Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09-19-17 CC Agenda Packet (entire)
AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber September 19, 2017 6:30 pm 1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES A.Pledge of Allegiance B.Roll Call 2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A.Approval of Minutes: 1. Council/Manager - August 8, 2017 3-4 2. Special Council/Manager - August 15, 2017 5 3. City Council Meeting - September 5, 2017 6-8 B.Approval of City Check Register 9 C.Licenses: 1. Approve Requests for Beer/Wine at Brookview Park 10-11 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Gianna Homes 12-14 3. Approve General License - Refuse/Recycling Vehicle 15 D.Minutes: 1. Planning Commission - August 28, 2017 16-26 E.Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis Regarding 2018 National Football League Super Bowl 27-46 F.Establish Parking Restrictions on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North 17-51 47-49 G.Set Date for Proposed Property Tax Levy Payable 2018 and 2018-2019 Budget for December 5, 2017 50 H.Board and Commission Appointments 51 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Public Hearing - Amendment to Official Zoning Map and General Land Use Plan Map - 5509 Lindsay Street 52 B.Public Hearing - Amendment to Official Zoning Map and General Land Use Plan Map - 1611 Lilac Drive North 53 C.Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 158 - 6960 Madison Avenue West - Global Adult Day Services, Inc., Applicant 54-74 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Adopt Mixed Income Housing Policy 17-52 75-119 B.Adopt Proposed 2018 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2018 17-53 120-127 6. NEW BUSINESS - continued C.Review of Council Calendar D.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT UNOFFICAL MINUTES COUNCIL/MANAGER MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA August 8, 2017 The meeting began at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members: Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, Physical Development Director Nevinski, Human Resources Director Santelices, Police Chief Sturgis, Finance Director Virnig, Parks & Recreation Director Birno, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner and City Attorney Cisneros 1. Immigration Rules Discussion City Manager Cruikshank provided background information on the immigration discussion and answered questions from Council. Human Resources Director Santelices reviewed the recommendations that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) would like the Council to consider and answered questions as to how the Commission first became involved with the issue. Police Chief Sturgis addressed the Council regarding the recommendations and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Cisneros answered questions from Council. Ms. Gloria Peck and Ms. Kyle Pettersen-Scott of the HRC were present. Ms. Pettersen-Scott addressed the Council regarding the recommendations and answered questions for the Council. Ms. Kathy Vaaler, a Golden Valley resident and a representative of the People Power organization, provided a presentation on how the nine model policies were founded. City Manager Cruikshank stated that staff is recommending not to proceed with the Human Rights Commission recommendations. The Council discussed the immigration recommendations and decided to continue the conversation at a future Council/Manager meeting after receiving additional information. Council thanked the staff, commissioners and residents who attended the meeting. 2. Housing Policies Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner presented the staff report which included the proposed housing policies and strategies. She presented city staff’s recommendation for the housing policy which included: the items for immediate action, items to continue in partnership with other suburban cities, and the strategies that staff is recommending no action be taken at this time. She answered questions from Council regarding the proposed strategies. City Attorney Cisneros and City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council regarding the proposed housing strategies. The Council discussed the proposed housing policies and strategies recommendation, directed staff to move forward with the recommendation, and thanked staff for providing the information. Unofficial Council/Manager Minutes -2- August 8, 2017 3. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - Parks and Nature Areas Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner introduced the item. Parks & Recreation Director Birno provided feedback received from the Comp Plan Conversation open house and discussed the reactions to the Parks & Natural Resources Chapter which included the proposed goals and objectives. Mr. Birno said the Open Space and Recreation Commission have had several sessions regarding the chapter. He discussed some of the highlights and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council regarding the Chapter. Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner presented additional information from the Planning Commission meeting and answered questions from Council. The Council discussed the proposed Parks & Natural Resources Chapter goals and objectives which included: preserving the City’s parks, growing the Brookview Golf and Recreation area, and working with surrounding cities in exchanging park and recreation amenities. They thanked staff for the presentation. 4.2018-2019 Biennial Budget Funds, 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan & Wrap Up Finance Director Virnig presented a PowerPoint presentation for the 2018-2019 Other Funds, 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan, and overall budget wrap up. She reviewed the schedule for adoption of the 2018-2019 budget. She presented the Capital Improvement Plan sections which included: Vehicles and Equipment, Parks, Brookview Golf Course, Buildings, Storm Water Utility, Water and Sanitary Sewer, and Streets and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank provided additional information on the Capital Improvement Plan and answered questions from Council. Physical Development Director Nevinski answered questions from Council regarding some of the proposed expenditures for the Capital Improvement sections. The Council discussed the Capital Improvement Plan, the proposed expenditures and revenues, the City’s debt, and future staffing needs. Council thanked staff for the presentation. 5. Future Draft Agendas No changes were submitted for the future draft agendas. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk UNOFFICAL MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL/MANAGER MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA August 15, 2017 The meeting began at 7:35 pm in the Council Conference Room. Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members: Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank and Parks & Recreation Director Birno. 1. Board/Commission Appointment Process City Manager Cruikshank provided background information on the current board and commission appointment process. The Council discussed the appointment process, possible new procedure for the appointments, having a set written policy for the board/commission appointments and how the city recruits residents for the appointments. The Council consensus was to have staff review what other City’s Board/Commission appointment processes are and to bring the item back to a future Council/Manager meeting. 2. New Brookview Super Bowl Opportunity Discussion Parks & Recreation Director Birno presented the staff report and said a local marketing group would like to rent the new Brookview and surrounding property for up to nine days during the 2018 Super Bowl. He reviewed the possible revenues that this would generate and the impact it may on regular facility patrons. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council regarding the Brookview opportunity. The Council discussed the opportunity and the consensus was to move forward with contracting with the marketing group to rent the facility during the week of the Super Bowl and for Parks and Recreation Director Birno to negotiate with the group and to bring the contract back to Council for their approval. 3. Future Council/Manager Meetings The Council discussed which meeting to bring back the immigration discussion to and when to add a discussion on 2018-2019 goals. City Manager Cruikshank proposed adding the immigration discussion to the September 12 Council/Manager meeting and the 2018-2019 goals discussion to the October 10 Council/Manager meeting. The Council consensus was to move forward with the proposed dates. The meeting adjourned at 8:44 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA September 5, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Andy Snope and Steve Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank and City Clerk Luedke. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the agenda of September 5, 2017, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the consent agenda of September 5, 2017, as revised: removal of item 3G- Resignation from the Human Services Fund and the motion carried. 3A1.Approve Minutes of the City Council Executive Session of August 15, 2017. 3A2.Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of August 15, 2017. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3C.Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Planning Commission - June 26 and July 10, 2017 2. Special Planning Commission - July 10, 2017 3. Board of Zoning and Appeals - April 25, 2017 4. Human Rights Commission - July 25, 2017 5. Human Service Fund - July 10, 2017 6. Environmental Commission - July 24, 2017 7. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - July 20, 2017 3D1.Authorize purchase of outdoor planters from the Ore Company for the new Brookview for an amount of $37,338.61. 3D2.Authorize purchase of Brookview furniture from General Office Products on state contracts for an amount of $313,947.47. 3D3.Approve purchase of Fair Snocrete 639D Snow Blower from Trueman Welters in the amount of $69,925. 3D4.Approve purchase of Caterpillar CC24B Vibratory Asphalt Combo Roller from Ziegler Caterpillar in the amount of $41,847. 3D5.Approve re-bid package #32 for retaining walls and stone by authorizing the City Manager to sign contract, contingent on City Attorney review, for the Brookview Construction project. 3E.Receive and file the July 2017 Financial Reports. 3F.Call for a public hearing for certification of special assessments for October 3, 2017, at 6:30 pm. 3G.Accept resignation from Scott Charlesworth-Seiler from the Human Services Fund. 3H.Adopt Resolution 17-49, for Approval of Plat - Tralee at Cutacross Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- September 5, 2017 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3G. Accept resignation from the Human Services Fund Council thanked Mr. Scott Charlesworth-Seiler for his service on the Human Services Fund. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to accept the resignation from Mr. Scott Charlesworth-Seiler from the Human Services Fund and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 17-50, for a Public Hearing for the Purpose of Providing Host Approval for the Issuance of Revenue Obligations by the City of Minnetonka upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Review of Council Calendar For National Teddy Bear Drive, teddy bears can be dropped off from September 5 to 9, 2017, during the hours of 8 am to 4:30 pm at either the Golden Valley City Hall or Police Department. Some Council Members may attend the Pay and Play Brookview Outing on September 6, 2017, starting at 4 pm at Brookview. Some Council Members may attend the Sandburg Middle School Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at 5:30 pm at Sandburg Middle School located at 2400 Sandburg Lane. Some Council Members may attend the Schaper Park Grand Opening event from 11:30 am to 1 pm at Schaper Park located at 631 Ottawa Avenue North. Some Council Members may attend the Market in the Valley on September 10 and 17, 2017, from 9 am to 1 pm in the City Hall Campus Parking Lot. A City Council Executive Session will be held on September 14, 2017, at 5:30 pm in the Manager’s Conference room. The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on September 14, 2017, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground Promotion Event on September 13, 2017, at 12 pm at Schaper Park located at 631 Ottawa Avenue North. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- September 5, 2017 6A. Review of Council Calendar A Coffee with a Cop event will be held on September 14, 2017, from 8:30 to 10 am at Byerly’s located at 5725 Duluth Street. Some Council Members may attend the Rakhma Homes Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on September 14, 2017, from 4:30 to 6:30 pm at Rakhma Homes located at 5403 Minnaqua Drive. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Arts & Music Festival on September 16, 2017, from 9:30 am to 9:30 pm at the City Hall Campus. Some Council Members may attend the Metro Cities Forum on September 15, 2017, from 8 am to 12 pm at the Roseville Skating Center located at 2661 Civic Center Drive. Some Council Members may attend the St. Croix Playground and Children’s Little Library Grand Opening on September 18, 2017, at 2 pm at St. Croix Park located at 5850 St. Croix Avenue North. The next City Council meeting will be held on September 19, 2017, at 6:30 pm. 6B. Mayor and Council Communication No action and/or discussion took place. 7.ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Attachments •Document sent via email Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. “No person shall possess, display, consume or use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council.” As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $30 to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that option. Attachments •Beer and/or wine request list (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME SHELTER CC DATE APPROVED Dennison, Jennifer 09-17 11am-4pm Small 09-17-17 Knabens, Paul 09-22 11am-4pm Large 09-17-17 Hughes, Chris 09-23 11am-4pm Small 09-17-17 Scott, Jessica 09-24 11am-4pm Small 09-17-17 Sather, Ryan 10-07 11am-4pm Large 09-17-17 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Gianna Homes Sursum Corda Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments •Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Gianna Homes Sursum Corda. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 4/17 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 1 of 2 An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable) organization that: Applications are processed in the order received. If the application conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event,the awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150. year. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite your county by calling 651-539-1900. service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. 0MANIZA7,10 INFORMATION Organization Previous Gambling Name: Gianna Homes Sursum Corda Permit Number: X• 9�849 -16- 001 Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer ID Number, if any: 5390188 Number(FEIN), if any: 41-2005063 Mailing Address: 14451 Highway 7 Suite 223 City: Minnetonka State: MN Zip: 55345 County: Hennepin Name of Chief Executive Officer(CEO): Anne Marie Hansen Daytime Phone: 952-443-6100 Email: anne@giannahomes.org N!I; �Af�'1"STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): QFraternal Q Religious Q Veterans Q Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of one of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) ❑ A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803,or toll free 1-877-551-6767 IRS income tax exemption (501(c)) letter in your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500. IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c)organization with a group ruling,and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. 4A4_04NL .PROMISES INFORiNATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): Metropolitan Club Physical Address (do not use P.O. box): 5418 Wayzata Blvd Check one: 0 city: Golden Valley zip: 55416 County: Hennepin D Township: Zip: County: Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): October 27, 2017 Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: =Bingo =Paddlewheels =Pull-Tabs =Tipboards F1711kaffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the calendar year,including this raffle: $ 000 .0- ) Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle boards, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor,go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under List of Licensees,or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 417 Page Z of 2 11 "A1, '` it G 7►YERPlN1ENT ACKNOW, # �+1iai + tl ©>alnRling Cc �ttrol Board) CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. he application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting he application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after (60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. The application is denied. (D ❑fhe application is denied. io Print City Name: v oOeP7 (iibf ky Print County Name: Signatur f City Personnel: Signature of County Personnel: Title:_ ���y �[`�� Date: ` _�`~ 7 Title: Date: TOWNSHIP(if required by the county) On behalf of the township,I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township TIhe city or county must sign before limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or submitting application to the deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Gambling Control Board. Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: Title: Date: ,C"WtjTIVE QFFIC ERIS SIGNAT,U," The Information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will,be completed and returned to the oard ithin 30 d ys of the event date. �} Chief Exidutive Officer's Signature: Date: at must be CEO's signature; designee may not sign) Print Name: Anne Marie Hansen RIE 11, EbtENTS, MA S Ai�� Completes a separate application for: Mail application with: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days,or a copy of your proof of nonprofit status,and • all gambling conducted on one day. application fee(non-refundable). If the application is Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, conducted on the same day. the application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150. Financial'report to be completed within 30 days after the Make check payable to State of Minnesota. gambling,activity is done: To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board A financial,report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Roseville, MN 55113 Board. Questions? Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 3-1/2 years(Minn. Statutes, section 349.166, subd. 2(f)). 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety;Attorney General; on this form(and any attachments)will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration,Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board (Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue;Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor,national and international gambling be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies;anyone pursuant to court Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order;other individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however, if public. If the Board does not issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private,with the to the information; individuals and agencies for information,the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given;and anyone with your written consent. If your organization supplies the information members,Board staff whose work requires requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e. large print,braille)upon request. An equal opportunity employer Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. Approve General Business License Prepared By Shannon Dietrich, Administrative Assistant Summary As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are the license number, applicant name and address, license type and fee of those who have submitted an application for approval. #9438 Sanimax USA Inc.9 Refuse Vehicles $ 450.00 505 Hardman Ave Recommended Action Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 28, 2017. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Black, Blum, Johnson, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Blenker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes August 7, 2017, Special Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page two and asked for clarification of the last sentence. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the August 7, 2017, Special meeting minutes as submitted. Blum abstained. August 7, 2017, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the discussion about Tennant Company and asked for clarification of the third paragraph. Segelbaum asked that Commissioner Kluchka’s resignation from the Planning Commission be added to the minutes. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the August 7, 2017, Regular meeting minutes with the above noted change. Blum abstained. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – 6960 Madison Avenue West – Adult Day Care Center in the Industrial Zoning District – CU-158 Applicant: Global Adult Day Services, Inc. Address: 6960 Madison Ave. W. Purpose: To operate an Adult Day Care Center in the existing building. Goellner explained the applicant’s proposal to operate an adult day care center in unit #10 of the office/condominium building located at 6960 Madison Avenue West. She stated that the property is zoned and guided for industrial uses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 2 Goellner explained that there will be 4 to 6 employees on site and up to 30 clients or as many as allowed by the State Building Code and the MN Department of Human Services. She stated that the hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 8 am to 5 pm. Goellner referred to the transportation on the site and stated that there is good access into the site because there are two driveways, the site is accessible by transit and walking, and that the applicant will have two full-size vans that they will use to transport some of their clients. She added that there are 98 existing parking spaces and that the applicant is required to have 6 spaces for this proposed use. Goellner stated that all other zoning requirements have been met and that the engineering, building, and fire-related issues will be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. She stated that a neighborhood meeting was not required in this case because there are no residential properties nearby. Goellner stated that based on the evaluation of the factors listed in the Zoning Code staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions included: the applicant may serve up to 30 clients or whatever is allowed by the Building Code, the Fire Code, and the Department of Human Services, and that the hours of operation be limited to 6 am to 7 pm Monday through Friday. Segelbaum noted that this building was built in 1979 and questioned if the accessibility and access issues will have to be addressed, or if they would be grandfathered in. Goellner stated that the number of accessible parking spaces is addressed in the Building Code and that a change in use will require the building to be “brought up to code.” Segelbaum asked how staff came up the amount of clients allowed. Goellner stated that the applicant requested 30 clients, but the final number of clients will be determined during the final building design based on Building and Fire Codes. Baker asked if the final number will be determined before this proposal goes before the City Council. Goellner said no because the applicant wants to have their land use approvals before they do they final design plans. Waldhauser referred to the transportation issues and noted that there is limited bus service on Medicine Lake Road and on Douglas Drive and questioned what other types of transportation would be used. Goellner said families would drop off and pick up clients and that clients will use bus service and Metro Mobility. Waldhauser asked if the definition of Adult Day Care Center is a State definition or a City definition. Goellner said the definition was created by City staff. Waldhauser questioned why the City would want to limit Adult Day Care centers to functionally impaired adults as mentioned in the definition. She added that some clients might just need a social facility. Goellner said she would do additional research on the definition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 3 Black noted that the staff report stated that there will be four employees but the narrative refers to more positions. Goellner stated that they are proposing to have 4 to 6 employees. Blum asked if there is a target market in terms of income. Goellner said she believes the applicant is targeting people who are at 50% below the median income level. Johnson referred to the hours of operation and said it would be his preference to have applicants work with staff regarding the hours of operation so that what the applicant is requesting and what is in the Conditional Use Permit match. Goellner stated that staff is suggesting limiting the hours from 6 am to 7 pm but that does not mean they have to be open those hours. Baker asked what standards or inspections are involved in licensing. Goellner said they are related to safety and health issues. She added that when the applicant applies for a building permit staff will require a copy of their license. Baker asked if the neighboring properties were contacted. Goellner said yes, and added that this property has a condo association who will decide if they want to allow this type of use. Johnson asked if the City Attorney has reviewed this proposal in regard to liability since there will be a registered nurse and doctor visiting the site. Goellner stated that the City would not be liable for the medical services provided. Baker referred to the staff report which states that the other uses in the building are primarily daytime uses, with few employees, so staff does not anticipate any issues or concerns with co-locating an adult dare care business in the building. He asked if that was written in error because the adult care business is also a daytime use. Goellner clarified that the other uses in the building aren’t very large so adding an adult day care center won’t put the building over capacity. Baker asked if the applicant has other facilities. Omar Hassan, Applicant, said they have another day care center in St. Paul and that they want to close that one and open a smaller one in Golden Valley. Blum asked Hassan about their target market. Hassan explained that their business is designed to save costs for the State. He stated that the clients would come to the center for six hours per day. Blum asked if approving this proposal would mean that the City is helping them provide affordable care for seniors. Hassan said yes. Baker asked about the costs. Hassan said the costs are approximately $48 to $49 per day and are set by the State. Segelbaum said this is an excellent service and something Golden Valley needs. He noted that the area shown on the floor plan, used the majority of the time, seems small for 30 people. Hassan stated that the space is divided into two with 1,000 square feet in the front used for office space and cot rooms and approximately 1,000 square feet in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 4 the back that will be used for an activity room. Segelbaum asked the applicant how he determines that the building can accommodate 30 people. Hassan stated that they need 5 square feet per person and that the State will determine how many clients they can have. Johnson asked the applicant if they will be serving Golden Valley residents. Hassan said yes. Baker noted that the application states that they will be serving youth as well and asked the applicant what the demographic will be. Hassan said they will serve clients 18 and older. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this sounds like a great service and it seems to fit in the proposed location so she is in favor of it. She added that the regulatory issues will be addressed at the State or County level. Baker agreed. Blum also agreed and said it will be a more affordable option than 24/7 care. Segelbaum said the number of clients concerns him, but he is confident that the Department of Human Services will determine how many clients they can have. He suggested adding a condition of approval that states they can have no more clients than allowed by the State license. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #158 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1.Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use:Global Day Services Inc. has demonstrated that demand exists for the unique social services they provide. Based on their expertise and experience with other similar adult day care centers, they are able to provide these services in an efficient and responsible way within the City of Golden Valley. 2.Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:An adult day care center is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3.Effect on Property Values:Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its property value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4.Effect on Traffic:The number of trips generated by the proposed use is minimal. The current uses in the building generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting in the introduction of the proposed adult day care center. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 5 5.Effect of Increases in Population and Density:The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of clients and employees will be limited by occupancy limits for Unit #10. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6.Increase in Noise Levels:The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a concerning increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed use will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. 7.Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration:The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8.Impact of Pests:The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9.Visual Impact:Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications and only a utilization of the existing parking spaces on in the parking lot, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the City Code. 10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents:Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects from the proposed use. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Maximum occupancy for Unit #10 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than allowed by the State. If additional space or occupancy levels are desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. Hours of Operation for Global Adult Day Services Inc. are limited to 6 am – 7 pm Monday through Friday. Any extension to these hours requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to assign the parking near the entrance to Unit #10. The City reserves the right to require that these parking spaces be reserved for this use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to adequately address parking concerns. 5. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 6 3. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Map Amendment – 5509 Lindsay Street – CPAM-62 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 5509 Lindsay Street Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Map from Right-of-Way to Medium-Low Density Residential. 