 � �._�4......__ _... 80,000 .-_ ___. _._.. . 70,000 � � _- � 60,000 ,-.: _ ___. o - . _._.__. __..__- -_._ ____._.�__- ---_ �� 50,000 �. __�._ _m.__ .�.. -----___...__.___ 0 40,000 ____M._ � ___._ ____.___ a __ n.rv� T,.,___,_ _.__�________._ 30,000 � _. _.__._.._. ____-------_ _ 20,000 , - -- - ._ _. 10,000 o -; _,.__. _ . _.�_.��,w_ ;.� . ,_� _�,._ _.... , .� �_v:: _. r.W:'. , -5 5-17 yr 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ ■2010 ■2013 ■2018 Table-K illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2018. It is projected that all of the age categories will see a decrease or static growth in population, except 18-24 and 45-54. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. � $AT,T,AR1��I��ING Page 18 �k � nssocinT �: s i. mn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� ' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the Secondary Service Area for 2013 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table L —Secondarv Service Area Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source—U.S.Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Median Age % of % of MN Po ulation Po ulation Po ulation Hispanic 14,816 25.5 5.5% 5.3% Table M— Secondarv Service Area Population bv Race and Median Age (Source—U.S.Census Bureau and ESRI) Race Total Median Age % of Population % of MN Po ulation Po ulation White 197,467 41.5 73.0% 84.6% Black 38,697 27.5 14.3% 5.3% American Indian 1,735 31.1 0.6% 1.2% Asian 16,373 28.5 6.1% 4.2% Pacific Islander 132 30.4 0.05% 0.05% Other 6,116 25.9 2.3% 2.2% Multi le 9,807 17.2 3.6% 2.5% 2013 Secondary Service Area Total Population: 270,328 Residents Chart J—Secondary Service Area Non-White Population bv Race 1.2% 2.5% 0.05% ■I Black �I American Indian �I Asian ��Pacific Islander rl Other E�1 Multiple ��j_ Br T,T,AR1��ING Page 19 �"�_ � nssocin •rr: s i. •rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� tJ' .f Y� Communiry Center Operations Analysis Tapestry Segments: In addition to exploring the age group distribution, population growth along with ethnicity and race of the service area, B*K can further study the service area by examining the various tapestry segments. The following table outlines the top 5 tapestry segments within the Secondary Service Area and provides definitions for each of the tapestries. Table N—Secondarv Service Area Tapestrv Segment Comparison (ESRI estimates) Secondar Service Area U.S. Households Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Percent Percent Metro Renters (27) 16.7% 16.7% 1.6% 1.6% Metro olitans (22) 7.5% 24.2% 1.4% 3.0% Coz & Comfortable (18) 7.3% 31.5% 2.2% 5.2% In St le (13) 6.2% 37.7% 2.3% 7.5% Youn & Restless (39) 5.0% 42.7% 1.5% 9.0% Metro Renters (27) — Young, educated singles, residents of these neighborhoods are just beginning their professional careers in some of the largest cities in the U.S. Residents wi11 sometimes share housing with a roommate to help defray the cost of their high rent, as such households are either single person or shared. This younger population is also more diverse than the U.S.population. Metropolitans (22) — Residents of these communities prefer to live in older city neighborhoods. Approximately lh of these households are singles who live alone or with others; 40% are married-couple families. One in four of the residents is aged 20-34 years and diversity is low, most residents are white. Cozy & Comfortable (18) — These residents are middle-aged married couples who are comfortably settled in their single-family homes in older neighborhoods. The median age of 42 years is 5 years older that the U.S median age. Most residents are married without children or married couples with school-aged or adult children. Most of this residents are white. In Style (13) — These residents live in the suburbs but prefer the city lifestyle, professional couples predominate. Married-couple families represent 54% of households. Households with children comprise more than 2/3 of all households. The population is slightly older, with a median age of 39.9 years. There is little diversity in these neighborhoods. Young & Restless (39) — Change is the constant for these households. This young, on-the-go population has a median age of 28.6 years, approximately 1/3 of them are younger than 35, 58% of these households are either single person or shared. Neighborhoods are diverse. b� BiAT,T,aRn�JcKiNG Page 20 k a� � ssocin �rr: s i, �rn DEMOGRAPHIC REVIEW Ci o Golden Valle MN �� tJ' .f Y� Community Center Operations Analysis Demographic Summary The following summarizes the demographic characteristics of the service areas. � The City of Golden Valley can support a community center with more passive recreation and social elements based upon their population. Given