4. Informal Public Hearing – Property Rezoning – 5509 Lindsay Street – ZO12-20 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 5509 Lindsay Street Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Moderate Density Residential (R-2) The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 3 and 4 were combined. Goellner referred to the subject property on a map and stated that it is currently guided and zoned as right-of-way. She stated that the property has always been vacant and was purchased by MnDOT for highway development. She explained that the property is 13,155 square feet in size and is large enough for two lots, but an easement for the existing retaining wall, and the topography of the lot makes it unlikely that it would be two lots. She stated that staff is recommending that the property be guided Medium-Low Density Residential and Zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-2). Baker noted that the staff report states that the property doesn’t meet the lot width requirements in Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. Goellner stated that the lot is buildable for one single family home or one duplex. She added that staff is recommending R-2 because there are other duplexes nearby and it would be difficult to build two separate single family homes because of the wall easement. Goellner stated that staff did consider other options including park/open space, but there are maintenance costs and it is not part of the city-wide comprehensive parks plan. Blum stated there are several other commercial/industrial properties in the area and questioned if those types of uses have been considered for this property. Goellner said she would not recommend commercial/industrial uses for this property because there are homes right next to it. She added that a significant portion of this property isn’t buildable and she thinks the property would sit vacant if it were zoned Commercial or Industrial. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 7 Black stated that the subject property is fairly small and asked how the size of the adjacent lots compare to this property. Goellner said the adjacent lot is approximately 120 ft. x 140 ft. in size which is rather large for a single family home. Waldhauser referred to the Comp Plan definition and noted that there isn’t a definition listed for medium-low density. Zimmerman explained that the Comp Plan map has a medium-low density category, but the Comp Plan text describes the same density range as medium density residential. He stated that this discrepancy will be fixed during the Comp Plan update process. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum referred to the area bounded by Highway 55 on the south, Douglas Drive on the west, and Golden Valley Road on the north and stated that the majority of the properties in that area are Light Industrial, Industrial, and offices. He questioned why they are limiting the subject property to R-2 when it seems like development is trending toward something else. Zimmerman stated that the City has the ability to rezone and guide this property however it wants. He agreed that there are some Industrial uses to the south, but there is a duplex right next to it and he doesn’t think this is the best corridor for Commercial use. He said R-2 would be compatible with the other residential uses in the area but it is not the right location for Industrial or Commercial uses. Baker agreed that Lindsay Street is not the right location for Industrial or Retail/Commercial uses and he believes the proposal makes sense. Blum said rezoning the property to Industrial or Commercial could bring more value to the City and that R-2 could bring some negatives such as encouraging rental properties rather than owner- occupied properties so he doesn’t see the value in zoning these properties R-2. Black questioned if two driveways would fit along the Lindsay Street side of the property and said he would recommend zoning the properties R-1 instead of R-2 because it is smaller than other properties in the area. Segelbaum said R-2 seems to fit and he would like to see the area reinvigorated. He suggested considering reguiding and rezoning this property during the Comp Plan update process instead of looking at it now. Zimmerman stated that staff didn’t know this property was going to be for sale when they presented the proposed Land Use chapter to the Planning Commission a few months ago. He said now that the City knows the property is for sale it makes sense to consider how it should be zoned and guided. Baker said they may be overlooking an opportunity and agreed that this should be tabled and addressed during the Comp Plan update process. Blum agreed. Zimmerman said he would clarify what can be done with the property if it is not zoned at all. Segelbaum asked if the zoning has to match the Land Use Map. Zimmerman stated that the City has nine months to make the maps align with each other. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 8 Baker said he doesn’t think the Planning Commission has enough information at this point to make a decision. Goellner stated that staff did look at this proposal in a comprehensive manor and that the hearing notice to the neighborhood stated that the property is proposed to be zoned R-2 and if a different type of use is suggested the neighbors might want to know that. She stated that if this lot were larger the City might be open to other types of zoning, but this is a fairly small lot so she doubts anything other than residential will be built there. Waldhauser asked if the property supports R-1 development. Zimmerman said the property would support one single family home or one duplex. Waldhauser agreed that given what is around the subject property she doesn’t see anything other than R-1 or R-2 being developed. Segelbaum questioned if the Planning Commission could vote on the property being rezoned and reguided to R-1 given that the hearing notices said R-2. Blum stated that the staff report suggests it’s open to discussion. Zimmerman noted that the hearing notice said R-2. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 3 to 2 to recommend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Map from Right-of-Way to Medium-Low Density Residential. Commissioners Baker and Blum voted no. Blum said he thinks the motion is premature given the pending Comp Plan update that may have an impact on many different properties like this one. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and motion carried 3 to 2 to recommend denial of rezoning the property from Right-of-Way to Moderate Density Residential R-2. Commissioners Johnson and Waldhauser voted no. Johnson said he thinks it is ok to have pockets of R-2 and he is not against having rental properties. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker to recommend rezoning the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1). Blum said the Planning Commission has recommended that the Land Use map be changed to Medium-Low density but recommended denial for rezoning it to R-2. He stated that the General Land Use Map and the Zoning Map would not be in alignment if the property is zoned R-1. Zimmerman clarified that the concern is that the Planning Commission would like the City Council to consider Low Density guiding and R-1 zoning. The Commissioners discussed the confusion between the Zoning Map, the 2030 Comp Plan Land Use Map and text, and the proposed 2040 Land Use Map. Segelbaum withdrew his motion. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 9 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to reconsider the first recommendation regarding the change in land use. Johnson said they need to take into consideration what the proposed new Comp Plan designations will be. Segelbaum asked staff why they recommended the land use be moderate-low density residential versus low density residential given the fact that the surrounding properties are all low density residential. Zimmerman said there are some inconsistencies in the current Land Use Map and Zoning Map and that is something that will be fixed during the Comp Plan amendment process. Johnson said he’d like the property to be zoned R-2 Segelbaum said it seems premature to reguide and rezone this now. MOVED by Cathy, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of amending the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Medium-Low Density Residential in order to consider this items during the Comp Plan amendment process. 5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Map Amendment – 1611 Lilac Drive North – CPAM-63 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 1611 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Map from Right-of-Way to Low Density Residential. 6. Informal Public Hearing – Property Rezoning – 1611 Lilac Drive North – ZO11-16 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 1611 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1) The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 5 and 6 were combined. Goellner referred to a map of the property and discussed the history. She explained that the property was guided and zoned for single family homes in the 1950s and two homes were built. The property was purchased by MnDOT for Highway 100 expansion and both homes were demolished in 2000 and the property was left as right-of-way. Baker asked why MnDOT didn’t use the property. Goellner stated that several homes were demolished, but that MnDOT purchased the properties in their entirety. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 10 Goellner stated the property is buildable for single family homes and is eligible for a lot split because it meets the width and lot size requirements. She added that staff has received direction from senior management to get these types of properties back on the tax rolls. Waldhauser asked about the blank property shown on the map just to the south of the subject property. Goellner said that is also right-of-way, but it is not a buildable parcel. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum said every property surrounding this one is R-1 so his thinks it is a great spot for a new home. Segelbaum agreed. Waldhauser also agreed but added that the driveway would be on the frontage road which is a bit isolating, but there are several properties like this in the City. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of amending the General Land Use Plan Map to guide the property at 1611 Lilac Drive North from right-of-way to Low Density Residential. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 1611 Lilac Drive North from right-of-way to Single Family Residential (R-1). --Short Recess-- 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the City Council will be advertising for the open Planning Commission spot soon. 8. Other Business •Council Liaison Report No report was given. •Election of Secretary MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to elect Blum as Secretary. Blum accepted. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 pm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 11 ______________________________________________________ Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. E. Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis regarding 2018 National Football League Super Bowl Prepared By Jason Sturgis, Police Chief Summary The City of Minneapolis has requested Golden Valley as well as surrounding cities to help assist in public safety security related to the 2018 National Football League Super Bowl. The attached agreement outlines the duties and reimbursement during the time from Friday, January 26, 2018, through Monday, February 5, 2018. Staff recommends the approval of this mutual aid agreement with the City of Minneapolis. Attachments •Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis Regarding Public Safety Security Related to the 2018 National Football League Super Bowl (19 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis Regarding Public Safety Security related to the 2018 National Football League Super Bowl. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO 2018 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE SUPER BOWL SECURITY THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY RELATED TO THE 2018 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE SUPER BOWL (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”), is made effective, except as otherwise made operationally effective as set forth in Section 5 herein, on this day of , 2017, by and between the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), acting through its Police Department (hereinafter referred to as the “MPD”) and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY,a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting through its Police Department (hereinafter referred to as the “Provider”). City, MPD, and each Provider may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” to this Agreement. WHEREAS, the City is the host city for the 2018 National Football League Super Bowl to be held on Sunday, February 4, 2018, and for related events authorized by the National Football League, most of which will take place in the City, City of St. Paul, and City of Bloomington from Friday, January 26, 2018, through Monday, February 5, 2018 (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Event”); and WHEREAS, a Unified Command structure (as that term is defined in Section 2.4) is needed to ensure the level of security coordination required for the Event; and WHEREAS, the MPD will be the lead law enforcement agency for those portions of the Event that occur within the City of Minneapolis (Minneapolis Events) and the St. Paul Police Department (SPPD) and the Bloomington Police Department (BPD) will be the lead law enforcement agencies for those portions of the Event that occur within their cities, respectively (St. Paul Events and Bloomington Events) When either BPD or SPPD is the lead law enforcement agency, its duties will not include making staff assignments that will continue to be administered and managed by the MPD as part of the Unified Command; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to serve as the fiscal agent for law enforcement costs for the Event by entering into an agreement with the “Host Committee” (as that entity and agreement are referenced in Section 3.1 herein) for the Event; and WHEREAS, the City is in need of procuring additional law enforcement personnel to provide the public safety and security measures required for such a large and unique Event; and WHEREAS, at the request of the City, the Provider is willing to provide the services of the law enforcement personnel identified in this Agreement to the City to assist the MPD with Event security; and NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 (“Joint Exercise of Powers”) and/or Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.76 and 626.77, and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and the benefits that each party hereto shall derive hereby, the Parties agree as follows: 1.PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT 1.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions whereby the Provider will provide the City with Licensed Peace Officers to be assigned to one or more of the Event locations identified on Exhibit A attached hereto to assist the MPD through the use of a unified command center (as further explained in Section 2.4 of this Agreement) to provide law enforcement and security services (“Services”) during the term of the Event. 1.2 Provider will exercise its best efforts to assist with Event security. The Parties acknowledge and agree that resource availability requires Provider to exercise its best judgment in prioritizing and responding to the public safety needs of its jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Event. That prioritization decision belongs solely to Provider. The Provider may, at any time, recall the Provider’s resources when, it is considered to be in Provider’s best interest to do so. 1.3 Provider’s resources shall be full-time, Licensed Peace Officers and each such Licensed Peace Officer must meet the following criteria as defined in Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.84, Subdivision 1(c) and 471.59, Subdivision 12, which reads: “(1) the peace officer has successfully completed professionally recognized peace officer pre-employment education which the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training has found comparable to Minnesota peace officer pre- employment education; and (2) the officer is duly licensed or certified by the peace officer licensing or certification authority of the state in which the officer's appointing authority is located.” 1.4 The MPD will coordinate and inform the SPPD and the BPD of staffing assignments for the St. Paul Events and the Bloomington Events based, when possible, on the recommendations of the SPPD and the BPD, respectively. 2.ADDITIONAL CRITERIA OF LICENSED PEACE OFFICERS; PROVIDER SCOPE OF SERVICE 2.1 In addition to meeting the criteria set forth in Section 1 of this Agreement, the Provider agrees that each of the Licensed Peace Officers shall also meet the following criteria: 2.1.1. That each Licensed Peace Officer shall by reason of experience, training, and physical fitness be deemed by the Provider of being capable of performing public safety and law enforcement duties for the Event; and 2.1.2 That each Licensed Peace Officer is in good standing with the Provider. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Provider shall promptly notify the MPD in the event that any licensed peace officer is no longer an officer in good standing with the Provider or shall recall any peace officer that is no longer in good standing; and 2.1.3 That unless otherwise provided or requested by the MPD, each Licensed Peace Officer shall be equipped and/or supplied by Provider at Provider’s own expense, with a seasonally appropriate patrol uniform of the day and equipment, including but not limited to service belts with Provider radio equipment, service weapon and personal soft ballistic body armor, and traffic vest. Additionally, in Provider’s discretion, personnel may be equipped with a cell phone that may be used to download a public safety application to aid in the tracking of law enforcement personnel during operational periods if allowed pursuant to Provider’s policy. 2.2 Provider acknowledges and agrees that at any time during the term of this Agreement the City has the sole discretion to decline to accept and/or use any of Provider’s Licensed Peace Officers or other law enforcement resources without cause or explanation. 2.3 The Provider agrees as follows: 2.3.1 As requested by MPD, Provider shall list information on each of Provider’s Licensed Peace Officers no later than ninety (90) days before the Event that includes, but is not limited to, name, rank, agency, badge number, photo, cell phone number, and emergency contact information. Said information shall be used strictly for law enforcement purposes related to the Event and each Party will hold the data in the same classification as the other does under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (“MGDPA”); and 2.3.2. That upon reasonable advance written notification from the MPD, each of Provider’s Licensed Peace Officers or other law enforcement resources so designated by the MPD shall participate in training activities related to Event security, that are coordinated or conducted by the MPD or its designee; and 2.3.3. That each Licensed Peace Officer shall be assigned by the MPD, as determined and required by the MPD, to any Event-related assignment based on the Licensed Peace Officer’s skill-set and known duty assignment as well as the needs of the operation; including, but not limited to, foot patrol, motorized patrol, static posts at outdoor perimeters, general security inside or outside venues, and traffic control; and 2.3.4. That Licensed Peace Officers participating in the Event may, if so determined by the MPD, be placed in an “On Assignment” status by MPD in which the Licensed Peace Officer should be physically proximate to the Event location, so as to be able to physically report in a timely manner to such duty post assigned by the MPD and prepared to undertake the specific job task or responsibility assigned by the MPD; and 2.3.5. That at the request of the MPD, Provider will designate personnel that participated in or provided Event security to further participate in and/or provide information to and otherwise cooperate with the MPD in any “after action activities” following the conclusion of a Training Session or actual Event security. “After action activities” may include, but not be limited to post Training Session meetings and revisions of Training protocols and post Event security meetings, evaluations, mediation or court proceedings. 2.4 Provider acknowledges and agrees that at all times during any required training session or during the Event each of Provider’s Licensed Peace Officers or other law enforcement resources and employees, regardless of rank or job title held as an employee of the Provider, shall be subject to a structure of supervision, command and control coordinated through a unified law enforcement command and following unified command principles and practices established throughout the law enforcement community (herein referred to as “Unified Command”). 2.5 The Provider agrees to exercise reasonable efforts to cooperate and provide the City, with any other information reasonably requested by the City that the City deems necessary to facilitate and enable compliance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. 2.6 Event staffing levels will be determined by the MPD as the lead law enforcement agency and fiscal agent, in consultation with the Unified Command and the SPPD for St. Paul Events and the BPD for Bloomington Events, regardless of the location of the Event. Provider may increase the staffing levels at Events located within the Provider’s jurisdiction: (a) at the sole cost of the Provider that hosts an Event; and (b) with the knowledge that the additional Licensed Police Officers and other staff members above the staffing level approved by the MPD and Unified Command are not covered by the Policy as described in Section 9 of this Agreement. The number of Licensed Peace Officers and other law enforcement resources to be deployed within the Provider’s jurisdiction will be communicated to the City as part of the Unified Command. Notwithstanding Section 2.4, the Provider retains the sole discretion for determining what Provider Licensed Peace Officer and other law enforcement resources will be deployed in its own jurisdiction for events not included under this Agreement and remain under the Provider’s own authority. The Provider’s Licensed Peace Officer and other law enforcement resources deployed in the Provider’s jurisdiction and which are either included above the number of Licensed Peace Officers as determined by the Unified Command or remain under Provider’s authority for events not included under this Agreement, will not be eligible for reimbursement of costs as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement. 2.7 The Provider will comply with the statutes and rules requiring the preservation of evidence including, but not limited to, Minnesota Statutes, Section 590.10 and Section 626.04. Each Provider must preserve all handwritten notes, photographs, incident reports, video recordings, statements, audio recordings, personal notes, interview audio, text messages, cell phone videos, removable electronic media, squad car videos, any other video recordings, emails, voice mails, computer files and all Work Product, Supporting Documentation and Business Records as those terms are defined in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. 2.8 The MPD, as the lead law enforcement agency, will maintain a list of Licensed Peace Officers (LPOs) assigned to the Events. Each Provider, including the SPPD and BPD, will be responsible for providing accurate lists of its LPOs that will be assignable to the Events as a result of signing this Agreement. 3 CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 The City will be solely responsible for all communications with the Minnesota Host Committee (the “Host Committee”). The Host Committee shall be responsible for coordinating each of the events authorized by the National Football League (including St. Paul Events and Bloomington Events) and activities that occur within the term of the Event. 3.2 The City and the Host Committee will prepare and enter into an “Event Support and Funding Agreement for Super Bowl LII” (the “Support Agreement”). The Support Agreement will be the source of funding for the Event including the source of payment for the Services to be provided pursuant to this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) and for the policy of insurance that will pay for the defense and indemnification of claims filed against the City and each Provider during the term of the Event. 3.3 City agrees that it will provide or facilitate any necessary training to prepare for providing Event security. The substance of the training, if necessary; including the locations, dates, and times, shall be detailed in a separate writing provided from the MPD to the Provider. 3.4 The person responsible on behalf of the MPD for the daily operation, coordination and implementation of this Agreement, which responsibilities shall include, but not limited to, determining the assignments of the Provider’s law enforcement resources, shall be Minneapolis Police Department Commander Scott Gerlicher (hereinafter referred to as the “Coordinator”). Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all contacts or inquiries made by the Provider with regard to this Agreement shall be made directly to the Coordinator or the Coordinator’s designee. 3.6 The City will develop and provide to each Provider an adequate supply of the standard incident report form to be used by the City and Providers that provide Services at the Event under the direction of the Unified Command. 3.7 The City will obtain from the Host Committee and provide to each Provider, the “claims procedure” as indicated in Exhibit C hereto that will be used by third party claimants who file claims against the City or against any Provider 4.COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT PROCESS 4.1 The sole source of funds to reimburse each Provider performing under this Agreement shall be funds provided by the Host Committee pursuant to the Support Agreement. 4.2 For and in consideration of the Provider performing under this Agreement, the Provider will be reimbursed for said Services at the rates and in the manner as indicated in attached Exhibit B. All of a Provider’s Licensed Peace Officers and other law enforcement resources that (a) perform law enforcement services within the Provider’s jurisdiction; and (b) are subject only to the Provider’s authority and are therefore not under the Unified Command, are not eligible to have Provider’s costs reimbursed pursuant to this Agreement. 4.3 The MPD will prepare and include in Exhibit B eligibility guidelines for cost reimbursement and a check list for the preparation and submission of the reimbursement request. Exhibit B will include a “Reimbursement Payment Form [To be developed by MPD at a later date] to be completed by the Provider along with the required support documents to be attached by the Provider. The MPD shall furnish the Provider with a statement which describes all applicable hours performed by the Provider during the term of the Agreement. The Provider shall submit the Reimbursement Payment Form to the MPD for all undisputed amounts within thirty-five (35) days after receipt of the statement of hours. 4.4 Provider may submit any questions regarding the cost reimbursement process to Robin McPherson or her designee at: robin.mcpherson@minneapolismn.gov. 4.5 For any disputed amounts, the Provider shall provide the MPD with written notice of the dispute, including the date, amount, and reasons for dispute within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the statement of hours. The MPD and Provider shall memorialize the resolution of the dispute in writing and follow the dispute resolution procedure in Section 13 of this Agreement. 5.TERM OF AGREEMENT 5.1 This Agreement shall be effective as of the date indicated on the first page so that the Parties can undertake planning for all Event-related activity and shall expire on March 1, 2018, or the date to which law enforcement resources or Services are extended, whichever is later, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions in Section 6. Except for the provision of Training as discussed and to be scheduled pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement, Services furnished by the Provider for the Event shall begin on January 26, 2018, and shall terminate on February 5, 2018, unless terminated sooner or extended in whole or in part as provided herein. 6.TERMINATION 6.1 Termination by the City-The City may terminate this Agreement upon providing to the Provider not less than forty-five (45) days advance written notice for any of the reasons stated below: 6.1.1 Cancellation of Super Bowl LII; 6.1.2 City and Host Committee fail to enter into the Support Agreement; 6.1.3 Host Committee fails to purchase and provide insurance coverage as described in Section 9.1 of this Agreement; or 6.1.4 Failure by the Provider to perform any material term under this Agreement and failure to cure the default within the time requested by the City. 6.2 Termination by the Provider-The Provider may terminate this Agreement upon providing to the City not less than forty-five (45) days advance written notice for any of the reasons stated below: 6.2.1 Cancellation of Super Bowl LII; 6.2.2 Without cause prior to the initial training session; 6.2.3 City and Host Committee fail to enter into the Support Agreement; or 6.2.4 Host Committee fails to purchase and provide insurance coverage as described in Section 9.1 of this Agreement. 6.3 In the event of a termination, each Party shall fully discharge all obligations owed to the other Party accruing prior to the date of such termination, and, except as otherwise provided herein, each Party shall be released from all obligations, which would otherwise accrue subsequent to the date of termination. 7.AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT 7.1 The Provider has identified the following person[s] as persons to contact only with regard to the following matters regarding the Agreement: Timothy Cruikshank City Manager Jason Sturgis Chief of Police Steve Johnson Police Commander 8.WORK PRODUCTS, RECORDS, DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION 8.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth in this section, except where the context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended. “Work Product”shall mean any report, including incident reports, recommendation, paper, presentation, drawing, demonstration, or other materials, whether in written, electronic, or other format that are used or belong to MPD or results from Provider's Services under this Agreement. “Supporting Documentation”shall mean any surveys, questionnaires, notes, research, papers, analyses, whether in written, electronic, or in other format and other evidences used to generate any and all work performed and Work Products generated under this Agreement. “Business Records”shall mean any books, documents, papers, account records and other evidences, whether written, electronic, or in other format, belonging to MPD or Provider and pertain to work performed under this Agreement. 8.2 Subject to applicable law, including but not limited to the Minnesota Official Records Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, and the MGDPA, all deliverable Work Product, Supporting Documentation and Business Records or copies thereof, that are needed from or result from the Provider's Services under this Agreement shall be delivered to the City either pursuant to this Agreement or upon reasonable request of the City and shall become the property of the City after delivery. 8.3 The City and the Provider each agrees not to release, transmit, disclose or otherwise disseminate information associated with or generated as a result of the work performed (i.e. Work Product, Supporting Documentation and Business Records) under this Agreement without notice to the other. Except as otherwise required by and subject to federal and/or state law, neither the City nor the Provider shall release, transmit, disclose or disseminate any Work Product, Supporting Documentation and Business Records which shall be classified as “security information”, “security service” or “security service data”, defined under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.37 and 13.861 or any like data, as defined and/or required in all federal, state, and local laws or ordinances, and all applicable rules, regulations, and standards. 8.4 In the event of termination, all Work Product, Supporting Documentation and Business Records prepared by the Provider under this Agreement shall be delivered to the City by the Provider by the termination date. 8.5 Both the City and the Provider agree to maintain all Business Records in such a manner as will readily conform to the terms of this Agreement and to make such materials available at its office at all reasonable times during this Agreement period and for six (6) years from the date of the final payment under the contract for audit or inspection by the City, the Provider, the Auditor of the State of Minnesota, or other duly authorized representative. 8.6 Both the City and the Provider agree to abide strictly by the MGDPA and, in particular, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 13.05, Subd. 6 and 11; 13.37, Subd. 1(b), 138.17, and 15.17. All of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Provider or the City in performing functions under this Agreement is subject to the requirements of the MGDPA and both the City and the Provider must comply with those requirements. If any provision of this Agreement is in conflict with the MGDPA or other Minnesota state laws, state law shall control. 9.INSURANCE; LIABILITY; MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY; NO WAIVER OF IMMUNITIES 9.1 Insurance Coverage for Event-The Host Committee has purchased a law enforcement liability insurance policy (the “Policy”). The insurance carrier is International Insurance Company of Hannover SE (the “Insurer”). The Policy will provide coverage for claims that each Provider becomes legally obligated to pay as damages due to “bodily injury”, “property damage”, or “personal injury” suffered by third parties. The Policy will require the insurer to have the right and duty to defend and indemnify each Provider against any claim or lawsuit due to Provider acts that occur within the territory of the Events and during the period in which the Policy is in effect. Each Provider’s Law Enforcement Officers and supervisors under the Unified Command will be covered under the Policy by virtue of the Provider being named an “insured” under the Policy. 9.1.1 The limits of liability for all occurrences (claims) during the coverage period is $3,000,000.00 ($3 million). The limit of liability for any third party claim for damage to or loss of personal property is $25,000. 9.1.2 The cost to hire and pay for legal representation to defend the City and any Provider (“defense costs”) are not subject to the $3 million limit of the Policy. 9.1.3 The Policy is not subject to the payment of a deductible by the Host Committee, the City or by any other Provider. 9.1.3. Each Provider agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Policy. 9.1.4 Each Provider agrees that it will cooperate with the insurer and with the City by reasonably and timely responding to the insurer’s request for information or to appear at meetings or judicially mandated hearings. 9.2 Insurance as Sole Source for Liability and Indemnity-Each Provider hereto agrees that it will only seek recovery for any liability incurred in carrying out the terms of this Agreement from the insurance to be procured by the Host Committee as set out in Section 9.1 of this Agreement. 9.2.1 If a Party’s liability is not subject to recovery through the Policy, then each Party agrees that it will otherwise be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and those of its officials, employees, representatives and agents in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, whether those acts or omissions occur within or outside of the jurisdiction or geographic limits of the City of Minneapolis, and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts and/or omissions of the other Party and the results thereof. 9.2.2 In the unlikely event that the aggregate amount of any one or all claims exceeds $3 million, then each Party agrees that it will otherwise be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and those of its officials, employees, representatives and agents in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, whether those acts or omissions occur within or outside the of the jurisdiction or geographic limits of the City of Minneapolis, and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts and/or omissions of the other Parties and the results thereof. 9.3 Further Limitation On Provider Liability-It is understood and agreed that the liability of each Provider that is a municipality, county or similar political subdivision shall be limited by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) and the liability of the State of Minnesota as a Provider shall be limited by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.736 and by other applicable law. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall waive or amend, nor shall be construed to waive or amend any defense or immunity that either Party, its respective officials and employees, may have under said Chapter 466, Section 471.59 subd. 1a, and any common-law immunity or limitation of liability, all of which are hereby reserved by the Parties that have entered into this Agreement. 9.4 Provider Workers’ Compensation Insurance Required-Except as expressly provided herein, each Party shall be responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. Each Party will maintain workers’ compensation insurance or self- insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance pursuant to this Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, each Party waives the right to sue any other Party for any workers’ compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependents. 9.5 Provider Responsible for Own Equipment-Except as expressly provided herein, each Party shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Except as expressly provided herein, each Party waives the right to sue any other Party for any damages to, or loss of its equipment. 9.6 Provider Rendering First Aid-Except for immediate first aid rendered by a Provider at the scene of an accident or occurrence, no other medical assistance, expenses or aid is covered under the Policy. 10.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS Each Provider in its relationship with the City under this Agreement is an independent contractor. No Provider, its Licensed Peace Officers or other law enforcement resources shall be considered an employee of the City. The City, its Licensed Peace Officers or other law enforcement resources shall not be considered employees of the Provider. 11.SUBCONTRACTING The City and Provider agree that no Services will be subcontracted and agree not to enter into any subcontracts to provide any Services under this Agreement. 12.ASSIGNMENT Neither the City nor the Provider will assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the consent of the other Party. 13.DISPUTE RESOLUTION The City and the Provider each agree to cooperate and negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes that arise regarding the terms of this Agreement and the performance of the Services. If good faith negotiations fail to resolve a dispute, then the Parties will use mediation services to attempt to resolve the dispute. The City and Provider will equally share the expense of the mediator. The Parties will select a mediator by each submitting three names in rank order of preference to the other Party. If there is no common name on each Party’s list, then a neutral, third party, law enforcement representative that is not a party to this Agreement will select a mediator for the Parties. If mediation fails to resolve a dispute between Parties, then the Parties will resolve the dispute through litigation. 14.AUDIT OF AGREEMENT RECORDS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, both the City’s and the Provider’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices with respect to any matter covered by this Agreement shall be made available to the State of Minnesota Office of the State Auditor upon written notice, at any time during normal business hours, for the purpose of auditing, examining or making excerpts or transcripts of relevant data. 15. AMENDMENT OR CHANGES TO AGREEMENT 15.1 Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when reduced to writing and duly signed by the Parties hereto; after all appropriate and necessary authority has been acquired by each such Party. 15.2 Modifications or additional schedules shall not be construed to adversely affect vested rights or causes of action which have accrued prior to the effective date of such amendment, modification, or supplement. The term “Agreement” as used herein shall be deemed to include any future amendments, modifications, and additional schedules made in accordance herewith. 16.NOTICES Except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, all notice or demand to be given under this Agreement shall be delivered in person or deposited in United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Any notices or other communications shall be addressed as follows: To City: Scott Gerlicher Commander Minneapolis Police Department 511 11 th Avenue South Suite 401 Minneapolis, MN 55415 To Provider: Jason Sturgis Chief of Police Golden Valley Police Department 7700 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 17.INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. 18.ENTIRE AGREEMENT It is understood and agreed that this entire Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties hereto relating to the subject matters herein. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. The matters set forth in the “WHEREAS” clauses at the beginning of this Agreement are by this reference incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. 19.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19.1 The Parties intend that, with respect to the defense and indemnification provisions in Section 9 hereof, this Agreement may benefit or create rights or causes of action in or on behalf of any other agency providing services for the Event under a similar but separate agreement. Except for the foregoing, the Parties intend that this Agreement will not benefit or create any right or cause of action in or on behalf of any person or entity other than the Parties. 19.2 The Parties shall cooperate in achieving the objectives of this Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 15.51 through 15.57. 19.3 The Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted including but not limited to the MGDPA, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.425, subd. 4a, and as applicable, non-discrimination and affirmative action laws and policies. 19.4 If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability will not affect any other provision, and this Agreement will be construed and enforced as if such invalid or unenforceable provision had not been included. 19.5 Failure of a Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement does not affect the rights of the Parties to enforce such provision in another circumstance. Failure to enforce a provision does not affect the rights of the Parties to enforce any other provision of the Agreement at any time REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS BLANK IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto are authorized signatories and have executed this Agreement, the day and year first above written. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: ___________________________By: __________________________ Its: Police Chief Its: Mayor Date: _________________________Date: _________________________ Approval Recommended:By: ___________________________ Its: City Manager By: ______________________________ Its: Assistant City Attorney By:______________________________ Its: Purchasing Department EXHIBIT A - Super Bowl Events Event Description Super Bowl Experience Media Center/Radio Row Mall of America Game Day Event NFL Honors NFL Friday Night Party Tailgate Party Opening Night NFL on Location Super Bowl Live Stadium Interior Stadium Perimeter Pre-game Party AFC Team Hotel NFC Team Hotel NFL Headquarters Hotel AFC Practice Site NFC Practice Site Police Escorts Tactical Squad Bomb Technical Squad Bomb K-9s VACIS Street Patrol Downtown Extra Metro Transit Security Mobile Field Force Square Fit Team VPSO Command Post Security Staging Logistics Credentialing Dignitary Liaison Counterfeiting Human Trafficking Investigators The MPD will maintain a list of Licensed Police Officers covered by this Agreement EXHIBIT B Super Bowl Special Event Period Reimbursement Guidelines Reimbursement Period:Friday January 26 th, 2018 through Monday February 5 th, 2018 1.General Reimbursement Guidelines: a.The lead law enforcement agency, Minneapolis Police Department, will serve as fiscal agent for purposes of this agreement. b.Reimbursement will be for official Super Bowl events sanctioned by the MN Host Committee and/or the NFL only, or for hours worked in direct support of the lead law enforcement agency, Minneapolis Police Department. c.All hours worked will be considered “on duty” time. d.Sending agencies are expected to place provided law enforcement officers “on assignment” for the event period and this assignment will be their normal assignment for that period. Personnel should not be expected to work the event week in addition to their normal job at their respective agency. e.Reimbursement will occur for personnel wage costs only at established straight time or overtime rates pursuant to Section 2, Established Hourly Reimbursement Rates, in this Exhibit B. These rates are all inclusive and will not be adjusted. f.Reimbursement will occur only for hours worked consistent with official operational plans approved by the core planning team and the lead law enforcement agency, MPD. g.There will be no reimbursement for non-personnel costs, backfill, pre-event training, equipment, and other expenses including but not limited to travel costs, fuel, mileage, per diem, etc. h.Reimbursement will occur only for state, county, and local law enforcement personnel participating in official Super Bowl Event security details. i.There will be no reimbursement for participation of law enforcement command level staff including but not limited to those in the ranks of Chief, Sheriff, Assistant Chief, Deputy Chief, Colonel, Major, Sr. Commander, Captain or other law enforcement officers working in a command position and/or in an exempt payroll status. j.Generally, participating law enforcement personnel will be expected to work a ten hour shift daily during the event period (This may vary based on specific assignments). k.For reimbursement purposes, a law enforcement officer’s shift begins and ends when he/she checks in/out on site with the lead law enforcement agency. This will be tracked using an automated system provided by the lead law enforcement agency. Law enforcement personnel will be notified of their daily and hourly schedule 30-60 days prior to the special event period subject to any changes that may occur. There will be no reimbursement for any changes to the schedule or for any scheduled off days during this period or for off hours where personnel are not actively assigned to an official special event detail. a.Sending agencies and personnel assigned to the special event week must adhere to all lead law enforcement agency requirements in order to be eligible for reimbursement. b.Any variation from the above guidelines must be approved by the lead law enforcement agency, Minneapolis Police Department. 2.Established Hourly Reimbursement Rates: a.All hours reimbursed under the terms of Sections 3 and 4 of this Exhibit B, below will be paid at one of the following established hourly rates. These are set rates and will not be adjusted based on specific agency hourly rates. The rates are inclusive of all costs including both payroll and fringe. i.$82 per hour overtime rate. ii.$55 per hour straight time rate. 3.Specific Agency Reimbursement Guidelines: a.For law enforcement personnel working in areas where they have jurisdictional authority: i.Reimbursement will occur only for overtime hours worked as a result of established/approved operational plans and hours above and beyond that of their scheduled shifts for that day with approval of incident commander. ii.Sending agencies will be reimbursed for overtime hours worked under the Joint Powers Agreement, not to exceed 60% of the total hours worked by that agency at the established overtime rate as specified in Section 2 of this Exhibit B, above. iii.Sending agencies are expected to place provided law enforcement officers “on assignment”for the event period and this assignment will be their normal assignment for that period. Personnel should not be expected to work the event week in addition to their normal job at their respective agency. b.For law enforcement personnel working in areas where they do not have jurisdictional authority: i.Reimbursement will occur for all hours worked to include straight time and overtime at the established rates as specified in Section 2 of this Exhibit B, above however reimbursement for overtime hours worked under this Joint Powers Agreement which will not exceed 60% of the total hours worked by that agency. ii.Sending agencies are expected to place provided law enforcement officers “on assignment”for the event period and this assignment will be their normal assignment for that period. Personnel should not be expected to work the event week in addition to their normal job at their respective agency. 4.Reimbursement Process: Within 30 days after the special event period, the lead law enforcement agency, MPD will provide the sending agency with a report outlining hours worked for all personnel for that agency. a. Sending agency will review the personnel report for accuracy and outline which hours constituted straight time versus overtime and submit an invoice with support documentation to the lead law enforcement agency. b. The lead law enforcement agency will review the invoice and support documentation, and work with the sending agency on addressing any discrepancies. c. The lead law enforcement agency will issue reimbursement to the sending agency consistent with the guidelines established in this agreement within 45 days of receiving an invoice and the requested support documentation. Invoices should be sent to: MPD Chief Financial Officer C/O Robin McPherson 350 South 5 th Street, Room 130 Minneapolis, MN. 55415 EXHIBIT C CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMS BROUGHT AS A RESULT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY SERVICES 1.The Host Committee and Insurer will develop a “uniform claim form (the “Form”). The Form will be approved by the insurance broker retained by the Host Committee and by the Insurer. 2.The Host Committee will establish a committee to review each Form submitted by third parties alleging injuries or property damage due to law enforcement activities that occurred during the Event (each completed Form a “Claim”). 3.The committee established to conduct the preliminary review of the Claim Forms (“Claims Committee”) will consist of at least the following members: (a)A Host Committee representative; (b)A Representative of the insurance broker retained by the Host Committee; and (c)The City of Minneapolis Risk Manager. The Claims Committee may also include other Provider representatives as determined by the three (3) required Claims Committee members. 4.After making a preliminary determination as to the validity of a Claim, the Claims Committee will forward each Form to the Insurer. The Insurer will determine whether Claims are covered by the Law Enforcement Liability Policy and determine when the Policy limits have been reached and exceeded. 5.Once the aggregate amount of Claims exceeds $3 million, then the Insurer will notify the Host Committee, the City and each Provider. Any further Claims brought against each Provider after the date of notification that the $3 million coverage limitation has been exhausted will be the sole responsibility of the Provider or Providers named in the Claim to defend and pay the amount of damages determined by a court of law. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. F. Establish Parking Restrictions on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer Summary In recent months, City staff has become aware of a significant level of parking on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North to the south of Medicine Lake Road. The frequency and duration of the parking has resulted in sight line issues and safe vehicle passage issues through the curves connecting the two roadways. Police and Public Works staff have observed the issues and determined that the establishment of no parking restrictions on the roadway are needed to address the safety concerns in this area. A no parking zone was established on the north/west side of Hillsboro Avenue in 1978 as shown on the attached exhibit. There are four existing condominium, townhome and apartment communities located immediate adjacent to and east of the subject roadways. There is adequate off street parking provided at each of these complexes and there is no apparent need for on street parking. Therefore, staff is recommending that the parking restrictions be established extended south to the Duluth Street right of way (non-existent roadway), where single family homes are present on the east side of Mendelssohn Avenue. Due to steep driveways and limited off street parking availability for some of these single family homes, and adequate sight lines along the roadway, staff is recommending that parking continue to be permitted south of Duluth Street. Attachments •Mendelssohn Avenue and Hillsboro Avenue Parking exhibit (1 page) •Resolution Establishing No Parking Restrictions on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North between Medicine Lake Road and Duluth Street (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution establishing no parking restrictions on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North between Medicine Lake Road and Duluth Street. Parking Restrictions i ■ No Parking (current) Proposed No Parking / -- 10 El .' L,' �t f i.....................� nimpro�c�= DU __ I Ci f1/ t�� Print Date: 9/12/2017 1 /f7 of Mendelssohn Ave N/ Sources: -Hennepin County rs Office for P ` d e 6 � f F " Property Lines (2017) & Aoenall Photography (2015). Hillsboro Ave N -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. V�.:. � Parking 0 100 200 400 Feet Resolution 17-51 September 19, 2017 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH AND MENDELSSOHN AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AND DULUTH STREET WHEREAS, the City Council has the power and authority, pursuant to Chapter 9.06, Subd, 2 of the City Code to establish limited or restricted parking zones on City streets; and WHEREAS, the City has become aware of parking related safety concerns on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North between Medicine Lake Road and Duluth Street; and WHEREAS, it appears that parking restrictions should be established to address the safety concerns on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North between Medicine Lake Road and Duluth Street. The following parking restrictions will therefore be in effect: 1. No parking shall be permitted at any time on the west side of Mendelssohn Avenue North between Hillsboro Avenue North and Duluth Street; and on the east side of Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North between Medicine Lake Road and Duluth Street. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that the City Manager and/or designee be authorized to establish no parking restrictions on Hillsboro Avenue North and Mendelssohn Avenue North between Medicine Lake Road and Duluth Street. __________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. G. Set Date for Proposed Property Tax Levy Payable 2018 and 2018-2019 Budget Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff recommends that the City Council set Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. for the budget and levy public hearing. M.S.275.065 now requires that the City adopt a proposed budget and levy and certify the proposed budget and levy to the county auditor by September 30. The county auditor will use this information to prepare and send parcel specific notices between November 10 and November 24. The meeting date and time need to be announced at the time of the adoption of the preliminary levy and budget. Recommended Action Motion to set the date of the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing for Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at 6:30 pm. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 3. H. Board/Commission Appointments Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary City Council recently interviewed interested youth candidates to fill youth vacancies on various City Board/Commissions. Recommended Action Motion to make the following appointments: Environmental Commission Joseph Ramlet 1 year term - student term expires - May, 2018 Human Rights Commission Eve Clarkson 1 year term - student term expires - May, 2018 Human Services Fund Sophia Vento 1 year term - student term expires - May, 2018 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Amendment to Official Zoning Map and General Land Use Plan Map - 5509 Lindsay Street Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Staff is recommending this item be tabled to the October 3, 2017, City Council meeting in order to allow all Council Members to be present to deliberate on the Amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map. Property owners within 500 feet of the site have been notified of the October 3 date. In order to follow proper procedures, the public hearing must be opened at today’s meeting. Recommended Actions Motion to table the Amendment to the Official Zoning Map and the General Land Use Plan Map for 5509 Lindsay Street and continue the public to the October 3 City Council meeting. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Amendment to Official Zoning Map and General Land Use Plan Map - 1611 Lilac Drive North Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Staff is recommending this item be tabled to the October 3, 2017, City Council meeting in order to allow all Council Members to be present to deliberate on the Amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map. Property owners within 500 feet of the site have been notified of the October 3 date. In order to follow proper procedures, the public hearing must be opened at today’s meeting. Recommended Actions Motion to table the Amendment to the Official Zoning Map and the General Land Use Plan Map for 1611 Lilac Drive North and continue the public hearing to the October 3 City Council meeting. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 60 Day Deadline: September 20, 2017 Agenda Item 4. C. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 158 - 6960 Madison Avenue West - Global Adult Day Services, Inc., Applicant Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Global Adult Day Services, Inc. has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an adult day care center at 6960 Madison Avenue West in Golden Valley. The property is zoned for Industrial use and guided for Industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan. The building is a 12-unit office condominium with multiple owners and tenants. The applicant intends on utilizing Unit #10 of the existing building for an adult day care center. There are no building additions planned with this proposal. The proposed adult daycare center would serve up to 30 individuals from refugee and immigrant communities with a variety of services between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The exact number of individuals served at the proposed facility will depend on occupancy limits determined by the State Building and Fire Codes and by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The size of the unit is a key determinant for occupancy calculations. Unit #10 is 2,000 square feet in size. The applicant’s narrative further describes the types of services that would be offered to clients at this location (see attached). Global Day Services, Inc. expects to employ 4-6 people at this site. The building at 6960 Madison Avenue West was constructed in 1979 as an office-warehouse condominium. Since then, the building has been primarily used for that purpose by a variety of tenants. The majority of businesses in the building are contractors, such as Northern Cabinets & Remodeling, Keyprime Roofing & Remodeling, and TLC Remodeling. In the units adjacent to the proposed day care, there is an art studio (Studio BonTon in Unit #11) and a business offering fire protection services (Service Fire Protection, Inc. in Unit #9). The building is surrounded by other properties zoned for industrial use. The City Code requires 1 space per 5 persons cared for. With up to 30 persons cared for at this location, the applicant is required to have at least 6 off-street parking spaces available. The existing parking lots provides more than sufficient parking for the proposed adult day care in addition to the existing business. A Neighborhood Meeting was not required for this application. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2017, the Commission unanimously recommended approval (6-0) of Conditional Use Permit 158. Specifically, the Commission felt the proposed use was in compliance with the ten factors in the City Code that determine the eligibility of a conditional use, subject to the following conditions: 1.The plans by submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2.Maximum occupancy for Unit #10 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than 30 clients. If additional space or occupancy levels are desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended and approved to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3.Hours of Operation for Global Adult Day Services Inc. are limited to 6:00 am – 7:00 pm on Monday through Friday. Any extension to these hours requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4.In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to assign the parking near the entrance to Unit #10. The City reserves the right to require that these parking spaces be reserved for this use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to adequately address parking concerns. 5.All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 6.This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments •Location Map (1 page) •Applicant’s Narrative (5 pages) •Memo to the Planning Commission, dated August 28, 2017 (4 pages) •Planning Commission Minutes dated August 28, 2017 (5 pages) •Plans submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017 (1 page) •Survey (1 page) •Ordinance #624, Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 157 6960 Madison Avenue West Global Adult Day Services, Inc., Applicant (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance #624, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 158 - 6960 Madison Avenue West - Global Adult Day Services, Inc., Applicant. CRY NEW HOPE _.. Subject Property 1 .� 7ifb7ne 3R7 ma .HN-_.-N-N------ N._�..�N�__�I.�M.�.N�..«..... �.. ..� w�..�..�. �.�..�..�.. �- nil "VCTTIT 71077105 _____._ + • 6839 6809 7155 7103 6925 6909 6829 6747 307305 30121120703201 1 01 • 6840 6725 •.