the draw of a municipal golf course/proposed location the population of the secondary service area would more than support proposed facilities. • The population of the City of Golden Valley and the Secondary Service Area are very different. The City of Golden Valley is significantly older with a population more of individuals late in their career moving towards retirements, while the Secondary Service Area is more reflective of young professionals and young families starting their careers. • The cost of living in both the City of Golden and the Secondary Service Area is higher than the State and National numbers. However, it is also important to point out that both services area has a median household income that would support said cost of living. • While the population make-up of both the City of Golden and the Secondary Service Area are different a similarity is the general lack of ethnicity and diversity in both service areas. • The Tapestry segments for both service areas are much like the population make-up, extremely different. ��w � � �� ,. ,�� _ ��_�� "�� °. � �� . � � �� ,�, � �� ,� z,. E 4� ��.2 �: � �� b." �� r�� ,� � �� '�' � y�%"��$z ��' Page 21 b RAT,T,aRn�CKING k � � � 5 �� r � A -r � s �. � � OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Operations The operations analysis represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study reflect a philosophy designed to meet a reasonable cost recovery rate and future operations cost and are subject to review, change, and approval by the project committee. There is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined in the operations analysis will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are subject to change during the actual budgetary process. Expenditures Expenditures have been formulated on the costs that were designated by Ballard*King and Associates to be included in the operating budget for the facility. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility, and the hours of operation. All expenses were calculated to the high side and the actual cost may be less based on the final design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by the City. Golden Valley Community Recreation Center — A community center with a banquet room and catering kitchen, multi-purpose class rooms (3), senior area, golf course support spaces, pro shop, kids interactive play area, small meeting rooms/birthday party rooms (2), white box theatre, programmable outdoor deck/terrace, grill/bistro, tenet offices, Parks and Recreation administration area, small conference room and lobby. Approximately 80,751 square feet. Programmable outdoor deck and terrace is not included in the square foot estimate. Category Facilit,��Bud�et Personnel Full-timel $ 293,835 Part-time� 147 782 Total $ 441,617 � Line item detail and listing of full-time positions can be found on page 4. 2 Line item detail and listing of part-time positions can be found on page 5. 1 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Operation Cost Model cont. Cate�orv Facilitv Budget Utilities3 $170,500 (gas & elect) Water/sewer $ 8,500 Employee Services $ 3,500 Communications $ 1,250 Contract services4 $ 68,000 Training/Conference $ 2,500 Rental equipment $ 6,000 Advertising/promotions $ 30,000 Trash $ 3,500 Insurances $ 15,000 Others $ 2,500 Total $311,250 3 Rate factored at$3.50/SF less circulation space. 4 Contract services includes HVAC,IT services,elevator,fire alarm system,music,office equipment,copy machine services and custodial services. 5 Insurance for property and general liability estimate. 2 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Operation Cost Model cont. Cate�v Facilitv Budget Office Supplies $ 6,500 Janitorial Supplies $ 12,000 Rec. Program Supplies $ 8,500 Uniforms $ 4,000 Printing $ 7,500 Maint/Repair Materials $ 5,000 Dues/Licenses/Subscriptions $ 2,500 Misc. $ 1,500 Total $ 47,500 Capital Replacement Reserveb $ 25,000 Grand Total $ 825,376 � Capital needs will be minimal during the first year of operation since most equipment and operating systems will be under warranty. It is strongly recommended that a sinking fund be established with a goal to build adequate reserves that meet future capital needs. American Public Works recommends planning far 2%-4% of construction cost for capital and maintenance needs. Since maintenance costs have been factored into this pro-forma, a target for building the sinking fund to a level of$250,000 is desirable. 