•# • 7103 945 6830 6709 000303 205 12525 2520 0 4481 • 4446 +12208, 202104102 6806 2442 308306302•••• , • •• 12 t 304210206 204 7140 11• 7 3 # 9 2� 10 7100 18 q 6845V, 7150 • 7 6 5 2490; 6835 6825 • 71506960 2500 2468 2445: Mad1So11AveW # Z 71 T7245 °' 02450 2454 • 2455x 0 • �i Q 1' 7135 71. « 2420- 2401 'a • • Z 2370 s > v Z 2360 A Q 2335 2355, 2 a • • i3 IL 2325 - • 100 • o 2300200* 7130 7100 • 2315 2320 t 300 2300# y` ` 2301 • 0 2305 2.00 2305 22402155 2301 • 7145 Sindbur Rd 2220 j 2145 7101 7145 2291 Isaacson Park, �. «Ou 1 7140 • 7125 *� Summary of Conditional Use Permit for 6960 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley Submitted by Global Adult Day Services, Inc. Organization Overview Global Adult Day Services was organized in June 2017 as for a profit agency to provide adult daycare services to the Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities well as the general population in Golden Valley, Minnesota. The mission of the Global Adult Day Services is to prevent/delay the unnecessary/premature institutionalization of persons who: are age 65 and older and reside in the community; are under age 65 with disabilities; are at risk of institutionalization due to dementia or disorder such as developmental disability or cerebral pathology; and who require less than twenty- four hour care. Global Adult Day Services, Inc. is located at 6960 Madison Ave W Golden Valley MN 55427, in a facility providing 2, 000 square feet of space for client services and activities, as well as offices. And also we have more than 30 parking spaces for the building and street side parking. This building is Office Condo shared with other business, such as a Contract Company, design Company, and Art Company. Our intention was to move in August 1, 2017 with the CUP permission. Our Adult Day Services provided include individualized written care plans that include a comprehensive assessment, a plan of service,progress notes, and periodic reassessments; assistance with personal care activities; ongoing supervision and monitoring of the clients' health status;hot meals and snacks,transportation, and counseling; and recreation, social interaction with peers, and educational therapeutic activities. Additional services such as physical, occupational, and speech therapy can be provided on a contract basis. Enrichment educational and recreational activities may include English as a Second Language classes, basic computer,math, and sewing, for those who are interested. The center maintains a small gym with equipment for client use, as well as a learning center for classes. Global Adult Day Services staff includes bilingual professionals from the communities served, who have a personal and professional understanding of the culturally specific traditions and dietary needs of the client population. Staff includes experienced director, a physical therapist, and a dietician, as well as Register Nurses, nurses' aides and administrative personnel. Global Adult Day Services is well connected with the communities served. Community partnerships with collaborations include connections with local Community. These collaborative relationships allow Global Adult Day Services to effectively assess and respond to adult day care needs in the target communities. The culturally competent care provided by the Global Adult Day Services is essential to the Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders refugee/immigrant communities served. It allows the medical, social services and related needs of clients to be met in a manner that is respectful, responsive to individual needs, and effective. The knowledge and respect accorded cultural and traditional beliefs helps ensure that clients feel comfortable receiving adult daycare services. The unique history of clients, including significant traumas and stresses they have experienced,their experiences as refugees or immigrants, and the effects of these experiences on their needs and capacities, is understood and respected bilingual staff. Capacity ensures that communication between staff and clients is clear, allowing client needs to be met in a comprehensive manner. Agency Qualifications Global Adult Day Services focuses primarily on provision of services to individuals and their families of Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, Vientiane and other refugee/immigrant communities. Global Adult Day Services works to provide functionally impaired, eligible adults with individualized and coordinated sets of Adult Daycare services 8 hours or less per day, including health services, social services, and nutritional services to assist in maintaining or improving participants' capabilities for self-care. Goals include: • Promoting the maximum level of independence for each individual; • Maintaining each individual's present level of functioning as long as possible, preventing or delaying further deterioration; • Providing an alternative setting for diagnostic and treatment procedures that will enable the impaired person to remain at home; • Supporting impaired adults by providing outlets and services to supplement essential self-care activities, which they cannot manage for themselves. Initial staff will include 4 full and contract individuals, male and female, including a registered nurse, a certified dietician, a registered physical therapist, a community activities director, certified nursing aides, and an administrative assistant/receptionist. Many staff is bilingual and bicultural all have prior experience, and all are able to perform essential job functions. The staff client ratio will be maintained at 1 to S for capable clients, and 1 to 5 for incapable clients. The executive director, Hanna Mumin administers and oversees all Global Adult Day Services functions. She is licensed in the social and medical services field for refugee and immigrant communities. She obtained a BSW degree in Social Work in Winona State Universally 2012. Hanna also was executive director for Universal Adult Day Care since 2010 in Rochester and St. Paul, MN. All staff is able to read, write, and follow written or verbal instructions and converse on the telephone, and high school diplomas, and prior work experience is required. Staff has had experience and/or training in providing community-based services to persons eligible for funding through the state-funded Alternative Care (AC) or the following Medical Assistance waiver programs: Elderly Waiver(EW), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Community Alternatives for Disabled Individuals (CADI). Emphasis is placed on insuring that all staff understand and respect confidentiality issues— Global Adult Day Services recognizes that this is especially important in refugee and immigrant communities, due to the close social networks that exist among individuals and families. UAD provides 4 hours of training for staff regarding adult day care services for vulnerable adults, as well as training regarding the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPA). Global Adult Day Services recognizes the desire and need of older adults to maintain as much independence as possible. Program services can enable many of the elderly from the communities served to maintain an independent lifestyle for a significantly longer period of time than if these services were not available. The cultural knowledge and sensitivity, as well as bilingual language capacities of Global Adult Day Services staff, are particularly important in successfully serving members of the target population. Given the cultural and social isolation confronting many Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities, the specialized services such as those provided by Global Adult Day Services are crucial. Direct service delivery will begin as soon as necessary approvals are received. Individuals have already expressed interest in receiving services at Global Adult Day Services. A comprehensive set of policies and procedures followed by Global Adult Day Services is available on request. Ability to Meet the Solicitation of Interest's Outcomes and Project Description Global Adult Day Services will provide outcome-based services flexible and responsive to eligible participants' needs as specified in their Community Support Plans (CSP), which are consistent with the principles of least restrictive environment, self-determination, and other rights of participants. Management is committed to ensuring services are of high quality, are cost-effective, and consistently based on best practices (with special attention to culturally and linguistically specific needs). Depending on the individual CSP, services provided are flexible and may include: 1. Health services: A registered nurse is available once a month, which may be increased based on the need of her services, providing nursing assessment, supervision,health monitoring, instruction, and treatment. The nurse administers medication, and documents care and changes in the client's condition. The nurse coordinates the care at the direction of the attending physician, and has the primary responsibility for maintaining the medical records as well as a list of professional health resources that may be needed as referrals by clients. The nurse may perform the initial home visit. 2. Social services: The social worker processes applicants to the program, including performing a social service assessment and may perform the initial home visit. He/she provides information and referral and family support services, as well as individual and group counseling, and referrals when needed,to meet clients' and family members' social and emotional needs. 3. Client activities: the structured program,under the direction of an activities director,provides a variety of recreational and social activities suited to the needs of the individual clients, and designed to stimulate intellect and interest,to rekindle motivation, and to encourage physical activity through individual and group activities. 4. Dietary services: Clients are served a congregate, noontime meal, or evening meal; and snacks that provide one third of the recommended daily allowances. All meals and snacks follow the individual dietary orders of their attending physicians. A dietitian plans the meals. In addition,a registered dietitian serves as consultant to the program,providing assessment, care planning, and dietary counseling services. Further information on the culturally specific nature of meals and snacks is provided below. 5. Pharmaceutical services: the registered nurse administers medications according to physician's orders, and in coordination with the client's individual schedule. Medications are provided from the client's community pharmacy. In addition, a consulting pharmacist visits Global Adult Day Services on at least a quarterly basis,to review the pharmaceutical services and the individual medication regimen of each client, and to make recommendations as needed. The following services can be arranged at a site away from Global Adult Day Services as per written agreement, unless the participants already has a primary care physician and other specialists: medical and dental; laboratory, and radiology; nutritional counseling; and occupational, physical, and speech language therapy services. Global Adult Day Services is committed to providing a safe, healthy environment. All clients are treated with dignity and respect, in a culturally appropriate manner. Services provide continuity of care as detailed in care plans, and are designed to prevent, shorten, or delay potential institutional placement. Global Adult Day Services staff pays special attention to providing culturally appropriate supports, consistent with Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities' traditions and culture,to help individuals with disabilities maintain their independence in the community and remain in their own homes. The interpersonal styles and behaviors of individuals and families served are honored and respected. The provision of services in a culturally specific facility and manner helps insure that clients are valued as community members, are able to access staff and resources to help them pursue their preferred preferences, an are able to pursue preferred life goals in a manner that is self-determined and as independent as possible. Global Adult Day Services will provide participants assistance, when needed, in managing activities of daily living such as dressing, grooming, and eating, and in developing or maintaining the skills necessary to mange these activities on their own. Group and individual's program activities and recreation include games popular in Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities, arts and crafts, bingo, dominoes,news and current events, sewing classes(for female clients who have shown strong interest in this f' area), basic computer, math, and English as a Second Language classes will also be available. A structured daily exercise program, overseen by and authorized by their physicians (Participation in these activities, as well as meals and snacks, education, socialization, and supervision are not the primary reason that clients attend Global Adult Day Services but are provided as part of approved care plans.) There is no minimum level of service required, nor does Global Adult Day Services refuse service to clients who need less than specified level of service. Global Adult Day Services also accepts private insurance such as Ucare, Blue Shield, and out-of-pocket pay. Ability to Serve Non-English Speaking Clients As noted above, the agency staff includes qualified, bilingual, bicultural individuals from the communities served. The background and training of staff allow Global Adult Day Services to provide appropriate, culturally specific services to Somali, South Sudanese's, Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities. Staff is bilingual, and thus able to communicate effectively with individuals and their family members who may not speak English. Global Adult Day Services is known and trusted in the refugee and immigrant communities served this facilitates referral of potential clients with the assurance that they will be understood both linguistically and culturally, and allows effective advocacy on behalf of clients by Global Adult Day Services. Adult day care services are provided in surroundings that reflect the history, culture, and traditions of clients, facilitating a sense of comfort and familiarity. Services are provided in gender-specific groups whenever appropriate, and the dietary traditions and needs of clients are understood and responded to effectively. The cultural competence and bilingual capacity of staff allows effective communication with the families of clients, helping to insure that comprehensive, effective, and appropriate care is provided in an integrated manner. (Further details regarding culturally specific service provision are provided below, under ability to Provide Additional Services.) Culturally specific preparation for non- Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities staff, prior to starting work, includes orientation and training that: emphasizes overall cultural awareness concepts; teaches how to communicate in culturally appropriate ways; and provides and understanding of cultural and religious practices, traditions, history, and norms. Training is provided in small groups and one-on-one, as needed. Ability to Provide Additional Services The cultural background, training, and identification of staff ensure the needs and preferences of clients are easily understood and accommodated. For instance, staff understands culturally specific gender roles, so they can relate to both male and female clients in appropriate ways, which are comfortable for clients, and they will know when separation by gender for specific activities is desired and/or necessary. Clients will be separated by gender when culturally appropriate, such as when using the gym and eating Culturally specific Programming: This will include games that are played in Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities; field trips that incorporate preferences to be outdoors such as trips to the zoo and other activities requested by clients. Meals/Snacks: Culturally specific meals/snacks will include Halaal food, prepared in Somali, South Sudanese's Laos, Cambodian, and Vientiane and other elders Refugee/immigrant communities' traditions, from menus created by a dietician. Care will be taken to provide a balanced diet that is nutritionally sound. Specialized menus items designed to meet specific health needs, such as for clients who are diabetic or suffer from high blood pressure, will be provided. Food services are contracted with an outside a licensed vendor; Hy-Vee and will follow all requirements outlined in Minnesota Rule 9555.9710 Subpart 1.A.-H; Including refrigeration, recommended dietary allowances, and frequency of snacks. A record of all menus for meals served will be maintained for at least six months. Transportation: The program provides direct transportation services between the client's home and Global Adult Day Services, Inc. at designated times. Global Adult Day Services will provide transportation for clients. A family may provide transportation for an individual if this better fits the client's needs, if they reside outside the transportation service area, or if they require longer hours of supervision at Global Adult Day Services. Contractual arrangement may also be used if and as needed. Medical transport, as well as trips for shopping or social services, may be offered based on needs identified in Care Plans. city tN ,y g d U PA ol en Mt E M 0 R A N D valley Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: August 28, 2017 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-158) to Allow for Adult Day Care Services at 6960 Madison Avenue West—Global Adult Day Services, Inc., Applicant Background Global Adult Day Services, Inc. has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an adult day care center at 6960 Madison Avenue West in Golden Valley. The property is zoned for Industrial use and guided for Industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan. The building is a 12-unit office condominium with multiple owners and tenants. The applicant intends on utilizing Unit#10 of the existing building for an adult day care center. There are no building additions planned with this proposal. Proposed Use Global Day Services, Inc. is proposing to serve up to 30 individuals from refugee and immigrant communities with a variety of services between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The exact number of individuals served at the proposed facility will depend on occupancy limits determined by the State Building and Fire Codes and by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Global Day Services, Inc. would occupy Unit#10 of the building, which is 2,000 square feet in size. The applicant's narrative further describes the types of services that would be offered to clients at this location (see attached). Adult day care centers have been allowed as a conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District since 2002. Other adult day care businesses have received CUP's in Industrial Zoning Districts throughout the city. Adult day care centers are defined in the Zoning Code as: "A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota that provides adult day care to functionally impaired adults on a regular basis for periods of less than twenty- four (24) hours a day in a setting other than a participant's home or the residence of the facility operator. Functionally impaired adult means an adult having a condition that includes 1) having substantial difficulty in carrying out one (1) or more of the essential major activities of daily living, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working; or 2) having a disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life; and 3) requiring support to maintain independence in the community." Property Summary The building at 6960 Madison Avenue West was constructed in 1979 as an office-warehouse condominium. Since then, the building has been primarily used for that purpose by a variety of tenants. The majority of businesses in the building are contractors, such as Northern Cabinets & Remodeling, Keyprime Roofing & Remodeling, and TLC Remodeling. In the units adjacent to the proposed day care, there is an art studio (Studio BonTon in Unit #11) and a business offering fire protection services (Service Fire Protection, Inc. in Unit #9). These are primarily daytime uses with few employees, so staff does not anticipate any issues or concerns with co-locating an adult day care business in the building. The building at 6960 Madison Avenue West is surrounded by other properties zoned for industrial use. Transportation The proximity of this property to Medicine Lake Road, Douglas Drive, and Winnetka Avenue provide good access to the site. The applicant noted that most of the elderly clients use some form of public transportation. Global Day Services, Inc. intends on providing transportation services for some clients with two full-size vans. Parking The site currently has a parking lot containing approximately 98 spaces, most of which are unoccupied in the daytime, evening, and weekends. The City Code requires 1 space per 5 persons cared for. With up to 30 persons cared for at this location, the applicant is required to have at least 6 off-street parking spaces available. There are more than 6 spaces currently available next to Unit #10. The existing parking lots provides sufficient parking for the proposed adult day care and the existing business. Employees Global Day Services, Inc. expects to employ 4-6 people at this site. Neighborhood Meeting A Neighborhood Meeting is not required for this application. There are no properties zoned for residential use near this property. Evaluation The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the following factors: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Global Day Services Inc. has demonstrated that demand exists for the unique social services they provide. Based on their expertise and experience with other similar adult day care centers, they are able to provide these services in an efficient and responsible way within the City of Golden Valley. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An adult day care center is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its property value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed use is minimal. The current uses in the building generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting in the introduction of the proposed adult day care center. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of clients and employees will be limited by occupancy limits for Unit#10. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a concerning increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed use will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests:The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications and only a utilization of the existing parking spaces on in the parking lot, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the City Code. 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects from the proposed use. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 158 allowing for an adult day care center at 6960 Madison Avenue West. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Maximum occupancy for Unit#10 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than 30 clients. If additional space or occupancy levels are desired in the future,the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. Hours of Operation for Global Adult Day Services Inc. are limited to 6:00 am —7:00 pm on Monday through Friday. Any extension to these hours requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to assign the parking near the entrance to Unit#10. The City reserves the right to require that these parking spaces be reserved for this use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to adequately address parking concerns. 5. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (5 pages) Plans submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017 (1 page) Survey (1 page) Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission r August 28, 2017 A regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, %uncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valle Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, Au st 28, 2017. Chair Baker called t meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those sent were Planning Commis oners Baker, Black, Blum, nson, Segelbau and Waldhauser. Also pr ent were Planning Ma r Jason Zimmerman, Associate P er/Grant Writer Emily ellner, and Admini ive Assistant Lisa Wittman. Com sioner Blenker was a sent. 1. Approval of utes August 7, 2017, Sp ' I PlanninC ission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the fourth r aph on page two and asked for clarification of the last sentence. MOVED by Waldhauser, se ded by eg aum and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the August 7, 2017, Speci eeting m utes submitted. Blum abstained. August 7, 201 egular Planni Commissio eeting Waldhauser ref d to the discussion out Tennant Com and asked for clarification of the third p graph. Segelba asked that Commissioner uchka's resignation from the nning Com ' ion be added to the minutes. M ED by Johnson, seconded by Wal hauser and motion carried 4 to 1 to appro the gust 7, 2017, Regular meeting minu s with the above noted change. Blum abstained. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 6960 Madison Avenue West- Adult Day Care Center in the Industrial Zoning District— CU-158 Applicant: Global Adult Day Services, Inc. Address: 6960 Madison Ave. W. Purpose: To operate an Adult Day Care Center in the existing building. Goellner explained the applicant's proposal to operate an adult day care center in unit #10 of the office/condominium building located at 6960 Madison Avenue West. She stated that the property is zoned and guided for industrial uses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 2 Goellner explained that there will be 4 to 6 employees on site and up to 30 clients or as many as allowed by the State Building Code and the MN Department of Human Services.She stated that the hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 8 am to 5 pm. Goellner referred to the transportation on the site and stated that there is good access into the site because there are two driveways, the site is accessible by transit and walking, and that the applicant will have two full-size vans that they will use to transport some of their clients. She added that there are 98 existing parking spaces and that the applicant is required to have 6 spaces for this proposed use. Goellner stated that all other zoning requirements have been met and that the engineering, building, and fire-related issues will be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. She stated that a neighborhood meeting was not required in this case because there are no residential properties nearby. Goellner stated that based on the evaluation of the factors listed in the Zoning Code staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions included: the applicant may serve up to 30 clients or whatever is allowed by the Building Code, the Fire Code, and the Department of Human Services, and that the hours of operation be limited to 6 am to 7 pm Monday through Friday. Segelbaum noted that this building was built in 1979 and questioned if the accessibility and access issues will have to be addressed, or if they would be grandfathered in. Goellner stated that the number of accessible parking spaces is addressed in the Building Code and that a change in use will require the building to be "brought up to code." Segelbaum asked how staff came up the amount of clients allowed. Goellner stated that the applicant requested 30 clients, but the final number of clients will be determined during the final building design based on Building and Fire Codes. Baker asked if the final number will be determined before this proposal goes before the City Council. Goellner said no because the applicant wants to have their land use approvals before they do they final design plans. Waldhauser referred to the transportation issues and noted that there is limited bus service on Medicine Lake Road and on Douglas Drive and questioned what other types of transportation would be used. Goellner said families would drop off and pick up clients and that clients will use bus service and Metro Mobility. Waldhauser asked if the definition of Adult Day Care Center is a State definition or a City definition. Goellner said the definition was created by City staff. Waldhauser questioned why the City would want to limit Adult Day Care centers to functionally impaired adults as mentioned in the definition. She added that some clients might just need a social facility. Goellner said she would do additional research on the definition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 3 Black noted that the staff report stated that there will be four employees but the narrative refers to more positions. Goellner stated that they are proposing to have 4 to 6 employees. Blum asked if there is a target market in terms of income. Goellner said she believes the applicant is targeting people who are at 50% below the median income level. Johnson referred to the hours of operation and said it would be his preference to have applicants work with staff regarding the hours of operation so that what the applicant is requesting and what is in the Conditional Use Permit match. Goellner stated that staff is suggesting limiting the hours from 6 am to 7 pm but that does not mean they have to be open those hours. Baker asked what standards or inspections are involved in licensing. Goellner said they are related to safety and health issues. She added that when the applicant applies for a building permit staff will require a copy of their license. Baker asked if the neighboring properties were contacted. Goellner said yes, and added that this property has a condo association who will decide if they want to allow this type of use. Johnson asked if the City Attorney has reviewed this proposal in regard to liability since there will be a registered nurse and doctor visiting the site. Goellner stated that the City would not be liable for the medical services provided. Baker referred to the staff report which states that the other uses in the building are primarily daytime uses, with few employees, so staff does not anticipate any issues or concerns with co-locating an adult dare care business in the building. He asked if that was written in error because the adult care business is also a daytime use. Goellner clarified that the other uses in the building aren't very large so adding an adult day care center won't put the building over capacity. Baker asked if the applicant has other facilities. Omar Hassan, Applicant, said they have another day care center in St. Paul and that they want to close that one and open a smaller one in Golden Valley. Blum asked Hassan about their target market. Hassan explained that their business is designed to save costs for the State. He stated that the clients would come to the center for six hours per day. Blum asked if approving this proposal would mean that the City is helping them provide affordable care for seniors. Hassan said yes. Baker asked about the costs. Hassan said the costs are approximately $48 to $49 per day and are set by the State. Segelbaum said this is an excellent service and something Golden Valley needs. He noted that the area shown on the floor plan, used the majority of the time, seems small for 30 people. Hassan stated that the space is divided into two with 1,000 square feet in the front used for office space and cot rooms and approximately 1,000 square feet in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 4 the back that will be used for an activity room. Segelbaum asked the applicant how he determines that the building can accommodate 30 people. Hassan stated that they need 5 square feet per person and that the State will determine how many clients they can have. Johnson asked the applicant if they will be serving Golden Valley residents. Hassan said yes. Baker noted that the application states that they will be serving youth as well and asked the applicant what the demographic will be. Hassan said they will serve clients 18 and older. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this sounds like a great service and it seems to fit in the proposed location so she is in favor of it. She added that the regulatory issues will be addressed at the State or County level. Baker agreed. Blum also agreed and said it will be a more affordable option than 24/7 care. Segelbaum said the number of clients concerns him, but he is confident that the Department of Human Services will determine how many clients they can have. He suggested adding a condition of approval that states they can have no more clients than allowed by the State license. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit#158 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Global Day Services Inc. has demonstrated that demand exists for the unique social services they provide. Based on their expertise and experience with other similar adult day care centers, they are able to provide these services in an efficient and responsible way within the City of Golden Valley. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: An adult day care center is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its property value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips generated by the proposed use is minimal. The current uses in the building generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting in the introduction of the proposed adult day care center. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 28, 2017 Page 5 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of clients and employees will be limited by occupancy limits for Unit #10. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a concerning increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed use will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications and only a utilization of the existing parking spaces on in the parking lot, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the City Code. 10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects from the proposed use. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Maximum occupancy for Unit#10 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than allowed by the State. If additional space or occupancy levels are desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. Hours of Operation for Global Adult Day Services Inc. are limited to 6 am — 7 pm Monday through Friday. Any extension to these hours requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to assign the parking near the entrance to Unit#10. The City reserves the right to require that these parking spaces be reserved for this use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to adequately address parking concerns. 5. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. -g n Lo , I 9l 0CL fr CL LHI I i I CD F7— V) W Z S x 4 a OC w Q � 7 \ o , O Y �+O Z a G G z O V =c rn E y N w+ S C E-2 O m O V 4 O w O v0i N C O;a i L 3 0 W d a~a CW N p q O NEQ C O+CN ^NU 3 a U dL O Q a a L c N ^`�.•- w m a O uv L U V a+c' i w�'..'.•-L L qM � � o tJ v wa� 0 0 ds my a fir- N zJz all _ d. Fa-•.Z. ;� U H WO C:OQ VOI d� f V U a a G av S �m N J a G N O p q y-y� W U —5m 5 m O O aLi^ Om 9 O O N :. �W N T r W 6LL W Z 8 q u T g N L N �^.- OC� Qa NVi ZW N ^Q ULL O N L J � i N O m � ui da U-O T ^�E c a S= a•r- l.ta ¢ZO mOu � c 3w d 2rna+ uN aL tO�L O^CL y.� O ,ON OF J V~1JQ O�t¢L j +L+e>10 O tML O Ta N S W 1�- yUj^ ppJ {y W W L ai LwV-C LLNa LYS-AUL•~ tD O T U' H O O•�1�+ U H O O Z g Y U N V N 6 W d W N L C W yLL O TCi p,w o T T --2,02>-,PO;00 S 06 � 1 1 ``a\J ti M � h W o U C N� C . gor hY fru, C 9'92 ; - G OF --, U — r:— — —.--CO cp o p—� �1 Y — OX All 01 Oj O I o Q O o 0 o p ^1 cD m - - �0� �a tj l �[ Q � � M„on;oo oo/v 'ON 3 11 J ORDINANCE NO. 624, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 157 6960 Madison Avenue West Global Adult Day Services, Inc., Applicant The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 entitled “Land Use Regulations (Zoning)” is amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, and Section 11.36, by approving a Conditional Use Permit for a certain tract of land at 6960 Madison Avenue West, thereby allowing Adult Day Care in the Industrial Zoning District. This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the findings of the Planning Commission pursuant to City Code Section 11.80, Subd. 2(G), which findings are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as follows: 1. Global Day Services Inc. has demonstrated that demand exists for the unique social services they provide. Based on their expertise and experience with other similar adult day care centers, they are able to provide these services in an efficient and responsible way within the City of Golden Valley. 2. An adult day care center is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Renovations to the building on the subject property may have a positive impact on its property value, but staff does not anticipate that the new use would have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding property values. 4. The number of trips generated by the proposed use is minimal. The current uses in the building generate a very comparable amount of traffic to the site, which do not cause any negative impacts to the area. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas resulting in the introduction of the proposed adult day care center. 5. The proposed use may generate a minimal increase in the number of employees at the location, but the number of clients and employees will be limited by occupancy limits for Unit #10. The potential for a minimal increase in the number of employees on site does not threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a concerning increase in noise levels. The majority of activities associated with the proposed use will occur within the interior of the building, thereby reducing the impact to the surroundings. 7. The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications and only a utilization of the existing parking spaces on in the parking lot, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. The applicant must abide by all regulations regarding fencing, screening, outdoor lighting, and outdoor storage, as stated in the City Code. 10.Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects from the proposed use. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to the following specific conditions: Ordinance No. 624 -2-September 19, 2017 1. The plans by submitted by Design 2 Build, Inc. on July 26, 2017, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Maximum occupancy for Unit #10 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than 30 clients. If additional space or occupancy levels are desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended and approved to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. Hours of Operation for Global Adult Day Services Inc. are limited to 6 am - 7 pm Monday through Friday. Any extension to these hours requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. In the event that complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require signage be installed to assign the parking near the entrance to Unit #10. The City reserves the right to require that these parking spaces be reserved for this use. Other modifications to the days or hours of operation may be required to adequately address parking concerns. 5. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: G.V. Industrial Condominium Number One Those parts of Lots 10 and 11 lying southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 9 and those parts of Lots 8 and 9 lying west of a line 113.01 feet east of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said Lot 9, and its extensions, all in Block 1, Advertising-Creative Center. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Sec. 11.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of September, 2017. /s/Shepard M. Harris Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: /s/Kristine A. Luedke Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 6. A. Adopt Mixed Income Housing Policy Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary The City has identified the need for affordable housing as a high priority in the Comprehensive Plan. Mixed income housing has been identified as an important component of the City’s affordable housing goals. Research shows that mixed income communities are a key component in building economic vitality and competitiveness by attracting and retaining residents, as well as supporting major employers. Several strategies have been researched for implementation at the local government level. One strategy to meet this goal is to work with local developers to reserve a portion of their new units for low- and moderate-income residents. In order to adopt a policy that’s feasible in the Golden Valley housing market, the City has conducted a community-wide assessment of housing supply, demand, policies, incentives, and regulations as part of the update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan (report available on City website). To build on this research, the City received technical assistance from the Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors (ULI MN/RCM) and Grounded Solutions Network (see attached reports). The Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy was crafted based on this research as well as best practices from other cities throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul region (such as Edina, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka). The Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy requires that a portion of new housing units in eligible projects must meet affordability requirements set forth in the Policy. The Policy will act as an implementation tool to aid the City in meeting is short-term and long-term housing goals. Attachments •Resolution Adopting the Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy (2 pages) •Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy (6 pages) •Mixed Income 101: An Introduction for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Region, 2017 (10 pages) •Crafting a Mixed Income Housing Strategy: Recommendation for Golden Valley by Grounded Solutions Network, dated June 26, 2017 (18 pages) •Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan, dated August 9, 2017 (1 page) •City of St. Louis Park Affordable Housing Initiatives, 2017 (4 pages) •ULI Minnesota Regional Council of Mayors Housing Initiative Impacts, 2008-2017 (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution adopting Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy. Resolution 17-52 September 19, 2017 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MIXED INCOME HOUSING POLICY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the “City”) has identified the need for affordable housing as a high priority in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a community-wide assessment of housing supply, demand, policies, incentives, and regulations as part of the update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has identified mixed income housing as an important component of the City’s affordable housing goals; and WHEREAS, the Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors (“ULI MN/RCM”) and Grounded Solutions Network have provided the City with technical assistance to study the feasibility of a mixed income housing policy as part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Regional Mixed Income Housing Feasibility Education and Action Project; and WHEREAS, technical assistance from an experienced consultant has assisted staff in the research and development the Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy as an implementation tool to aid the City in meeting is short-term and long-term housing goals; and WHEREAS, City staff has drafted the Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy (the “Policy”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, based on consultant recommendations and best practices from other cities throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul region; and WHEREAS, the Policy identifies certain goals and benchmarks that the City intends to either incentivize or require, as applicable, in connection with the issuance of City approvals for eligible residential multi-family development projects, including but not limited to requiring a portion of new housing units to meet the rental rate requirements set forth in the Policy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Golden Valley that the Council adopt the Golden Valley Mixed Income Housing Policy. _____________________________ Shep Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution No. 17-52 -2-September 19, 2017 EXHIBIT A MIXED INCOME HOUSING POLICY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY MIXED-INCOME HOUSING POLICY The purpose of this Policy is to meet the City's goal of preserving and promoting economically diverse housing options in our community by creating high quality housing in Golden Valley for households with a variety of income levels, ages, and sizes. The City recognizes the need to provide affordable housing to households of a broad range of income levels in order to maintain a diverse population and to provide housing for those who live or work in the City. Without intervention, the trend toward rising housing prices in new developments will continue. The City is adopting this Policy to encourage development of units that are affordable to low and moderate income households and working families. The requirements set forth in this Policy further the housing goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan to create and preserve affordable housing opportunities. These requirements are intended to provide a structure for participation by both the public and private sectors in the production of affordable housing. I. Applicability and Minimum Project Size This Policy applies to: 1. Market rate residential rental developments that add or create ten or more units and receive approvals under a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development, or that receive Financial Assistance from the City, subject to all applicable sections of the City Code. 2. All for-sale residential developments that add or create ten or more units. 3. Any residential development for which the developer voluntarily opts in to this Policy. II. Affordable Dwelling Units A. General Requirement A development that is subject to this Policy shall include Affordable Dwelling Units. The minimum number of Affordable Dwelling Units required shall be determined based on the affordability standard chosen by the developer according to the criteria set forth in table T-1 below. Table T-1 Number of Affordable Minimum Affordability Standard Units Required Rental Projects At least 15% of total project units Affordable for households at 60% (chose one option) Area Median Income ("AMI"); OR At least 10% of total project units Affordable for households at 50% AMI. For-Sale Projects At least 10% of total project units Affordable for households at 80% AMI. B. Calculation of Units Required The number of Affordable Dwelling Units required shall be based on the total number of dwelling units approved by the City. If the final calculation includes a fraction, the fraction of a unit shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. If an occupied property with existing dwelling units is expanded, the number of required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be based on the total number of units following completion of expansion. C. Calculation of Area Median Income ("AMI") For purposes of this Policy, Area Median Income means the Area Median Income calculated annually by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program. D. Rent Level Calculation The monthly rental price for Affordable Dwelling Units shall include rent and utility costs and shall be based on the AMI for the metropolitan area that includes Golden Valley adjusted for bedroom size. E. Period of Affordability All Affordable Dwelling Units shall remain affordable for at least twenty (20) years. F. Location of Affordable Dwelling Units Except as otherwise specifically authorized under this Policy, all Affordable Dwelling Units shall be located within the development. G. Phased Development Construction of Affordable Dwelling Units shall be concurrent with construction of market rate dwelling units. For projects in which a development is to be constructed in multiple phases, each phase shall consist of at least ten percent (10%) Affordable Dwelling Units. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the total number of Affordable Dwelling Units in the completed project shall comply with the requirements of section II(A) above. III. Standards for Affordable Dwelling Units A. Size and Design of Affordable Units The size and design of Affordable Dwelling Units need not be identical to that of market rate units, but must be consistent with and comparable to market rate units in the same development. The size and design of Affordable Dwelling Units, including bedroom count and accessibility, shall be approved by the City. B. Exterior/Interior appearance The exterior materials and design of Affordable Dwelling Units shall be indistinguishable in style and quality from the market rate units in the same development. The interior finish and quality of construction of Affordable Dwelling Units shall at a minimum be comparable to entry level rental or ownership housing in the City. IV. Integration of Affordable Dwelling Units A. Distribution of Affordable Housing Units Affordable Dwelling Units shall be incorporated into the overall project and shall not be separated from market rate units unless expressly allowed to be located in a separate building or a different location under section V of this Policy. B. Tenants Affordable Dwelling Units in rental projects shall be rented only to income eligible families during the period of affordability. An income eligible family may remain in the Affordable Dwelling Unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the family does not exceed one-hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI. C. Home Buyers For-sale Affordable Dwelling Units shall be sold only to income eligible families during the period of affordability. If a home is resold during the period of affordability, it shall be resold at a price that is affordable for households at eighty percent (80%) of AMI. V. Alternatives to On-Site Development of Affordable Dwelling Units The City may approve one or more of the following alternatives to providing Affordable Dwelling Units at a location other than the project location ("Off-site Affordable Dwelling Units"). 1. Dedication of Existing Units: Creating Off-Site Affordable Dwelling Units by restricting existing dwelling units through covenants, contractual arrangements, or resale restrictions. The City shall determine whether the proposed units are suitable for affordable housing and whether the form and content of such restrictions comply with this Policy. Off-site Affordable Dwelling Units shall be located within the City. The restriction of such existing units must result in the creation of units that are of equivalent quality and size of the Affordable Dwelling Units which would have been constructed on-site if this alternative had not been utilized. 2. An alternative proposed by the applicant that directly provides or enables the provision of Affordable Dwelling Units within the City. The alternative must be approved by the City and made a condition of approval of the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement. All alternatives must be approved by the City Council and agreed to by the applicant in the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement. The applicant must show evidence acceptable to the City that a formal commitment to the proposed alternative is in place. The City shall not approve an alternative unless the applicant demonstrates: 1. The alternative provides an equivalent or greater amount of Affordable Dwelling Units in a way that the City determines better achieves the goals, objectives and policies of the City's housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan than providing them onsite; and 2. The alternative will not cause the City to incur any net cost as a result of the alternative compliance mechanism. VI. Incentives for Developers The City may provide incentives to participating developments in the form of exceptions from the underlying zoning codes. These incentives may include: 1. Rental developments: A. A minimum of a thirty-three percent (33%) reduction in required parking spaces B. A minimum of a ten percent (10%) density bonus 2. For-sale developments: Impact fee waivers for Affordable Dwelling Units. VII. Non-Discrimination Based on Rent Subsidies: Developments covered by this Policy must not discriminate against tenants who would pay their rent with federal, state or local public assistance, or tenant based federal, state or local subsidies, including, but not limited to rental assistance, rent supplements, and Housing Choice Vouchers. VIII. Affordable Housing Plan A. Applicability Developments that are subject to this Policy shall prepare and submit an Affordable Housing Plan to the City. B. Approval The Affordable Housing Plan shall be approved by the City. Minor modifications to the plan shall be subject to approval by the City Manager. Major modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Items shall be designated as major or minor in the Affordable Housing Plan, C. Contents The Affordable Housing Plan shall include at least the following: 1. General information about the nature and scope of the development. 2. The total number of market rate units and Affordable Dwelling Units in the development. 3. The floor plans for the Affordable Dwelling Units showing the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each unit. 4. The approximate square footage of each Affordable Dwelling Unit and average square foot of market rate unit by types. 5. Building floor plans and site plans showing the location of each Affordable Dwelling Unit. 6. A good faith estimate of the price of each Affordable Dwelling Unit. The price of Affordable Dwelling Units may be adjusted at the time of sale if there has been a change in the median income or a change in the formulas used in this Policy. 7. The order of completion of market rate and Affordable Dwelling Units. 8. Documentation and specifications regarding the exterior appearance, materials and finishes of the development for each Affordable Dwelling Unit illustrating that the appearance is comparable to the appearance of market rate units. 9. An Affordable Dwelling Unit Management Plan setting forth the policies and procedures that will be used to administer the Affordable Dwelling Units in accordance with the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement and this Policy. 10. For requests to an alternative to on-site provision of affordable housing, evidence that the proposed alternative will further affordable housing opportunities in the City to an equivalent or greater extent than compliance with the otherwise applicable on-site requirements of this Policy, and evidence that the alternative will not cause the City to incur any net cost as a result of the alternative compliance mechanism. 11. Any and all other information that the City may require to verify compliance with this Policy. IX. Recorded Agreements, Conditions and Restrictions An Affordable Housing Performance Agreement (the "Performance Agreement") shall be executed between the City and the developer in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Performance Agreement shall be based on the Affordable Housing Plan described in Section VII and shall include: A. the location, number, type, and size of affordable housing units to be constructed; B. sales and/or rental terms; occupancy requirements; C. a timetable for completion of the units; D. restrictions to be placed on the units to ensure their affordability; and E. any additional terms the City may require. The applicant shall execute any and all documents deemed necessary by the City, including, without limitation, restrictive covenants and other related instruments, to ensure the affordability of the Affordable Dwelling Units in accordance with this Policy. The applicant shall prepare and record all documents, restrictions, easements, covenants, and/or agreements that are specified by the City as conditions of approval of the application prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any development subject to this Policy. Such Documents shall be recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, as applicable. X. Definitions Affordable Dwelling Unit: A dwelling unit within a residential project subject to this Policy that meets the applicable affordability standards in Table T-1. Financial Assistance: Funds derived from the City, including but is not limited to funds from the following sources: A. The City of Golden Valley B. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) C. Reinvestment Assistance Program D. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) &Tax Abatement E. Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Funds F. Land Write-downs Affordable Housing Plan: A plan that documents policies and procedures for administering the Affordable Dwelling Units in accordance with the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement. Affordable Housing Performance Agreement: An Agreement between the City and the developer that formally sets forth development approval and requirements to achieve Affordable Housing in accordance with this Policy. i� �r s /+1 `1. AOL i Mixed Income Housing - An Introduction for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Region • = a This report made possible by The Minneapolis/St.Paul Regional Mixed Income Housing Feasibility Education and Action Project,a project sponsored by The Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land Institute Minnesota/ Regional Council of Mayors(ULI MN/RCM) Housing Initiative,with funding support from The McKnight Foundation and Metropolitan Council. What is Mixed • Income Housing? •• ,• -� - _ •� -••• - Mixed income housing refers to ••• . •- - - - developments that are primarily market rate, but have a modest _ . . . , .• component of affordable •. .. . .. . -. . . -.• housing. Often, the development . . -. . . . . is 80 or 90 percent market rate -• •• -• • •• • • . - units,with the remainder of • • -• • • • 8.6 • • the homes reserved for low- or moderate-income residents. j (0 2017 1 Grounded Solutions Network 1503.493.1000 I GroundedSolutions.org Page 1 Research indicates that mixed income communities are a key part of building economic prosperity and competitiveness by attracting and retaining residents to support key employers. One strategy to meet this goal is to work with local developers to reserve a portion of their new units for low-or moderate-income residents. In some cases,the affordable housing set aside can be mandatory, and in others, it is part of a voluntary program that is supported by incentives,such as density bonuses or tax increment financing.While this strategy has worked well in many cities throughout the country, it is a relatively new—but quickly expanding—concept in the Minneapolis/St. Paul(MSP) region. There are many types of mixed-income housing policies.While this report groups them for simplicity,cities can select elements to create a unique structure that fits their local market and achieves their community goals.The most common policies are listed below: • Mandatory mixed income housing policies(inclusionary housing): Requires all new housing to include a portion of the units reserved for lower-income households. • Planning and zoning policies: Requires a mix of incomes to be included in new housing if developers request or receive a land-use modification,such as zoning changes,density bonuses or parking reductions. • City subsidies: Requires a mix of incomes in new housing if the city provides a public subsidy, such as tax increment financing(TIF), fee waivers or tax abatements. There are also a number of non-zoning strategies that can promote affordable housing, like requiring mixed-income housing when selling city land. Learn More This publication is an introduction to mixed-income housing.To learn more, visit housingcounts.org. To explore the economics of mixed-income housing and to design a mixed-income policy, visit Family Housing Fund/ Urban Land Institute of Minnesota's interactive, mixed-income calculator:http:/Imncatcutator.housinjzcounts.or Woodframe Rental Suburban. 250 0 OY,Cost r $1,020, ' 6.91°I° VAuc $44,984,S69 C— CV) Fle UnrU+ Affordable Units Templates Help Sara Prim ® 250 I"., 0% ' Density Bonus(Upzoning Cunstruetimr Cost(SgFI) o Average Market Renl •� •� •- $95 • 5t 567 e A o i• Ovemew Primary AMI Level Land Cost Per Mara Required Profit -0 $550,000 s•��ss�l_ 1or. s.xr4 B Parking Ratio(Spaces-unit) OSL wn Cap Rate I Suburban Edge ""I i _ ! Suburban ISO Adjust Parking Cost Per Space Area Median income Urban $19.167 0% $85.800 8 '.Urban Center Urban Canter Core l7Mar yThe projec cou•tl be worth$45 mi1on but R Mould only cost$44 C.fN mi9bnlCodevelop apro6tolS1 mPion 12'%pro+tl 1 • •-• • • • 1 111 • •-• • •IRI I• The Need — Housing for All The Minneapolis/St.Paul region continues to grow and thrive. Good schools, beautiful parks and great neighborhoods attract employers and families to the area.Sperling's BestPlaces called the Twin Cities"the most playful metro in America" because of its museums, playgrounds and recreational opportunities. Companies,taking advantage of a well-educated workforce, continue to add many new jobs.These regional strengths impact market prices and put additional strain on people with Lower than average incomes,who also make an important contribution to the economy. As the population grows, home prices rise,and it becomes ' harder for families with modest incomes to afford a safe and decent home.Additionally, much of the region's new development has been luxury rentals,which do not meet the need for housing across all income levels.Currently, over 140,000 households are severely cost-burdened renters, meaning they pay more than half of their income in rent. Forty percent of new households in the coming decades will be low income,and consequently will struggle to find housing if cities do not intentionally create a full range of housing choices. Between 2020 and 2030,the Minneapolis/St.Paul region will need to add 37,400 homes affordable to low-or moderate-income households to meet the future demand created by economic growth (Metropolitan Council,2040 Housing Policy Plan). The lack of affordable housing impacts not only residents, but also the business community,the environment and the regional economy.When people cannot find affordable ;K housing near their jobs and move outside of the urban core, there is a cost. People commute long distances,creating traffic and pollution. Employers have trouble hiring and retaining the employees they need. Equally important,families are affected. ,. If parents are spending 30,40 or even 50 percent of their 5' income on housing,they have less to spend on everyday needs from local retailers and are unable to save for college or invest in their children's future. ► While cities and nonprofit organizations have long invested in affordable housing development,the current strategies alone cannot meet the need.Stakeholders are looking for innovative , solutions to complement existing public programs and investments.As detailed in this report, more and more cities are implementing mixed-income policies that integrate affordable housing into new market rate developments. °r Communities often embrace mixed income housing because '{ people want housing options, but these communities are more t j reluctant to support affordable housing concentrated in one ,! project or area.Additionally, research has shown that mixed income communities are good for families.The neighborhoods in which children grow up have a powerful effect on the 4 °4. +E 6 likelihood of graduating high school,going to college or t � getting a high-paying job 2. 