3 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Positions Facility Bud�et Full-Time Recreation Director� $ 0 Building Supervisor $ 65,000 Event Coordinator $ 55,000 Recreation Supervisor(3)g $ 0 Administrative Services (.5)9 $ 20,000 Evening Maintenance Worker $ 50,000 Salaries $190,000 Benefits (54.65% of salaries)10 $103,835 Total Full-Time Personnel $293,835 Note: Pay rates were determined based on the market conditions in Golden Valley. The positions listed are necessary to ensure adequate staffing and provide for a full-time staff inember presence during all open hours of the facility. The wage scales for both the full-time and part-time staff positions reflect estimated wages for 2016. �Currently a funded position in the P&R budget g Currently funded positions in the P&R budget 9 Currently funded positions 1.5 FTE in the P&R budget 10 Percent provided by the City's Finance Department 4 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Positions Hours/Wk Facilitv Budget Part-Time�� Front Desk 89 hrs/wk $ 45,390 ($10.00/hr) Play Attendant (34wks) 44 hrs/wk $ 14,212 ($9.50/hr) Play Attendant (17wks) 64 hrs/wk $ 10,336 ($9.50/hr) Birthday Party Host 30 hrs/wk $ 14,535 ($9.50/hr) Building Attendant 48 hrs/wk $ 29,376 ($12.00/hr) Program Instructors 12 General $ 17,280 Salaries $ 131,129 Benefits (12.7% for FICA) $ 16,653 Total Part-Time Salaries $ 147,782 '� A detailed schedule by position begins on page 12. �2 Some programs and classes will be on a contractual basis with the center,where the facility will take a percentage of the revenue collected for the program. These programs have not been calculated in this budget at this time. 5 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center OpeYations Analysis Revenues The following revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for recreation services in the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and make-up of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priority of use. All revenues were calculated conservatively as a result. 6 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Revenue Projection Model: Cate�orv Facilitv Bud�et Fees13 Daily Admissions $ 117,000 Punch Passes $ 42,500 Rentals $ 224,600 Total $ 3 84,100 Programs�a General $ 53,040 Total $ 53,040 Other Special events $ 5,000 Birthday Parties $ 52,500's Total $ 57,500 Grand Total $494,640 '�Detailed breakdown on fees can be found on page 17. 14 Detailed breakdown on program fees can be found beginning on page 18. �s Based on 300 parties at$175 per party. 7 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Category Facility Budget Expenditures $825,367 Revenue $494,640 Difference ($330,727) Recovery percentage 60% This operational pro-forma was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. However, there is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined above will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are not consistent in their influence on the budgetary process. Future years: Expenditures — Revenue Comparison: Operation expenditures are expected to increase by approximately 3% a year through the first 3 to 5 years of operation. Revenue growth is expected to increase by 4% to 8% a year through the first three years and then level off with only a slight growth (3% or less) the next two years. Expenses for the first year of operation should be slightly lower than projected with the facility being under warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first three years is attributed to increased market penetration and in the remaining years to continued population growth. In most recreation facilities the first three years show tremendous growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities, but at the end of this time period revenue growth begins to flatten out. It is not uncommon to see the amount of tax support to balance the community center budget increase as the facility ages. Five-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison Years Expense Revenue Difference Recovery % 2016 $825,367 $494,640 ($330,727) 60% 2017 $850,128 $519,372 ($330,756) 61% 2018 $875,631 $542,743 ($332,888) 62% 2019 $901,900 $564,453 ($337,447) 63% 2020 $928,957 $584,209 ($344,748) 63% 8 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Monday—Thursday 8am to l Opm. Friday- Saturday 8am to 1 am (will close early when there are no banquet/theatre rentals Sunday Noon to 6:OOpm Hours per week: 96. Hours usually vary some with the season (longer hours in the winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs,use patterns and special events. Fees and Attendance Projected Fee Schedule: Revenue projections will be calculated from this fee model. The monthly rate listed is the cost of a play pass is broken down into twelve equal payments and does not include any handling fees. It should be noted that monthly bank draft convenience for customers would encourage more annual pass sales. However, there are bank fees and a substantial amount of staff time spent managing the bank draft membership base and consideration should be given to pass on some form of a handling fee for bank draft customers. Category Dailv Punch Pass Youth $ 5.00 $50.0016 The fee schedule above was developed as the criteria for estimating revenues. Actual fees are subject to review and approval by Golden Valley. 