411'-' http://inclusionaryhousing.org/inclusionary-housing-explained/what-prob- l ems-does-iz-address/economic-integration/ 2017 • ••• Sotutions Network1 4• 111 1 GroundedSoLutions.org ®i ,rTl, '�►; , .K f , } r What is Affordable Housing? Generally, proving affordable housing means ensuring there are homes for people of various income levels in a community.Often, policymakers use the area median income(AMI)as a benchmark to define"low income" and"moderate income"within a city,county or metropolitan area.The AMI in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region in 2016 was$85,800 for a family of four.The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)states that households should not pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing."Affordable housing" is typically defined as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a low-or moderate-income household's earnings. Often,community members are surprised to discover that many of their neighbors or family members would qualify for low-or moderate-income housing. Because housing prices have generally increased faster than incomes, many homeowners who bought their property years ago would not be able to purchase a home in the same neighborhood at today's prices.Specifically,according to Family Housing Fund,a family would have to earn $44,100 per year($21.20 per hour)to afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment,or$60,000 per year($28.85 per hour)to afford to buy a modest single-family house. However, half of the jobs in the Twin Cities metro area pay Less than$41,930. Different cities prioritize their efforts to provide housing affordable to different income levels, based on the local housing market and needs.Some sample incomes, professions and affordable housing prices are listed below. Percent of 60% 80% Single mom,works as teacher, Family with two parents and two kids. • Dad is a chef and mom is a half-time raising two kids nurse's aide Typical $52,000 $62,000 Affordable rental price $1,300 $1,700 including utilities Note:Some cities will target different income levels,such as 50 percent of area median income.The affordable price is adjusted for household size.Different cities may make slightly different assumptions in their calculations. Source:Metropolitan Council 2017 • •-• Solutions Network503.493.1000 oundedsolutions.org Page Mandatory Mixed Income Housing Programs Mixed income housing(sometimes referred to as inclusionary housing) programs are local policies that tap the economic gains from rising real estate values to create affordable housing for people with tower-incomes. In their simplest form, mandatory mixed income housing programs require developers to sell or rent a percentage of new residential units to lower-income residents. Mandatory mixed income housing programs often apply to all developments, but some apply in just one area of the city or to specific types of new buildings.The required set-aside is typically between 5 percent and 30 percent of new housing units or floor area. Many, but not all, programs partially offset the cost of providing affordable units by offering developers benefits such as tax abatements, parking reductions or the right to build at higher densities. Most programs recognize that it's not always feasible or desirable to include affordable on-site units within market-rate projects. In these cases,developers can choose an alternative,such as payment of an in-lieu fee or provision of affordable off-site units in another project. While planning flexibility and local subsidies partially offset developers'costs of providing mandatory affordable units, these same incentives can help entice developers to voluntarily provide affordable housing.This type of voluntary or incentive-based mixed-income housing policy is discussed in more detail below. Planning and Zoning Incentives Many cities tie mixed income requirements to zoning changes or planning flexibility.These programs are as .... varied as they are numerous. Essentially,they all offer flexibility in the usual zoning code rules, such as increased height or density,to incentivize developers to building affordable homes. i .a Planning incentives,as compared to financial incentives, which are described below, are often desirable from the city's perspective because they do not have a significant impact on the city's budget. Planning incentives create new value and can feel like a win-win option. However,to be effective,the value of the incentive must be large enough Mr to offset the additional developer costs. In many cities in �j= A the Minneapolis/St. Paul region,this has not been the case; The developer of this 38-unit property in Berkeley, developers have not participated in voluntary programs California,provided seven affordable units in exchange because the balance of incentives and requirements are not for an extra story. properly aligned.This is the inherent challenge in voluntary programs. Density Bonuses and Parking Reduction Many communities offer planning incentives,such as density bonuses or reduced parking requirements,to developments that include affordable homes.Sometimes there is a set formula. In contrast,the City of Minnetonka does not have a set formula, rather they negotiate the number of units individually with each developer. Density bonuses are common across the nation,with many examples from North Carolina to California. Depending on the local housing market and land use policies, planning incentives can be very valuable to developers. Where the zoning code strictly limits density,a developer can use the density bonus to build more housing units on a site and increase the project profitability by enough to fully offset the cost of providing affordable housing. Even reduced parking requirements can be valuable enough to significantly offset affordable housing requirements, particularly in To learn more about the value of incentives, visit the Mixed-Income Housing Calculator www.mncalcutator.housingcounts.org 2017 • •-• Solutions Network I GroundedSotutions.org places where expensive structured parking(multi-story or underground garages) is the only option. However, increased density may not benefit all projects.An important limit to density bonuses is the additional construction costs of different construction methods associated with taller buildings. For example,the cost per square foot to build a five-story or six- story building would likely not change significantly. Here,a density bonus makes sense. However,to add a seventh floor typically costs more because the taller building requires more expensive steel-frame construction instead of wood-frame construction. In this case, a density bonus would not benefit the developer because the change in construction type could add millions of dollars in costs—more than the value of adding more units. Zoning Changes and Variances Some cities require affordable housing for all developments that request or receive a = zoning change. In some cases,the rezoning is initiated by the city and the requirements are mandatory. For example,cities often rezone the land around transit stations to allow higher density development.This Cts' J rezoning,as well as the public investment in transit,creates significant value,which can help offset the cost of the affordable housing requirements.Tyson's Corner in suburban Virginia is one of the most I ' famous examples of this approach.The county rezoned the land around a planned This development in Edina will contain 11 affordable homes. railway station in exchange for 20 percent of the units being affordable.All the new housing developments were required to provide affordable housing, but because the increased density was so valuable, developers generally approved of the new rules. Similarly,some cities require affordable housing if developers request a zoning change or variance. In these cases,the program are considered voluntary. For example,the City of Edina requires that developers provide 10 percent of all units as affordable when rezoning a parcel to Planned Unit Development or making a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Other cities, like Chaska, Minnesota,apply the policies to a broader set of zoning variances, including amendments to lot sizes, increased densities, reduced setbacks and reduced rights-of-way.According to Kevin Ringwald, Chaska's Planning and Development Director,"The policy has worked for us.Originally,we were only getting very expensive housing and now we are getting a good mix. By being flexible and finding the right incentives,we have mixed income housing on a lot of sites that would not have considered it." Nationally,the City of Boston is a commonly cited example of this approach. Other Planning Incentives Another planning incentive is to add more approval certainty for projects that include affordable housing. Because projects that receive pre-approval are lower risk, often developers will accept a lower rate of return in exchange for meeting the agreed-upon conditions for pre-approval.Additionally,the faster processing can reduce interest costs on Loans. For example,a city could eliminate a conditional use permit requirement for developments that meet strict design guidelines and include affordable housing.The city would review projects administratively to ensure that the design standards are met. However,the value of certainty alone,though significant,does not often entice developers to voluntarily provide affordable homes, particularly in places that already have efficient,developer-friendly approval processes.Some cities combine fast-track processing and administrative approvals with other incentives as part of a total benefits package. The SMART housing program in Austin,Texas, is a successful example of this package approach.While beneficial for developers,streamlined approvals limit opportunity for public input during the development process.Cities should work with their residents before adopting a policy so they understand the tradeoffs and ensure the design review process and other safeguards are robust. 1:17 1 Grounded SoLutions Network503.493.1000 oundedSoLutions.org r Land Economics Zoning changes significantly affect the price of land because zoning often dictates the number of housing units that can be built on a given parcel.This affects a developer's potential profit on new construction and the amount they are wilting to pay for land. Developers often refer to the cost of land not in terms of price per acre, but rather as price per unit or "price per door." If a parcel is zoned for 100 units(assuming it is realistic to build those units), and the price per door is 520,000,a developer would pay$2,000,000 for the land. However, if the zoning were changed to allow 200 units, a developer would potentially be willing to pay up to 54,000,000 for the same parcel. Reducing parking requirements also increases land prices. Parking structures are expensive to build, and the net result is developers can pay less for land if parking requirements are high. Especially in transit-oriented locations, developers can reduce their costs per unit by providing fewer parking spaces. By reducing their development costs,developers are able to pay more for land and still meet their profit targets. Conversely, rules that add costs to developers, like affordable housing requirements, decrease the amount that developers can pay for land and still make a profit.This is why it is often beneficial to combine affordable housing planning and zoning changes.Tying affordable housing requirements to upzoning has two benefits: it helps stabilize rising land prices, and it ensures that community members, not just landowners, share in the benefits of higher density development. Land values don't change overnight, and some communities have carefully phased in mixed income requirements with the expectation that developers,when they can see changes coming,will be able to negotiate appropriate concessions from landowners before they commit to projects that will be impacted by the new requirements.Similarly, some programs have a clearer and more predictable impact on land prices than others.Consistent,widespread and stable rules translate into land price reductions more directly than complex and changing requirements with many alternatives. 2017 I Grounded Solutions Network 1 503.493.1000 1 GroundedSolutions.org Page 7 What's Happening in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Region? Ty ie of Program Percentage of Affordable Units Project-by-project Project-by-project Bloomington Public Funding Policy decision,typically decision 10-20% Mixed Income Policy with goal of all developments that need city approvals Chaska contributing 30%of Units 80%AMI (may use density bonuses and other flexibility) Eden Prairie City Subsidy Policy 20%of Units 50%AMI Zoning Changes Policy(may also use 50-60%AMI for rental Edina density bonus, parking reduction and 10-20%of Units or approximately public subsidies) 110%for ownership Mixed Income Policy with goal of all developments that need city approvals 10%of Units Generally, 60%AMI generally Minnetonka contributing 20%when using city 50%when using city (may use density bonuses and other financing financing flexibility) St. Louis Park City Subsidy Policy 8-10%of Units 50-60%AMI for rental or 80% for ownership Minneapolis Density Bonus and City Subsidy Policies 20%of Units 50-60%AMI St.Paul Policy is under development Not Applicable Not Applicable Please see original policies for full details. 2017 • •-• Solutions Network503.493.1000 1 GroundedSotutions.orgPage h 00 Case Study F � at JV St. Louis Park, MN Type of p. . based—financial assistance What is covered: 1 developments d adopted:Year / Results: 253 affordable homes proposed or approved Requirements: Rental—8%of units at 50%of AMI or 10% of units at .0 of Ownership—10% of units at 80%of AMI. Details: St. Louis Park has long promoted affordable housing,with an explicit policy in their comprehensive plan. However,as one council member observed at a housing-focused retreat in 2014,"We have promoted affordable housing for a decade but not produced any affordable homes."And so began the discussion about what the city could actually do to create workforce housing units. The city held a series of public meetings and work sessions discussing all the options.There was a clear preference for mixed-income housing,which would spread affordable units among the more high-end rental units that developers tended to produce.A common theme in the discussion was about public subsidies in the form of tax increment financing provided to new developments.This type of subsidy was(and remains) relatively common in St. Louis Park. Many felt that if the city contributed money toward a development,they should have high standards and expect clear benefits. Specifically,the city decided on a policy to require 8-10 percent of new homes that receive public funding to be affordable.Tax increment financing is the most common subsidy in St. Louis Park, but the policy applies to all types of public funding.While some stakeholders wanted higher requirements,the council and staff felt that it was better to have a modest policy that did not adversely impact development.The city intentionally created a policy, and not an amendment to the zoning ordinance,to avoid potential legal challenges. It appears to be working. In the year and a half since the policy was passed in St. Louis Park,there are 2S3 affordable homes in the pipeline."We have really not received much pushback from developers," explains Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor and Deputy Community Development Director. In fact,several developers have voluntarily provided more affordable homes,20 percent of all units, so they could qualify for Affordable Housing Tax Credits.On the city council level,there has been discussion about strengthening the policies. A recent development was exempt from the policy because it did not ask for any public subsidy,and at least one council member questioned whether there was anything that could be done to ensure that the development was mixed income. In response,staff are now studying the strategy of tying affordable housing requirements to zoning changes, density bonuses or other incentives. Schnikter offered lessons for other cities,"Creating a policy is a balance. Look at your market, and work with the developers.Think about multiple strategies because there is not just one solution." 2017 • ••• Solutions Network503.493.1000 1 GroundedSolutions.org Case Study 1 Minnetonka, MN Type of policy: VoLuntary/incentive based What is covered: The goal is all developments,with flexibility and staff discretion Year adopted: 2004 Results: Over SOO affordable homes 1 1 Requirements: I'. of • •.• .1% of 1%of • •.• to 1% of public subsidies Details: Minnetonka has quietly and steadily worked to ensure their community has homes that are affordable to all. For more than a decade,they have had a policy that aims to ensure that 10-20 percent of all new homes are affordable,and much of this has been done without city financial subsidy.The city has worked hard to avoid controversy, engaging neighbors when they have concerns and partnering with the faith community.When there have been reservations,the city has used the flexibility built in to the policy to quietly address them.The city has avoided attention—even rejecting awards—so that it can focus on implementing its policy.Julie Wischnack, Community Development Director, reflected on the program,"Our approach has been to partner rather than mandate, and developers respect that. It has worked and you can tell that by the numbers of units we have created. It has been very successful." City staff, planning commission and city council all review new projects and discuss the unique circumstances. Often,the city allows developers to increase density or reduce parking to help offset the cost of affordable homes. However,they only use tax increment financing strategically and do not waive fees. Instead,the details are all project specific. For example, extra height might be most useful in one case, but allowing mother-in-law apartments or duplexes might be valuable in another.The city's comprehensive plan has facilitated this method because the high-density zones do not have limits on the number of units per acre.One other important feature of their program has been to work closely with Homes Within Reach,a community land trust.This partnership has allowed the city to create single-family,owner-occupied affordable homes. Minnetonka offers a few key lessons for other cities:1) Use a thoughtful,deliberate process and engage stakeholders when developing a policy;2) Ensure that the comprehensive plan supports the policy goals; 3) Build in high expectations, but some flexibility, recognizing that each development is different;and 4)Take advantage of the flexibility provided by TIF pooling. 2017 • •-• Solutions Network503.493.1000 GroundedSolutions.org ' 1 GROUNDED SOLUTIONS NETWORK strong communities from the ground up Crafting a Mixed Income Housing Strategy: Recommendations for Golden Valley Prepared by: Robert Hickey June 26, 2017 Introduction With its strong schools, major-employers, and close In 2015,the Family Housing Fund and the proximity to downtown Minneapolis, Golden Valley is a Urban Land Institute of highly desirable place to live. Home prices appreciated Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors rapidly over the past decade, building wealth for launched the Mixed Income Housing homeowners, and strengthening the city's tax base. But Feasibility, Education and Action Project. as home prices and rents continue to soar, Golden Grounded Solutions Network, a national Valley is becoming inaccessible to modest-income not-for-profit with relevant expertise,was renters and first-time homebuyers.Affordably-priced engaged by these partners to lead the rental buildings are being bought up, and existing three-part project. More information is residents are being forced to move. Strong market available at housingcounts.org. demand and limited land mean that new apartments and new single-family homes are being priced at some of the highest levels in the region. How can Golden Valley avoid becoming a city exclusive only to the very wealthy?This memo sheds light on potential, local policy responses. Beginning in late 2016,the City of Golden Valley secured technical assistance from Grounded Solutions Network and the Minneapolis/St. Paul Region Mixed Income Housing Feasibility, Education and Action Project to examine how the city could use a mixed-income housing strategy to help achieve its 2040 affordability goals and create housing options for more types of residents. At a time when the federal government is discussing significant cuts to federal housing resources, local governments are increasingly looking to the development approvals process as a tool for meeting local affordability needs. Grounded Solutions was asked to examine ways that the city could incentivize or require new housing developments to serve a greater mix of incomes, drawing on Grounded Solutions' expertise in mixed-income housing policy and programs. Additionally,we were asked to outline options for helping preserve "naturally affordable" housing in the city. This memo presents our research findings and recommendations. Special attention was given to recommendations that would be relevant to the city's decennial update of its Comprehensive Plan, which is currently underway. Page 1 of 18 Research Process This memo's recommendations were informed by a four-step research process: 1) Zoning and Planning Review—we examined the city's zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and planning documents to better understand limits and opportunities for new development in the city; 2) Housing Needs and Market Conditions—we consulted recent research prepared by Maxfield Research and Consulting and by City staff to better understand the local housing market and its affordability for current and prospective residents; 3) Financial Feasibility Assessment—we tested the impact of potential affordability requirements and incentives on two housing prototypes:an apartment building and a single-family home subdivision;and 4) Peer-City Scan—we catalogued mixed income housing policies already in place in the Twin Cities, and prepared case studies of policies in Edina (MN),St. Louis Park (MN),St. Cloud (MN), and Chapel Hill (NC). Zoning and Planning Review Planning staff at the City of Golden Valley expect that sites along Douglas Drive, in the 1-394 Business District, in Downtown Golden Valley, and near the METRO Blue Line Extension Light Rail Station Area have potential for future housing development. With the help of a GIS database prepared by City staff, Grounded Solutions calculated that there are a total of 591 acres of land in these potential "Areas of Change and Growth." If only 10 percent of this land were to redevelop with residential uses between 2017 and 2040, and assuming an average density of 30 units per acre (i.e. some at lower densities and some at higher),the city's Areas of Change and Growth could support 1,773 new housing units.This development potential, along with early evidence of market demand from Maxfield Research and Consulting,suggests that a housing policy asking for a measure of affordability in new construction could make a significant contribution to addressing local affordability needs. A large share of sites in the Areas of Change and Growth will need rezoning to support residential development. Our calculations indicate that only 23 percent of the total acreage falls under a "Residential" land use designation in the current General Plan.The largest category of land (29 percent) is within the I-394 Business District designated "Mixed-Use."The remaining 48 percent includes Light Industrial, Industrial, Office, Retail-Service, and Semi-Public designations. In addition to changing the underlying zoning designation,some development plans may necessitate conditional zoning approvals as well.The city's current 1-394 Mixed-Use zoning district accommodates compact, multi-family residential development at heights of 3, 6, or 10 stories (depending on the sub- district). However, a developer must seek a conditional approval to produce a stand-alone residential property in this district.The city's Medium Density Residential district restricts by-right densities to 10 units per acre—considerably lower than the average density of recently built apartment complexes in the city. In the city's High Density Residential district, 5 stories is allowed by-right, and density is not otherwise capped, but development taller than 5 stories must secure a conditional use permit. Default parking requirements in Golden Valley are such that parking reduction incentives could be a meaningful zoning incentive for multifamily developers.The city requires 2.0 spaces per unit in the 1-394 Page 2 of 18 Mixed-Use district, 2.0 spaces in the Medium Density Residential district, and 1.5 spaces in the High Density Residential district. Given the city's existing zoning restrictions for multifamily development, a policy conditioning zoning changes or conditional approvals on the inclusion of lower-priced housing could be effective. As would be expected,the city's zoning and subdivision regulations are more restrictive with density in single-family districts. Generally, parcel sizes must be a minimum of 10,000 square feet.This is comparable to a density of 4.4 units per acre. In areas where large-lot homes predominate,the parcel minimum of 15,000 square feet translates to a maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. Where small parcels are allowed, lot coverage limits for single-family districts set an effective maximum density of 6.3 to 7.26 units per acre. Given the city's density limits for some of its single-family districts, and the high cost of land in these neighborhoods, a small decrease in allowable lot size could also be meaningful to the bottom-line for new single-family developments that include affordable homes.This presumes, however,that there is a market for slightly more compact subdivisions. Financial Feasibility Assessment To explore the feasibility of mixed-income requirements, various combinations of affordability expectations and zoning benefits were tested on two development prototypes—a hypothetical high- density apartment complex, and a hypothetical single-family housing development.The inputs for each prototype were informed by review of proformas from recently built developments,and discussions with Maxfield Research and Consulting and Golden Valley Planning Department staff about current market conditions and development costs. Prototypes and feasibility modeling are illustrative of market conditions, but each specific development project faces a unique set of location-specific and design-specific costs that cannot be perfectly mirrored in a generalized model. Findings from the financial feasibility assessment should be considered reasonable estimates rather than definitive answers. A larger-scale financial feasibility analysis, including more extensive modeling and sensitivity testing, could yield a higher level of precision, but was not possible within the scope of this project. Rental Prototype The tested rental prototype is outlined in Table 1.The prototype was configured to resemble recent multifamily developments in Golden Valley. Conservative assumptions were used for total development costs (assumed at the upper end of the typical range described by market observers) and the cap rate (set at 5.25%). Since rents can vary from property to property,three different rent scenarios were tested as well. Based on conversations with Twin Cities developers,we assumed relatively high profit thresholds for residential developments to move forward: 10 percent profit for rental developments,and 9 percent profit for single-family developments. Profit here is defined by taking net present value (NPV) as a percentage of total development costs (TDC). Page 3 of 18 Table 1. Rental Prototype Core Assumptions Total Development Costs per unit $208,000 (before density bonus or parking space reduction) Units/acre (before density bonus) 55 units/acre Average unit size 824 sf Average market-rate rent (across unit types) $1.80, $1.90 or$2.00/sf(3 scenarios tested) Operating and Marketing Costs 32% of rental revenue (includes tenant utilities) Market-rate vacancy rate 4% Cap rate 5.25% Parking ratio 1.5 spaces/unit Parking revenue $50/unit Table 2. Rental Mixed-Income Scenarios Affordability share 10%, 15%, 20% (3 affordability scenarios tested) Income target 50%of AMI Average affordable rent $858/month (1-bedroom unit) Utilities Paid by property owner Parking requirement benefit 33% reduction (e.g. 1.5 spaces>> 1.0 spaces/unit) Density bonus benefit 10%or 20% (2 density scenarios tested) The following three graphs show the results of rental feasibility assessments at 10 percent, 15 percent and 20 percent affordability respectively. Figure 1. Rental Prototype:10%Affordability 30.0% Rent Assumptions 25 0% $1.80/sf 51.90/sf 20.0% 52.00/sf � 15.0% a 10.0% Feasibililty Hurdle 5.0% 0.0% None(density=55 33%Parking reduction 20%density bonus Reduced parking Reduced parking units/acre) +10%density +20%density Cost Offsets Page 4 of 18 Figure 2. Rental Prototype:15%Affordability 25.0% Rent Aswmptions 20.0% $1.80/sf -$1.90/sf $2.00/sf 15.0% c 0 a` 10.0% Feasibililty Hurdle 5.0% 0.0% None(density=55 33%Parking reduction 20%density bonus Reduced parking Reduced parking units/acre) +10%density +20%density Cost Offsets Figure 3. Rental Prototype:20%Affordability 25.0% Rent Assumptions 20.0% $1.80/sf $1.90/sf $2.00/sf 15.D% 0 SL 10.0% Feasibililty Hurdle 5.0% .xE 0.0% None(density=55 33%Parking reduction 20%density bonus Reduced parking Reduced parking units/acre) +10%density +20%density Cost Offsets As these graphs show, a development with a middle-of-the-road rent assumption ($1.90 per square foot) could support 10 percent affordability and still achieve a minimum return without any zoning benefits other than what might be necessary to build at 55 units per acre(the rental prototype's baseline density).Adding incentives such as a 33 percent parking space reduction or 10-to-20 percent additional density provides more room for error.At$1.90 per square foot,the development could also achieve a minimum return while providing 15 percent affordability,though in this instance parking or density cost-offsets would be necessary. If the city were able to offer as much as 20 percent(additional)density, plus parking reductions,a 15 percent affordability standard would be viable across a//rent assumptions(including at$1.80 per square Page 5 of 18 foot).With a parking reduction and 10 percent density bonus, 10 percent affordability would be viable across all rent assumptions. For-Sale Prototype The for-sale prototype models a single-family development,given a shortage of available information about condominium development.The model assumes average land costs and sales prices for developments in neighborhoods on the south side of Golden Valley, and regionally-average single-family construction costs,given that local construction-cost data was not available.The subsequent graph shows the results of feasibility tests for 10 percent, 15 percent and 20 percent affordability.Affordability here is defined as serving homebuyers earning 80 percent of the area median. Table 3. For-Sale Prototype Core Assumptions Construction cost $88/sf Density 3.3 homes per acre Land cost $200,000/lot ($600,000/acre) Soft cost 15%of construction costs Total Development Costs per unit $489,534 Market-rate sales price $600,000 Average unit size 2,750 sf Price per sf $218 Table 4. For-Sale Mixed Income Scenarios Affordability share 10%, 15%, 20% (3 affordability scenarios tested) Income benchmark for affordable homes 80%of AMI Affordable home price (3-bedroom) $260,000 Cost offsets Marketing assistance for affordable homes (10% reduction in marketing costs); impact fee waiver for the affordable homes (estimated at$5000 per affordable unit) Page 6 of 18 Figure 4.Single-Family, For-Sale Prototype 12.0% 10.0% � 9.6% Feasibility Threshold(9%) 8.0% 6.7% Profit as%of Development 6.0% Costs 3.7% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 10% 15% 20% Affordability Share A 10 percent affordability requirement is the only scenario that exceeds a 9 percent profit threshold for our single-family prototype. Significantly,this scenario presumes city marketing assistance and fee waivers for the affordable homes. Removing marketing assistance for the affordable homes,the projected return falls to 9.1 percent under a 10 percent affordability scenario. Removing fee waivers as well,the projected return would be 8.9 percent. Page 7 of 18 Peer City Scan Table S. Mixed-Income Housing Policies in the Twin Cities Region City Type of Policy %Units Affordable Affordability Level Bloomington City Subsidy Project by project Project by project (typically 10-20%) decision Chaska Goal that all developments 30% 80%AMI participate (zoning flexibility offered) Eden Prairie City Subsidy 20% 50%AMI Edina Zoning Changes 10-20% Rental: 50-60%AMI For-sale:—110%AMI Minnetonka Goal that all developments Generally 10%; 60%AMI generally; participate (zoning