16 Punch pass packages 12 admissions for the price of 10 9 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Cente� Operations Analysis that were identified earlier in this report. The admission numbers are affected by the rates being charged, the facilities available for use, and the competition within the service area. The figures are also based on the performance of other similar facilities in other areas of the country. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on 360 days of operation. Yearl�paid admissions Facilit�� Daily 23,400 (65 daily admission) Punch Passes 10,200 (850 sold annually) Total Yearly 33,600 Total Daily 93 10 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Section VI— Part-Time Worksheets Part-Time Staff Hours Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Front Desk Attendant Mon-Thur 9am— l Opm 13 1 4 52 Fri-Sat 9am-1 am 16 1 2 31 Sundav Noon—6pm 6 1 1 6 Total 89 hours Play Attendant(34 wks) Mon-Fri 3pm-7pm 4 1 5 20 Sat/Sun. Noon-6pm 6 2 2 24 Tota1 44 hours Play Attendant(17 wks) Mon-Fri 1 Opm-7pm 8 1 5 40 Sat/Sun. Noon-6pm 6 2 2 2q. Total 64 hours 11 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valley, MN �� Community Center Operations Analysis Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Birthday Party Host Fndav 6pm-9pm 3 2 1 6 Sat— Sun Noon—6pm 6 2 2 24 Total 30 hours Building Attendant Mon-Thur 4pm-1 Opm 6 1 2 12 Fri-Sat 4pm-1 am 9 2 2 36 Total 48 hours Program Staff Cost General Type Hrs/wk Weeks Rate Cost Youth in Motion 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Dance/Tumbling 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Martial Arts 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Arts/Crafts 8 48 $15.00/hr $ 5,760 Senior Classes 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2880 Total $17,280 12 OPERATION PLAN City of Golden Valle , MN �� y Community Center Operations Analysis Section III — Program Fees and Revenue Worksheet Daily Admissions Cate�orv Number Fee Dailv Revenue Youth 65 $ 5.00 $325.00 Total Daily 65 $325.00 x 360 days = $117,000 (per day average) Passes Cate�ory Number Fee Daily Revenue Youth 850 $50.00 $ 42,500 Total Annuals 850 $ 42,500 Rentals Cate�ory Number Fee Session Revenue Banquet events 6 $ 1,000/event monthly $ 72,000 Catering Commission $ 59,400i� Meeting Room 4 $ 40/mtg. 50 wks $ 8,000 Social Receptions 3 $ 500/event monthly $ 18,000 Pre-School Groups 4 $ 50/visit 48 wks $ 9,600 Misc. Rentals 2 $ 250/hr 48 wks $ 24,000 Theatre Rentals 1 $1,500/event monthly $ 18,000 Terrace Rentals 4 $ 150/hr 26 wks $ 15,600 Total $224,600 General Category Number Fee Session Revenue Dance/Tumbling 30 $ 45.00 8 $10,800 Arts/Crafts 40 $ 45.00 8 $14,400 Martial Arts 24 $ 45.00 8 $ 8,640 Youth in Motion 30 $ 45.00 8 $10,800 Senior Classes 30 $ 35.00 8 $ 8,400 Total $53,040 '�Based on collecting a 15%hospitality fee and catering commission using an average of 275 meals per event at $20/plate 13 c"-t��j t�� '�� :�� '`�'� �. �� '�, �, ``m�?� �` ��. �� ,� � ��.. � y� .. ;'; �� .. . Administrative Services Department 763-593-$013 J 763-593-3969(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 7. Budget Amendments Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff is reviewing the 2014 Estimated Budget figures that were presented with the 2015-2016 General Fund Budget. Minor amendments to the 2014 budget will be presented at this meeting for discussion. Final approval will be made at the December 16 Council Meeting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if the Golden Hills TIF district is concluding at the end of this year. Virnig said the TIF district will be decertified this year and that there is a bond payment in February, Waldhauser referred to the Three Rivers trail system plans and asked how close the items listed in the CIP gets the City to completion of the trail system. Virnig explained that the funding listed in the CIP is for existing trails and that the City would need to review further plans for any new trails. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . Consideration of Resolution N . 14-01 Finding that Modification No. 2 of the Redevelopment Plan for the H' hway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area nd the Tax Increment Financi g Plan for Tax Increment Financ'ng (Renewal a Renovation) District No. 1 onform to the General Plan the Dev opment and Redevelop nt of the City, as Amende Arnended 2008 Comp hensive Plan Update) Zimmerman remi d the Commission hat in 2012 a TIF p was approved for the Highway 55 Redeve ment area. At th t time it was a'nt' pated that the Tiburon apartment project wou move forward, ut it has not. ere is now a new project proposed for that site so e TIF plan n eds to be dified to revise the budget and amend the timeline forwar make it rrent wi he proposed new Golden Villas proposal. Kluchka asked if anything else in't T ' an. Zimmerman said the area of the district has not changed, but the budget nee ave. Kluchka asked if the time period of the TIF district has changed. Zimmerman s ' , it is still 15 years. Waldhauser asked if there wou be a the odification required if the Golden Villas proposal doesn't move forwa . She a ked if budget is entirely dependent on what a developer asks far. Zirnme an said n t entirel , here may be some negotiation involved: Blum asked if it is c ect say that the ity is taking on ebt that's underwritten by future tax revenues bas on projected valu and using that re nue to improve the land and make it a financ' ly doable project an if part of the incenti to the City is that right now it is not a ver ell used property. Zim erman said yes, ultim ly the TIF assistance allows a pr ' ct to take place, that oth ise couldn't. Blum aske if the money comes from the ate and County. Virnig said he TIF money comes from e jurisdiction it actuall nvolves. In this case, Hennepi County, School Distriet 270 d City taxes. Ba r asked why the Tiburon apartme project failed. Zimmerman said i involved fi ncing. He explained that the Tiburo developer was not asking for TIF money, the City Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 A regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ouncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valle Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, ember 24, 2014. Chair Kluchka ca d the meeting to order at 7 . Those sent were Planning Commis ioners Baker, Blu era, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbau , nd Waldhauser. Also pr ent was Plann� J Manager Jasbn Zimmerman, Associate Pla r/Grant Writer Emily oellner, a dministrative Assis�ant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minut November 10, 2014, Re anning CommissiQn Meeting Waldhauser referred to sixth para raph page four and asked that the sentence be corrected to say ther re a group of roperty o ''' ers who don't want see the property developed. Waldhause ferred to the third par raph on page nine a uggested the word "prohibit" e changed to "discourag�: M D by Baker, seconded by Cer and motion carried unanimously to ove the vember 10, 2014, minutes with th `bove noted changes. 2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2015-2019 — Sue Virnig, City Finance Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director, explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 5-year financing planning instrument used to identify needed capital projects and to delineate the financing and timing of associated projects. Because af its relationship with the City's Comprehensive Plan the CIP is reviewed by the Planning Commission annually. Waldhauser referred to the Winnetka Avenue/Highway 55 intersection and Douglas Drive improvements and asked if the CIP anticipates and supports higher density uses or if the proposed projects would just alleviate the current traffic issues. Virnig explained that the individual projects in the CIP will be reviewed again by the City Council. Baker asked if there is anything in the CIP that raises questions regarding its compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. Virnig noted that the community center is not listed in the CIP yet. Kluchka questioned how the community center would be accounted for. Virnig said it would be in the building fund or it would be on its own funding. �"1�-��' C�� `eT; �Z,`S�.Yk z . . , e .", .� ��"�,,'n� ...� � ��' ,��„. � �..�� . . _ .. ~ Administrative Services Department 763-593-8013!763-593-3969 (fax) si��,. ,.. ilu�P.s��: ;" ., t,�9._ �. Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting December 9, 2014 Agenda Item 6. 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff will be present at the December 9 Council/Manager meeting to answer questions on the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Planning Commission reviewed the document at their November24 meeting and the minutes are attached. The first review of the document was at the November 12 Council/Manager meeting. This document will be presented at the December 16 Council Meeting for final approvaL Attachments • Planning Commission minutes dated November 24 , 2014 (2 pages) • Bring your 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program (previously delivered)