flexibility offered) 20% if using city$ 50% if using city$ St. Louis Park City Subsidy 8-10%of Units Rental: 50-60%AMI For-sale:80%AMI Minneapolis Density Bonus; City Subsidy 20%of Units 50-60%AMI St. Paul Density Bonus 15-25%of Units 30-60%AMI Case Study:St. Louis Park St. Louis Park has long spoken about affordable housing in its comprehensive plan. But as one council member observed at a housing-focused retreat in 2014, "We have promoted affordable housing for a decade but not produced any affordable homes." So the city began to hold discussions about what the city could actually do to create workforce housing units. The city held a series of public meetings and work sessions discussing various options. A clear preference emerged for mixed income housing, so that affordable units could be spread among the high-cost rental units that developers tended to produce.A recurring focal point for discussions was the city's tax increment financing (TIF) assistance,which is commonly provided to new developments in St. Louis Park. Many felt that if the city contributed money toward a development,the city should have high standards and expect clear benefits. In 2015,the city decided to adopt a policy requiring 8 to 10 percent affordability in all developments of 10 or more units that receive public funding. If the developer makes 8 percent of rental homes affordable,these homes must be priced at 50 percent of area median income (AMI). If the developer is willing to do 10 percent,the rental units can be priced at 60 percent of AMI. With for-sale developments, 10 percent must be affordable to households at 80 percent of AMI. Page 8 of 18 TIF is the most common subsidy in St. Louis Park, but the city's mixed-income housing policy applies to all types of public funding. While some stakeholders wanted higher requirements,the council and staff felt that it was better to have a modest policy that did not adversely impact development.The city intentionally created a policy and not an amendment to the zoning ordinance to avoid potential legal challenges. The policy appears to be working. A year and a half in,there are 253 affordable homes in the pipeline. "We have really not gotten much pushback from developers," explains Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor and Deputy Community Development Director. In fact,several developers have voluntarily provided more affordable homes, 20 percent of all units,so they could qualify for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.The City Council is discussing strengthening the policies. A recent development was exempt from the policy because it did not ask for any public subsidy, and at least one council member questioned whether there was anything that could be done to ensure that the development was mixed income. In response,staff are now studying the strategy of tying affordable housing requirements to zoning changes, density bonuses or other incentives. Schnikter offered lessons for other cities: "Creating a policy is a balance. Look at your market, and work with the developers.Think about multiple strategies because there is not just one solution." Contact: Michele Schnitker, 952-924-2571, mschnitker@stlouispark.org. Case Study:Edina The Edina City Council has advocated for mixed-income housing for many years. But prior to 2015,the city did not have a policy to guide staff in their conversations with developers about the city's mixed- income housing goals. To make the city's intentions clearer to developers,the city adopted a policy in 2015 that requires all multifamily housing developments of 20 or more units seeking a rezoning to rezone to a PUD designation, which in turn requires a degree of affordability. Rental developments must include 10 percent affordability at 50 percent of AMI (or 20 percent if the affordable rental units will be made available for households at 60 percent of AMI). For-sale developments must be 10 percent affordable at 110 percent of AMI. Developments seeking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must also comply with the policy. Various community concerns fueled support for the policy. One concern was that Edina's children struggled to return to the community in which they grew up.The shortage of workforce housing has also become an issue. Concern has grown that people who work in Edina, including nurses,teachers, and sales clerks, often have trouble finding a home within reasonable commute distance to their job. The city works with developers to help them meet their affordability obligations.The city indicates that it is willing to consider various forms of assistance for developers, including density bonuses and parking reductions,tax increment financing (TIF),tax abatements, and help accessing 4-percent low income housing tax credits. To further help developers comply with the policy,the city allows developers to deliver affordable homes in various ways. As an alternative to providing the affordable homes on the same site as the market-rate development, developers can: Page 9 of 18 1) Reduce the price of existing homes in Edina to equivalent affordability levels; 2) Build the affordable dwelling units at an alternative site; 3) Participate in the construction of equivalent-quality affordable dwelling units by another developer on a different site within the city;or 4) Propose another alternative that directly or indirectly provides or enables provision of an equivalent amount of affordable housing within the city. Given the policy's newness,only one development has been subject to the mixed-income housing policy as of early 2017.This project met its affordability obligation with a$2 million contribution to the city's affordable housing fund.The city council agreed to this alternative, proposed by the developer, because the development is located far from bus service or basic amenities.Additionally,the two developments that were grandfathered under previous policy each voluntarily proffered 5 percent affordability as a show of good faith.Together,those developments will contribute a total of 29 new affordable rental units once the projects are fully built. None of these three recently built projects were awarded TIF funds. Developers understand that mixed-income housing is the expectation of the community, according to Edina Senior Planner Joyce Repya. The public reaction has also been positive. "We have not had any outcry here,"says Repya. "[City staff] recognize that including affordable homes is not necessarily easy, which is why we've created a policy designed to work with developers in making this a desirable community for all people to live." Contact:Joyce Repya, 952-826-0462,JRepya@EdinaMN.gov. Case Study:St. Cloud In 2002,the cities of St. Cloud,St.Joseph, Sartell,Sauk Rapids, and Waite Park entered into a regional Joint Powers Agreement pledging to ensure 15 percent of all housing units built in each city would be lower-priced "Life Cycle Housing Units." To meet its commitment,St. Cloud adopted a voluntary policy that offered incentives for builders that priced 15 percent of rental or for-sale developments below market rate. Rental Life Cycle units were to be affordable to households earning up to 65 percent of AMI. For-sale Life Cycle homes were to be sold for no more than $135,000 (affordable to roughly 70 percent of AMI at the time). Participating developers received a package of incentives: a 15 percent density bonus, modifications of other development standards,a 20 percent fee waiver for each Life Cycle unit,and city assistance with marketing the affordable homes. There were early signs that the city's housing market was too weak, however,to make the affordability incentives appealing—particularly in the city's under-developed downtown where the city hoped to draw more development.According to St. Cloud Community Development Director Matt Glaesman, homeowners were having trouble selling existing homes in the downtown,suggesting a weak market independent of the Life Cycle policy. New housing, along with Life Cycle units, were being built in the suburbs, but the city did not want affordable housing to be skewed toward the outskirts where new development was occurring. In 2005, a Maxfield Research and Consulting study recommended that the percentage goal of Life Cycle Housing be reduced from 15 percent to 5 percent to allow housing demand to catch up with supply.The Page 10 of 18 policy was subsequently downgraded in 2006. With the deepening of the Great Recession,the policy was terminated in 2007. The policy's relatively deep income targeting for affordable homes-for-purchase certainly did not help in the face of market weakness. With a regional median income of only$58,200 in 2003 (roughly two- thirds of the Twin Cities regional median income presently),even pricing 15 percent of homes at an 80 percent of AMI benchmark would have stretched a development's financial feasibility. But St. Cloud set its affordable price at a flat$135,000(equivalent to 70 percent of AMI affordability),which would be expected to have added add greater strain still, especially when the housing market collapsed in 2007. Despite its short life,the city's Life Cycle policy produced 64 affordable units.An additional 413 affordable units were committed but never built due to the housing market downturn. Many of the original developers no longer control the properties where the units were committed, on account of forfeiture,foreclosure,or having to sell the subdivisions.According to the city's 2015 Comprehensive Plan, "the LCH program proved beneficial during periods of growth," but "fell out of use as platting for new housing developments slowed." Indeed, between 2007 and 2015, no single-family plats were proposed in the city, according to Glaesman. Nor was any multifamily housing constructed until the market began to pick back up in 2012. Not wanting to condition any financial or zoning support on affordability,the city kept its policy dormant. In 2016, however,Glaesman reported strong new momentum for re-instating some type of workforce housing policy across the five cities. One reason:there is now a market for downtown living near jobs that didn't exist in the mid-2000s. Glaesman says that while the argument for Life Cycle housing incentives was "human" in the early 2000s,the motivation now is economic development. Employers are pushing for mixed income incentives to support their businesses.They are being joined by members of the local faith community,which was supportive of the Life Cycle policy in the early 2000's as well. Contact: Matt Glaesman, 320-650-3110, Matt.Glaesman@ci.stcloud.mn.us. Case Study:Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill is home to the flagship campus of the University of North Carolina and approximately 58,000 residents.Together with its larger-city neighbors, Durham and Raleigh,Chapel Hill forms the third point in North Carolina's job-rich Research Triangle. In 2000,the town council adopted a voluntary, mixed-income housing policy as part of its new Comprehensive Plan.The policy grew out of concern that rising housing costs were making the town a place where only students and the wealthy could live.The new policy stipulated that any developer requesting a rezoning before the town council would be expected to make approximately 15 percent of new homes affordable to homebuyers earning no more than 80 of AMI. Furthermore, half of these lower-priced homes were to be affordable to households at 65 percent of AMI.The policy was not applied to rental housing initially,out of concern that it would run afoul of the state's ban on rent control. Over time, 15 percent affordability became an informal expectation for any for-sale development seeking a discretionary approval by town council—even for those not needing a rezoning.To the concern of some developers,the council deviated at times from the 15 percent requirement, making it difficult to predict how much affordability would be expected ultimately. Page 11 of 18 In response to requests for a more standard, predictable program,the town shifted to its current, mandatory inclusionary housing program in 2010.The new 15-percent requirement applies to any for- sale development of five units or more. In the Town Center, however,the affordability requirement drops to 10 percent.The town's original voluntary policy has not been retired, but instead now applies to rental projects that voluntarily agree to set-aside 15 percent of apartments as affordable. A distinctive feature of Chapel Hills' "inclusionary zoning" program is its partnership with the local, nonprofit Community Homes Trust(CHT),which helps administer the program. Developers sell their affordable homes to CHT,which then oversees the sale of affordable homes to qualified homebuyers. CHT is responsible for the ongoing stewardship of these homes, as well as subsequent resales. Affordable homes produced through the policy must remain affordable for 99 years.An annual appreciation rate of 1 percent is allowed at the time of resale. Upon request, developers can pay an "in-lieu"fee to meet their affordability obligation. In-lieu fees are also used in cases where 15 percent of the total would result in fractional affordable units. Other compliance alternatives include off-site construction of the affordable homes, land dedication, and conversion of existing, market-rate units into affordable homes.The policy's default expectation, however, is that affordable homes are provided on the same site as the market-rate homes. Between 2000 and 2015,the city's mixed-income housing policy created 332 new affordable homes (approximately 20 per year).The policy also generated$4.7 million in "in-lieu fees"for the town's housing fund,which supports homelessness prevention and other programs. Contacts: Loryn Clark,Chapel Hill Planning Department, 919-969-5076, Iclark@townofchapelhill.org. Robert Dowling, Community Home Trust,919-967-1545, rdowling@communityhometrust.org. Recommendations The strength of Golden Valley's housing market can be an asset in efforts to support mixed-income development. By using the zoning process to encourage new market-rate housing to include a share of lower-priced homes,the city can harness the energy of its market to create more housing opportunities for young households,seniors,and others with strong ties to the community. Based on our zoning and planning review, market scan,financial feasibility assessment, and peer-city review,we recommend that the city consider the following mixed-income housing policies: 1.Rental Housing:Adopt a 10 percent affordability requirement for all new rental developments that request a zoning change,conditional zoning approval,or PUD designation. Golden Valley has the market strength necessary to ask more from developers who wish to build rental housing in the city. However, legal observers believe that a mandatory affordability policy applied to rental housing could run afoul of the state of Minnesota's prohibition on rent control.This potential incompatibility can be eliminated by tying affordability expectations to instances when developers voluntarily request zoning flexibility. For example,when a developer petitions to develop under the terms of a PUD zone, rezone a property from commercial to residential use, build taller than permitted under existing zoning,or reduce parking requirements,the city could condition these changes on the inclusion of dedicated, lower-priced rental units. Page 12 of 18 Presently the city awards amenity points to residential developments that include a share of affordable housing. But with affordable housing one of many possible routes to securing the points needed for approval,this system is not likely to incentivize mixed-income housing. One could conceive of a developer accumulating the five required amenity points with a series of less costly amenities. Indeed, this dynamic plays out in other communities that use a similar incentive approach as Golden Valley, e.g. Rochester and Minneapolis. A more effective approach would be for the city to make affordability a requirement for new development seeking to access the flexible zoning terms of the PUD zone,while preserving the remainder of the existing PUD point system to incentivize other amenities that the city would like to encourage. A 10 percent affordability expectation would be essentially voluntary—a developer would still be free to build under the terms of standard zoning designations. Nonetheless,the policy would be likely to incentivize many mixed-income housing developments given the popularity of the flexibility offered under the PUD designation,and the value of increasing heights or reducing parking requirements in many of the city's other zones. Affordable for Whom? We recommend that"affordable" be defined using the standard definition of 30 percent of monthly gross income, and that rental beneficiaries be households earning up to 50 percent of area median income (AMI). In 2016,this was equivalent to a two-person household earning$34,320 per year, or a four-person household earning$42,900.Table 6 below shows corresponding affordable rent levels. Table 6. 50%of AMI in Real Terms 2-person household 3-person household 4-person household Household Income $34,320 $38,610 $42,900 Example Retired couple Single parent, 2 kids 2 parents, 2 kids Unit type 1-bedroom 2-bedroom 3-bedroom Affordable Rent $858/month $965/month $1,073/month (utilities included) An income target of 50 percent of AMI would benefit the city's average renter,which earned $42,027 as of 2015, according to Maxfield Consulting and Research.This income target is also employed in the policies used in several cities in the Twin Cities region. Rental Developer Benefits Most mixed-income policies nationwide are designed with cost offsets to help ensure the policy does not compromise a development's financial viability.To ensure that a 10 percent affordability expectation is feasible for new rental developments in Golden Valley,we recommend that participating developments receive a minimum zoning benefit in the form of a 33 percent parking space requirement reduction. For example, in the city's existing High-Density Residential zone,the existing parking minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit would be reduced to 1.0 space per unit. Coupling a parking incentive with a minimum density bonus (for example 10 percent greater than our prototype's base density of 55 units per acre,or just over 60 units per acre)would further improve the viability of mixed-income housing developments with 10 percent affordability. Page 13 of 18 Rental Affordability Duration It has become industry best practice for local mixed-income housing policies to set long-term affordability durations for affordable apartments and for-sale homes. In choosing affordability durations of at least 30 years, localities are able to maximize the benefit of the investment made by the developer (and in some cases also the city), and multiply the number of households that are able to benefit from each affordable home created. Nationwide,the trend has been from shorter to longer affordability periods, as localities that began with short durations experience the loss of affordable homes that occurs as these units term-out and revert to market-rate.Today, more than 80 percent of mixed-income programs require at least 30 years affordability for participating rental and for-sale properties, and a third require affordability in perpetuity (99 years or for the life of the building). Minnesota subdivision statute 462.358 appears to limit affordability restrictions to 20 years, unless financial subsidy is involved, or the developer enters into a voluntary agreement with the municipality. Given the latter exception, and the voluntary nature of the proposed rental affordability policy,the affordable rental units should be expected to remain affordable for the maximum possible length of time-99 years. Rental Policy Exemptions We recommended that the City consider exempting properties of nine units or fewer,given that smaller properties often have higher per-unit development costs.Also, a 10 percent affordability requirement would result in the need for a fractional unit,which is somewhat more complicated to administer. However,there is a risk that exempting developments with less than 10 units could lead to developers skirting the policy by simply proposing nine-unit buildings. If the City were interested in lowering the policy threshold below 10 units to ensure that the policy applies to most development,the City could handle fractional units by developing a per-unit"in-lieu fee," and assessing it on a pro-rata basis.The fee could apply to small developments,for example buildings of six to nine units, as well other instances in which there is a need for a fractional affordable unit. Cities typically tie such a fee to the approximate cost of replacing the foregone affordable unit (or fractional affordable unit)elsewhere in the city. Policy Alternative:Allow Units Priced at 60%of AMI If a Greater Share Is Offered Several cities in the region allow developers to price their rental affordable units at either 50 percent of AMI or 60 percent of AMI, so long as a greater share of units are affordable at 60 percent of AMI. Offering both options may be worth considering in Golden Valley. Developers can better utilize low income housing tax credits to produce rental units at 60 percent of AMI, and if they are applying for these credits,they will need to make at least 20 percent of total units affordable to be competitive in their application. While not shown in the financial feasibility section,we calculate that a 20 percent affordability requirement at 60 percent of AMI would be feasible for our rental prototype under all rent assumptions,assuming a 33 percent parking reduction and 10 percent additional density bonus. Page 14 of 18 Rental Policy Summary Applicability Developments of 10 units or greater seeking a PUD designation, conditional approval, or zoning change Affordability Expectation 10% of total units Minimum Developer Benefits 33% reduction in minimum parking ratio; density bonus allowing 60 units per acre or greater Households Served 50%of AMI and below Affordability Duration 99 years 2.For-Sale Housing:Adopt a 10 Percent Mandatory Affordability Policy This policy should apply whether or not a developer is seeking some form of discretionary zoning flexibility. It should also apply to any form of for-sale housing, including single-family subdivisions, townhomes, and condominiums. Affordable for Whom? To reach first-time homebuyers and senior households not already served by the local housing market, we recommend that the affordable homes be priced affordably for households earning no more than 80 percent of area median income.This is equivalent to a two-person household earning$54,912 (the approximate, average senior household income in Golden Valley) or a four-person household earning $68,640.A four-person household with that income could afford a home of approximately$260,000. This is likely the highest that a new, affordable home could be priced to be meaningfully less than the overall (new as well as resale) median home in the city($289,900, according to research by Maxfield Research and Consulting). Table 7.80%of AMI in Real Terms 2-person household 3-person household 4-person household Household Income $54,912 $61,776 $68,640 Example Senior couple Single parent, 2 kids 2 parents, 2 kids Unit type 1-bedroom 2-bedroom 3-bedroom Affordable Home* 1 $221,000 $232,500 $260,000 *Assumes 10%downpayment,4.5%-interest mortgage,annual property taxes at 1.21%,annual homeowner's insurance at 0.35%,and private mortgage insurance. For-Sale Developer Benefits To support developers,the city should offer marketing assistance to help identify income-eligible, qualified households ready to purchase the affordable homes in each development. Also,the city should waive impact fees for the affordable homes in the development. For-Sale Affordability Duration As with rental housing, affordability restrictions for homes for sale should last as long as possible,to align with industry best practice.To stay within the limits articulated in Minnesota subdivision statute 462.358,we recommend that for-sale homes be required to remain affordable for 20 years. However, Page 15 of 18 this term should reset if a home is sold within the 20-year period,to allow more households to benefit from the policy.This emerging best practice has been adopted by multiple, mature mixed income housing programs, including those in Montgomery County, MD, Fairfax County,VA,and San Mateo, CA. Administrators of these programs believe that a reset requirement can have the same impact as "perpetual" affordability requirements, because most homes tend to be sold within 20 to 30 years. As helpful as it is to have lasting affordability, effective mixed income housing programs also provide owners of price-restricted homes with an opportunity to accumulate wealth. Some policies allow a set, annual rate of appreciation (e.g. 2 percent)when the home is sold. Other policies allow price increases tied to the growth in AMI or other indices such as the CPI. Ultimately,the City of Golden Valley will need to determine which resale price formula balances wealth accumulation and ongoing affordability in a way that works best for the city. Exemptions As with rental housing,we suggest that the City only apply its for-sale affordability expectations to properties with 10 or more units. However, if the City is interested in a lower unit threshold to ensure that its policy applies to a greater share of new development,the City could handle the resulting, fractional affordability expectations by developing a per-unit"in-lieu fee," and assessing it on a pro-rata basis. For-Sale Policy Summary Applicability All for-sale housing developments of 10 units or more homes Affordability Expectation 10% of total units Developer Benefits Either: Marketing assistance for the affordable homes; or Impact fee waivers for the affordable homes Households Served 80%of AMI and below Affordability Duration 20 years (with reset provision) One product type not examined in this memo is condominium development. One reason for this omission is that relatively little new condominium development is occurring in the city, possibly as a result of current Minnesota condominium liability laws. Nonetheless, a 10 percent affordability policy applied to new condominium developments would likely benefit from the same parking and density flexibility that we recommend for rental developments. Projected Impact of a Mixed-Income Housing Policy in Golden Valley As discussed earlier,the city's Areas of Change and Growth are likely capable of supporting more than 1,750 future housing units, assuming 10 percent of these acres redevelop with residential uses at an average density of 30 units per acre. Based on this projection, a policy of 10 percent affordability applied to both rental and for-sale housing would be expected to generate a total of 175 total homes,exceeding the city's 2040 minimum affordability goal of 111 affordable units. Page 16 of 18 Ideas for Preserving"Naturally-Occurring"Affordable Housing Cities like Golden Valley have various options for helping preserve affordable rental and for-sale homes to further sustain a mixed-income community. Most approaches require financial resources, but they can make a big impact nonetheless. Here are some options for consideration in Golden Valley: Financial Assistance for Property Rehabilitation Local governments can partner with local financial institutions or act independently to provide resources that enable necessary repairs and maintenance at low-cost rental properties.This can help protect affordable rental housing from being lost due to deterioration. It can also enable a property to continue serving low-income residents by addressing a backlog of repair needs without having to raise rents. Local funds work best when used to leverage other local or state resources.Assistance is often linked to legal commitments from the property owner to maintain rents at affordable levels over a set period of time. Otherwise, rehabilitation assistance may simply enable rental increases. Property Acquisition Assistance In many cases,the only way to preserve a property is through purchase by a nonprofit, mission-driven corporation, or community land trust. Some communities have established their own predevelopment, acquisition, or interim financing programs to facilitate these transactions. Right of First Refusal Law To facilitate the purchase of at-risk rental properties, some localities have adopted laws that grant tenants, or the jurisdiction itself,the right to match purchase offers on older rental properties. A jurisdiction can then assign its right to a nonprofit partner or community land trust to purchase, renovate, and subsequently restrict rents to affordable levels for the long-term. Relocation Assistance and Notification Requirements In cases where it is impossible to prevent the sale, demolition, or condo conversion of a naturally affordable rental property,a policy that requires advance notification and relocation assistance helps displaced tenants. In Boston,for example, property owners must provide displaced tenants a relocation stipend of up to$10,000 if they are low-income, elderly or disabled. Seattle's Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance requires landlords to provide displaced renters approximately$3,000.The landlord pays half and the city pays half. Before converting a rental unit to condominium, Boston also requires developers and property owners to give a five-year notice to senior, disabled and low-income tenants. Cities such as Washington, DC, require 120-day advance notification for all tenants, regardless of whether they are elderly or low- income. Notification laws not only help tenants but also entities that might be interested in purchasing the property to preserve its affordability. For this reason, notification requirements go well with laws that grant a right of first refusal to preservation-minded entities. Eviction Protections for Low-Income Seniors Some cities,such as Washington, DC, simply make it illegal to evict a low-income elderly tenant for the sake of a condominium conversion. Page 17 of 18 Tax Incentives for Preservation States and localities have adopted various types of tax incentives to encourage owners to preserve the affordability of subsidized and unsubsidized affordable rental homes.Tax incentive programs often work by freezing or lowering real estate tax assessments for properties that preserve affordability over a designated period of time.These incentives can help make it financially feasible for owners of low-cost rentals to continue operating their property,or to bring their properties up to current living standards without raising rents to levels unaffordable to low-income residents. Or in some cases,tax incentives may simply provide financial incentive for the owner to agree to lock in current rents and forgo future rent increases. Preservation Option in a Mixed-Income Zoning Policy Several cities, including Edina and St. Louis Park, offer developers the option of meeting their affordability obligation by guaranteeing the long-term affordability of existing homes in the community. For example, a developer could purchase an at-risk property slightly greater in size than the developer's affordable unit obligation and deed-restrict the units to guarantee ongoing,affordable rents. Policy Upkeep The recommendations in this report are based on an assessment of the current state of the city's housing market and housing needs. Over time,the Golden Valley market will likely strengthen, and affordability may worsen. Or the converse may be true. Land values may increase,though as affordability expectations become normalized,we would expect land values to increase less quickly than if the city had not adopted a mixed income housing policy. In short,feasibility and housing needs may not look the same in two to three years as they do today. For this reason,we recommend that the City build in a plan to revisit whatever mixed income ordinance it ends up adopting, in three years. Periodic review has helped other cities improve their policies over time.The City could use the occasion to examine the progress of its policy, and assess the appropriateness of different policy parameters, including affordability standards, income targeting, development-size triggers, and incentives/cost offsets. Page 18 of 18 Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan Last updated August 9, 2017 Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary Based on direction from the Council and Manager at the Council/Manager meeting on August 8, 2017, staff has developed a work plan on affordable housing strategies and policies. Staff will take immediate action on the following strategies: 1. Continue monitoring condition of housing stock and rental rates a. Request rental rate information with rental licensing program applications b. Perform update to housing inventory every 5 years c. Continue monitoring housing stock conditions with inspections 2. Include strong language in the Comprehensive Plan on potential solutions and partnerships 3. Adopt a Mixed-Income Housing Policy (see draft policy attached) 4. Contact property owners to promote NOAH loan program with Greater MN Housing Fund (GMHC), which provides equity for property improvements in exchange for maintained rents 5. Expand the legislative priority on affordable housing and support preservation efforts by state legislature and housing agency Staff will continue research in partnership with other suburban cities on the following strategies in fall/winter 2017: 6. Adopt an Advanced City Notification Policy (by owner prior to sale of NOAH property) 7. Adopt an Advanced Tenant Notification Policy (by owner prior to sale of NOAH property) 8. Prohibit landlords from excluding Section 8 voucher holders from a building's rental application process 9. Require "for cause" eviction provision in all lease agreements Staff will take no action on the following strategies, but may consider at a future date: 10. Financial Assistance from the City HRA a. Bonds or loans to rehabilitation or acquisition/resale of affordable properties b. Fund rental assistance to low to moderate income residents c. Become an allocating City for the 4D property tax program and advocate for funding d. Establish a Risk Mitigation Fund to encourage landlords to rent to voucher recipients e. Grant permit fee waivers in exchange for maintained affordability 11. Require that tenants receive right of first refusal (ROFR) on NOAH properties for sale 12. Require one-for-one replacement if any affordable units are removed or no longer affordable 13. Require building owners give tenants relocation benefits upon sale of property 14. Enact eviction protections for low-income seniors in threat of displacement 15. Require reporting on admissions standards and compliance with Fair Housing Act 16. Require property owners to share applicants' application information to save costs Yffl St. Louis Park Housing Authority City of St. Louis Park Affordable Housing Initiatives: In support of the city's housing goals to promote and facilitate a balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse lifecycle housing choices for households in all income levels, including affordable housing, the city administers a number of programs to create affordable housing and support the preservation of NOAH(Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing). The City is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households as outlined in the following City Housing Goals: Promote the Creation of Affordable Housing Units: Promote the inclusion of affordable housing opportunities in new developments located near the Southwest Light Rail Transit Corridor and other transit nodes, retail and employment centers and commercial mixed-use districts. Affordable housing should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area of the City. Future affordability goals with the Metropolitan Council should be reflective of.the City's existing affordable housing stock,as well as the City's future needs. 1. Provide Financial Assistance in the form of Tax Increment Financing: The City has provided financial assistance in the form of Tax Increment Financing for a number of market rate multi-family residential developments. As a requirement for receiving financial assistance, developments must include a percentage of affordable units per the Inclusionary Housing Policy adopted by the Council. 2. Inclusionary Housing Policy; the policy requires market-rate multi-family residential developerments receiving financial assistance from the City to include a percentage of affordable units in the development. Requirements are as follows: Original Policy(2015) 0 10%affordable to Households at 60%Area Medium Income (AMI) 0 8% affordable to households at 50%AMI Revised_llolicr (2017). 0 18%affordable to Households at 60 %AMI 0 10% affordable to households at 50%AMI Since adoption of the policy 53 units of affordable housing have been added,with an additional 228 units in approved projects. SPOVA4 i'kt 10% of units ac zs vnl'f Peg (JL4o,1- bed, 2-bed) ei-c) 3. Land Banking/sale of public land to facilitate affordable housing development: In an effort to facilitate the construction of new affordable housing, the City acquires strategic properties and subsequently sells them to developers willing to include affordable housing within the development: • Place at the Wooddale Station Area: Assembled several parcels, 2 owned by the city and one owned by the County—Place is proposing a mixed use development with 300 units of Housing—200 affordable at 60%Area Medium Income and a hotel; • Beltline Station Area: Currently out for Request for Proposals seeking a mixed use,mixed income development that will also include affordable housing units(number of units yet to be determined). Proposals due September 15u`. Preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH): The City supports the preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing through a variety of means, including acquisition and rehab assistance; collaborative efforts with NOAH property owners, the school district, and local businesses; and adoption and implementation of preservation strategies: m General Obligation Bonds: In 2000, the city issued $4.5 million in general obligation bonds to assist in financing the acquisition and rehab preservation efforts of 11 buildings and 128 units of affordable housing owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The City refinanced the bonds in 2010 to further stabilize the development. • Meadowbrook Collaborative: Meadowbrook Apartments (now known as Era), is the City's largest NOAH apartment complex, with 551 units. Since 1992, the city has partnered with the complex's original owner,the school district and Park Nicollet Foundation to provide on-site supportive services and community policing. In 2016, the complex changed ownership, threatening to displace a significant number of residents. The City engaged and worked with the new owner and management staff to secure concessions, including allowing existing residents to remain without requiring rescreening for income requirements and allowing residents with children to stay until the end of the school year. City staff continue to work to assist residents in need. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds: The City dedicates its allocation of CDBG funds to support affordable housing rehab activities; approximately$165,000 is allocated annually to support affordable housing activities. CDBG funds, along with a deferred loan, were used to aid in the rehab of a NOAH property, Louisiana Court apartments,to maintain affordability. • NOAH Preservation Strategies currently being explored include: Advance Notice of Sale of NOAH(Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing): An Advance Notice of Sale policy would require owners of residential rental properties to give advance notice to the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement for the sale of any building. The notice would provide the city with information about the sale of properties with rents that are affordable to low-income households. The City would use the notification information to inform the state and/or preservation buyers of an impending sale of a possible NOAH property. The preservation buyers would be responsible for evaluating the property for potential preservation efforts including incentives and acquisition of the property. The intent is not to disrupt a pending sale,but to give stakeholders notice and an opportunity for preservations buyers to possibly engage in the purchase of the property. Eviction/non-renewal for Cause Policy: An Eviction/non-renewal for Cause policy would establish a standard that would be required to be incorporated into leases, requiring landlords to only evict or terminate a lease for good cause. Currently,Minnesota state law does not require landlords to provide justification when terminating a tenancy at the end of a lease term. A landlord is expected to provide an explanation only when filing an eviction action.This policy would prevent non-renewals at the end of a lease term without cause and allow lease compliant renter households to renew the lease term. Prohibition of Discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher(Section 8)Participants and other Recipients of Government Rental Assistance Programs: Although landlord participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice.Voucher program is considered voluntary under Federal statute,a number of local and state jurisdictions have adopted ordinances that prohibit excluding applicants solely based on their use a rent subsidy (often referred to as source of income discrimination). Landlords would not be permitted to discriminate against applicants based on status with regard to public assistance or any requirement of a public assistance program. Local Program Offering Rehab Financing in Exchange for Affordability Commitments: This program would provide attractive financing to multifamily rental property owners to be used for rehab or major capital improvements,in exchange for a commitment to maintain units that are affordable to low-and moderate-income households. Southwest Light Rail Transit(SWLR7) Corridor Housing Committee: The SWLRT Corridor Housing Committee drafted a Corridor Housing Strategy,accepted by the St.Louis Park City Council, to support a full range of housing choices along the corridor and in the station areas. One of the four objectives identified in the Strategy to support corridor housing goals is to preserve existing housing opportunities. The target objective is to preserve 3,800 unsubsidized, affordable rental units within 1.2 miles of the Corridor by 2030. The Committee has recently begun discussing the preservation of NOAH I properties and promoting collaboration among cities, county and state governments, and industry housing agencies. Additional housing initiatives currently administered by the city/Housing Authority: Rental Assistance: • Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program: this program provides a shallow rent subsidy and social services to assist households with children who are currently renting in St.Louis Park. Households receive a flat subsidy based on HUD's Fair Market rents that decreases annually over a 48-month period. The program provides assists to 7 to 10 households annually. • Housintz Choice Voucher Pro ram — The St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA) administers approximately 268 allocated units (40 units Project Based). Recipients pay rent based on their income. • Public Housing Program—The HA owns and manages 157 units; tenants pay rent based on their income. • Continuum of Care (CoC) Rental Assistance (Shelter plus Care) — 21 affordable units in 3 supportive housing developments. • Suburban Hennepin County STABLE Home Shallow Rental Assistance Program — 35 current participants-45 unit maximum • Funding provided to the St. Louis Parke Emergency Program (STEP) for emergency rental assistance grants($15,000 allocated annually). Promote and Support Responsible Property Management: • SPARC — The City facilitates quarterly meetings of the St. Louis Park Landlord Coalition to provide education and collaboration. The coalition has provided an avenue to recruit new landlords to accept Housing Choice Voucher participants. • Rental Licensing/Crime Free Training: The City adopted a Crime Free ordinance which requires all rental management staff to receive crime-free training and include crime-free language in all leases. Affordable Homeownership: • West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLD — The City has partnered over the years with WHAHLT to purchase and rehab 14 single family homes that were subsequently sold to low-income households using the land trust model. • Live Where You Work—This City program provides down payment and closing cost assistance to persons that are purchasing a home in St. Louis Park and that work for a business located in St. Louis Park. Affordable Housing Rehab Programs: The city also funds a number of housing rehab programs targeted to assist low- to moderate-income homeowners with emergency repairs, code corrections, home improvements and expansions. Programs include: • The Emergency Home Repair Program • Community Fix Up Fund Discount Loan Program • Move Up in the Park Home Expansion Program • Deferred Loan Prof-Tarn for safetX and maintenance improvements • Housing Improvement Area Designation loan program for home associations. • Home Energy visits and matching,energy rebates. no income limits) For more information about these programs,please visit our website: www.stlouispark.org ULI Minnesota FAMILY HOUSING Regional Council of Mayors FUND � >aa r pinnesota C oTROPOLLITAN Ousing Housing Initiative Impact What's Changed: 2008 to 2017 In 2008, the Family Housing Fund invited ULI Minnesota and the Regional t Council of Mayors (RCM) to partner for the purpose of expanding our regional commitment to strategies and policies that support a full range of Navigating Your Competitive Future housing choices in connected, livable communities. Technical Assistance Panels This partnership was launched at a time when development was paralyzed by the Great Recession.As private sector investment returned,communities LRT Corridor Technical Assistance realized there was a"new normal"and would need to learn how to respond HousingCounts.org to market shifts. Guided by a multi-disciplinary public/private advisory committee along with the generous contributions of real estate professionals Mixed Income Feasibility Calculator who volunteer their time and talent, ULI MN's Advisory Services program has provided meaningful technical assistance to local governments to help (Re)development Ready Guide them shape their competitive future. Housing Advisory Committee The Housing Initiative continues to respond to a dynamic and complex world.The 9th Annual Housing Summit highlighted the economic imperative Housing Council of connecting housing, transportation and workforce.As reported in the Star Community Development Council Tribune,a panel of regional business leaders provided a"sobering message" about how"a lack of affordable housing and the labor shortage"are"throttling Annual Housing Summit the growth plans of suburban-based employers."These issues are "closely linked, and need to be addressed together if the Twin Cities metro region is to avoid risking the loss of those jobs."Adding to that,the region's struggle to build a robust transportation network has created gaps in the system that force people to choose between lengthy, expensive commutes or missing out on desirable jobs. In response, the Housing Initiative is expanding its focus to advocate for the importance of connecting housing choices, transportation options, and workforce strength.This interchange is critical to our region's future prosperity. Housing Choices Transportation Options Workforce Strength The Housing Initiative has promoted the Employers and workers depend on a GREATER MSP research projects a regional importance of providing a full transportation network that efficiently shortfall of 100K workers, and surveys range of housing choices. connects job centers and housing identify housing and transportation as choices. critical to recruiting talent. What happens if we don't have What happens if we don't have robust What happens to our economy if enough housing—of the right types, transportation options connecting we lack the housing choices and in the right places at the right prices? where people live and work? transportation options talented workers seek? WHAT CAN „? WHAT CAND , TOGETHER? Land South81 Bythe Numbers 63 Cities 55 Mayors Participated in Navigating Your Competitive Future, a two Participating in the Regional Council of Mayors, growing from hour,fact-based, nonpartisan workshop. 8 in 2004. 9 Metro, 2 Greater Minnesota, 2 National 15 Mayors, City and County Staff Technical Assistance Panels delivered an unbiased, Contributed 300 volunteer hours of time and talent to guide interdisciplinary panel of volunteer real estate professionals to and influence housing policies,tools and legislation locally address a specific project, development, or policy issue. and statewide. 3,000 Volunteer Hours 5 Southwest LRT Corridor Cities Provided by ULI MN private sector members since 2008 at an Approved over 4,000 new rental housing units since 2015. Of estimated monetized value of$450,000. those, 15%are affordable, and 40%are near future transit $145,000 Additional Funds Per Year stations with 26%of those units affordable. Leveraged by the Family Housing Fund's support to further 3,931 Units Built & Preserved - ULI Minnesota's mission and expand its reach. 51%of the total affordable housing units in suburban areas 9 Cities were built and preserved in RCM Cities that participated in ULI MN advisory services programs from 2008 to 2016. Convened to evaluate tools and policies to ensure continued 154 new ownership units affordability within market rate rental housing developments. • 1,564 new rental units 45 Cities 2,213 preserved rental units. Attended workshops to learn about utilization of the mixed income feasibility calculator and policies to support a full range of housing choices. CityActionHighlights Brooklyn Park Golden Valley Rosemount Approved first new rental housing Approved six large-scale multi-family Approved new affordable housing development in over 15 years, provided housing developments and adopted new development in spite of strong $1 million for homeless shelter, and mixed income and preservation policies. neighborhood opposition. dedicated$1.6 million for preservation of rental housing. Hopkins Shoreview Dayton Approved over 400 units of housing; new Provided funding and land use support ------ ______ _.___ market rental connected to future light in the development of new rental Approved first new affordable rental rail; preservation of existing affordable housing connected to existing naturally housing development. rental and approval of new mixed occurring affordable housing. Eden Prairie income housing units. Southwest LRT Corridor Cities ---_---- ___-___ Preserved existing affordable housing Minnetonka Implementation of a corridor housing utilizing tax increment financing and Created a Housing Fund to annually strategy. bonding authority. dedicate financial support for new Collaborating on corridor funding tools. Edina and St. Louis Park affordable housing. Adopted mixed use, form based and Adopted and strengthened mixed — Richfield TOD zoning codes. income housing policies to require Dedicated city funds to support tenants nearly all new rental housing to include a and owners ability to preserve existing percentage of affordability. affordable rental units. "ULI Minnesota has been an invaluable resource to the City of Golden Valley.As our community determines the future diversity of our housing options, the ULI MN/RCM Housing Initiative has been a tremendous tool to our City Council and staff in navigating emerging trends and changing demographics. Thank you ULI!MN" Mayor Shep Harris City of Golden Valley Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 19, 2017 Agenda Item 6. B. Adopting Proposed 2018 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2018 Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary State Law requires the certification of a proposed budget and proposed tax levies no later than September 30, 2017. The final property tax levy for pay 2018 will be adopted by the City Council in December, can be less than the proposed levy, but not greater. The property tax levy, included as part of the 2018-2019 Proposed Budget, is currently $22,420,742. The General Fund levy portion is $17,428,460. At the meeting City staff will make a short presentation reviewing the Proposed 2018-2019 General Fund Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2018. Attachments •Resolution Adopting Proposed 2018 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2018 (2 pages) •2018-2019 Proposed Revenue Summary (3 pages) •2018-2019 Proposed Expenditure Summary by Division (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution for Proposed 2018 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2018. Resolution 17-53 September 19, 2017 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED 2018 BUDGET AND PROPOSED TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2018 WHEREAS, State Law requires the certification of a proposed budget and proposed tax levies no later than September 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council has met and discussed the proposed budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the debt service levy as established in the bond documents for the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2013A (B2891), will be reduced by $350,831.60 due to the transfer from the 2015 positive performance to help fund the city’s portion of the tax abatement; and WHEREAS, the debt service levy as established in the bond documents for the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C (B3114), the amount of $389,511 will not be levied due to the utilization of the franchise fees collected from gas and electric utilities; and WHEREAS, the debt service levy as established in the bond documents for the Equipment Certificates, Series 2015B (B3041), the amount of $289,170; Equipment Certificates, Series 2016B (B3115), the amount of $289,485; and Equipment Certificates, Series 2017A (B3196), the amount of $303,923 will not be levied through a debt levy but paid partially with a General Fund Levy (General Fund Transfer). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that there is hereby levied upon all taxable property located within the City of Golden Valley the following amounts: General Tax Levy $17,428,460 Bonded Debt Levy: Certificates of Indebtedness 0 Brookview Center 1,218,300 Street Improvement Bonds 3,773,982 TOTAL Tax Levy $22,420,742 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk shall certify to the Hennepin County Auditor a copy of this resolution approving the property tax levies for collection in 2018 for the City of Golden Valley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed 2018 budget of the General Fund is $20,489,400 and the proposed 2019 budget is approved in concept only. Resolution No. 17-53 -2-September 19, 2017 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council declares its intent to take all necessary actions legally permissible to the submission and approval of the City’s budget and property tax levies both proposed and final. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. 2015 2016 2017 2017 2017%2018 2018 % 2018 2019 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated B VS E Concept Proposed 2017 Concept AD VALOREM TAXES 4011 AD VALOREM TAXES 13,277,134 14,151,535 14,998,330 14,998,330 100.00%15,964,970 17,428,460 116.20%18,206,605 ALLOWANCE FOR ABATEMENTS/DEL 83,456 (58,798) (183,645) (183,645) (174,145) (175,000) (175,000) LESS HOMESTEAD CREDIT 4012 PENALTIES & INTEREST 41,247 84,204 TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES 13,401,837 14,176,941 14,814,685 14,814,685 100.00%15,790,825 17,253,460 116.46%18,031,605 LICENSES 4021 LICENSE-GAS/OIL 25 50 1,325 200 1,325 200 200 4022 LICENSE-VEHICLE REPAIR 425 25 25 25 100.00%25 25 100.00%25 4023 LICENSE-NEW/USED VEHICLES 4,000 4,800 4,400 4,400 100.00%4,400 4,400 100.00%4,400 4025 LICENSE-TEMPORARY LIQUOR 100 300 - 600 - 300 300 4026 LICENSE-WINE ON/SALES 16,000 11,000 12,000 16,000 133.33%12,000 16,000 133.33%16,000 4027 LICENSE-LIQUOR ON/SALE 103,363 120,650 104,000 96,650 92.93%104,000 96,650 92.93%96,650 4028 LICENSE-LIQUOR OFF SALE 800 1,200 800 1,000 125.00%800 1,000 125.00%1,000 4029 LICENSE-NONINTOX ON SALE 4,500 3,250 3,500 4,000 114.29%3,500 4,000 114.29%4,000 4030 LICENSE-NONINTOX OFF SALE 750 450 450 450 100.00%450 450 100.00%450 4031 LICENSE-SUNDAY LIQUOR 2,800 2,950 2,400 2,400 100.00%2,400 2,400 100.00%2,400 4032 LICENSE-TAVERN 1,875 375 375 375 100.00%375 375 100.00%375 4033 LICENSE-CIGARETTE 3,575 3,850 4,125 3,850 93.33%4,125 3,850 93.33%3,850 4034 LICENSE-DOG (KENNEL)500 1,000 - 250 0.00%- - 0.00%- 4038 LICENSE-GARBAGE COLLECTORS 4,200 3,300 4,000 3,550 88.75%4,000 3,550 88.75%3,550 4041 LICENSE-PEDDLER/SOLICITOR 1,255 1,950 700 1,300 185.71%700 1,200 171.43%1,200 4044 LICENSE-GAS STATION 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 100.00%3,650 3,650 100.00%3,650 4046 LICENSE-APARTMENT 72,423 74,305 60,000 65,000 108.33%60,000 65,000 108.33%65,000 4047 LICENSE-GAMBLING 450 450 200 250 125.00%200 250 125.00%250 4048 LICENSE-AMUSE DEVIC 270 240 270 210 77.78%270 210 77.78%210 4052 LICENSE-HEATING 15,575 15,600 13,500 13,500 100.00%13,500 13,500 100.00%13,500 4058 LICENSE-MASSAGE 5,720 5,320 1,520 3,820 251.32%1,520 3,820 251.32%3,820 4059 LICENCE-CHICKEN COOP/RUN 125 450 125 150 120.00%125 150 120.00%150 TOTAL LICENSES 242,381 255,165 217,365 221,630 101.96%217,365 220,980 101.66%220,980 PERMITS 4101 PERMIT-BUILDING 911,590 1,047,361 626,265 1,075,000 171.65%564,265 550,000 87.82%550,000 4102 PERMIT-PLUMBING 79,550 112,012 30,000 105,000 350.00%30,000 40,000 133.33%40,000 4103 PERMIT-SEWER 30,981 30,550 30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 4104 PERMIT-HEATING 192,657 243,285 85,000 313,575 368.91%85,000 125,000 147.06%125,000 4105 PERMIT-WATER 5,215 3,700 1,100 4,800 436.36%1,100 2,500 227.27%2,500 4107 PERMIT-STREET EXCAVATING 40,251 38,423 20,000 39,560 197.80%20,000 30,000 150.00%30,000 4109 PERMIT-BILLBOARD 14,607 10,567 7,500 7,500 100.00%7,500 7,500 100.00%7,500 4114 PERMIT-TEMPORARY OCCUPENCY 2,500 2,300 1,900 2,000 105.26%1,900 2,000 105.26%2,000 4115 PERMIT-REFUNDS(20%)317 90 - 230 - - 0.00%- 4116 PERMIT-GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSI 9,000 7,250 5,000 5,000 100.00%5,000 5,000 100.00%5,000 4117 PERMIT-TREE PRESERVATION 2,500 1,350 900 900 100.00%900 900 100.00%900 4119 PERMIT-ELECTRICAL 94,463 106,530 94,660 94,660 100.00%94,660 94,660 100.00%94,660 4120 PERMIT-FIREWORKS 100 450 100 100 100.00%100 100 100.00%100 4120 PERMIT-SPECIAL EVENTS 150 175 50 125 250.00%50 125 250.00%125 TOTAL PERMITS 1,383,881 1,604,043 902,475 1,678,450 185.98%840,475 887,785 98.37%887,785 FEDERAL GRANTS 4132.1 FED VEST PROGRAM 1,135 1,135 4132 JAG GRANT 1,741 4132.3 DWI ENFORCEMENT 13,796 17,224 6,215 4136 FED-FIRE GRANTS - TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS 16,672 18,359 - 6,215 - - - STATE GRANTS 4150 FIRE POST BOARD TRAINING GRANT 12,260 18,764 5,440 22,730 5,440 5,440 5,440 4151 STATE AID 405 - - 4152 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA)240,503 252,446 252,440 252,895 252,440 37,185 37,185 4153 POLICE TRAINING 9,904 9,653 10,500 9,750 92.86%10,500 9,750 92.86%9,750 4153.1 OPERATION NIGHT CAP - - - - 4153.2 MN HEAT 7,500 - - 4153.4 SAFE AND SOBER GRANT - - - 4153.6 VEST REIMBURSEMENT GRANT - 1,157 - - TOTAL STATE GRANTS 270,167 282,425 268,380 285,375 106.33%268,380 52,375 19.52%52,375 COUNTY GRANTS 4173 OTHER COUNTY GRANTS 4,133 4177 VOTF 31,205 TOTAL COUNTY GRANTS 31,205 4,133 - - - - - Proposed 2018 - 2019 General Fund Revenue Report City of Golden Valley 2015 2016 2017 2017 2017%2018 2018 % 2018 2019 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated B VS E Concept Proposed 2017 Concept Proposed 2018 - 2019 General Fund Revenue Report City of Golden Valley GENERAL GOVERNMENT 4191 CERTIFICATION FEE 16,005 14,850 12,000 12,000 100.00%12,000 12,000 100.00%12,000 4194 ADMIN LIQUOR LICENSE 2,000 1,500 - - 4196 GENERAL GOVT-GEN SER 12,695 15,855 4,050 25,620 632.59%4,050 10,000 246.91%10,000 4197 FILING FEES 40 - - - - - 4199 ASSESSMENT SEARCHES - 15 - - - - - 4200 LIQUOR LICENSE CHECKING 2,700 2,700 2,200 2,500 113.64%2,200 2,500 113.64%2,500 4203 COPY/MAILING FEES 625 656 750 750 100.00%750 750 100.00%750 4204 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REG 40 85 - 80 - TOTAL GENERAL GOVERMENT 34,105 35,661 19,000 40,950 215.53%19,000 25,250 132.89%25,250 PUBLIC SAFETY 4226 BRECK TRAFFIC CONTROL 55,612 48,973 27,200 27,200 100.00%27,200 27,200 100.00%27,200 4227 DRUG TASK FORCE REIMBURSE 2,921 8,717 - - 4228 ALARM ORDINANCE VIOLATION 3,500 3,700 8,000 3,700 46.25%8,000 3,700 46.25%3,700 4229 SECURITY SERVICES 12,232 17,704 12,000 15,000 125.00%12,000 15,000 125.00%15,000 4230 POLICE DEPT CHARGES SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-281 36,723 37,354 62,000 62,000 100.00%62,000 66,000 106.45%66,000 4231 FIRE DEPT CHARGES 45,420 49,412 40,000 44,000 110.00%40,000 44,000 110.00%44,000 4232 ANIMAL IMPOUND FEES 1,945 1,400 1,000 1,200 120.00%1,000 1,200 120.00%1,200 4233 ACCIDENT REPORTS 254 292 475 300 63.16%475 300 63.16%300 4237 NUISANCE VIOLATION 2,050 2,650 500 500 100.00%500 500 100.00%500 4239 ANIMAL IMPOUND CONTRACT-RO 5,361 6,309 3,000 3,000 100.00%3,000 3,000 100.00%3,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 166,018 176,511 154,175 156,900 101.77%154,175 160,900 104.36%160,900 PUBLIC WORKS 4258 PLANNING & ZONING FEES 43,224 17,655 6,000 6,000 100.00%6,000 6,000 100.00%6,000 4251 CHGS FOR STREET DEPT 3,549 12,085 2,800 2,800 3,800 135.71%3,800 4254 WEED CUTTING 439 8,470 2,000 3,800 190.00%2,000 3,800 190.00%3,800 4255 STREET LIGHT MAINT CHGS 144,656 151,333 140,000 150,000 107.14%140,000 150,000 107.14%150,000 4256 CHGS FOR ENGINEERING (167) - TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 191,701 189,543 150,800 159,800 105.97%150,800 163,600 108.49%163,600 PARK & RECREATION 4302 POLICE ON DUTY-COMM CENTER 120 2,940 - 100 - 1,000 1,000 4305 MISC INCOME-BROOKVIEW 4,455 139 50 50 100.00%50 50 100.00%50 4306 RENTAL-BCC (PRIOR TO 2017)24,308 19,400 - - - - - 4307 PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL 28,647 35,115 30,000 32,000 106.67%32,000 32,000 106.67%32,000 4308 LIQUOR PERMIT-BV 3,425 - 2,800 2,800 100.00%3,000 3,000 107.14%3,000 4309 ATHLETIC FACILITY RENTALS 3,871 5,617 4,500 4,500 100.00%4,500 4,500 100.00%4,500 4310 TENNIS COURT RENTAL 558 - - - - - 4314 MUSIC SPONSORSHIPS (132) 1,500 1,500 100.00%1,500 1,500 100.00%1,500 4315 FOOD TRUCK PERMITS 320 1,200 - 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 4316 SPONSORSHIPS 1,000 1,100 - 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 4325.1 ADULT-ATHLETICS 8,915 10,230 12,000 12,000 100.00%12,000 14,000 116.67%14,000 4325.2 ADULT SOFTBALL 39,050 39,360 39,000 39,000 100.00%39,000 40,000 102.56%40,000 4325.3 ADULT-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 34,793 34,486 30,000 30,000 100.00%32,000 36,000 120.00%36,000 4355.2 YOUTH-SUMMER PLAYGROUND 15,739 11,872 18,000 18,000 100.00%18,000 20,000 111.11%22,000 4355.1 YOUTH-ATHLETICS 46,822 58,183 66,000 66,000 100.00%66,000 78,000 118.18%80,000 4355.3 YOUTH-PROGRAM & EVENTS 46,552 49,066 60,000 60,000 100.00%60,000 62,000 103.33%68,000 4389 FIELD MAINTENANCE FEES 10,552 13,213 12,000 12,000 100.00%12,000 12,000 100.00%12,000 4405.1 SENIOR-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 7,320 3,626 11,500 11,500 100.00%11,500 11,500 100.00%11,500 4405.2 SENIOR-TRIPS 62,440 60,296 58,000 58,000 100.00%58,000 58,000 100.00%58,000 4311.1 DAVIS CC-MEADOWBROOK RENTAL 32,810 20,004 32,000 32,000 100.00%32,000 32,000 100.00%32,000 4311.2 DAVIS CC-MEADOWBROOK PROGRAMS 6,883 4,861 8,000 8,000 100.00%8,000 8,000 100.00%8,000 TOTAL PARK AND RECREATION 378,448 370,708 385,350 389,450 101.06%389,550 415,550 107.84%425,550 OTHER FUNDS 4433 CHGS TO CONSTRUCTION FUND 139,113 86,780 150,000 50,000 33.33%150,000 50,000 33.33%50,000 4434 CHGS TO UTILITY FUND 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 100.00%275,000 275,000 100.00%275,000 4435 CHGS TO BROOKVIEW FUND 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 100.00%85,000 85,000 100.00%85,000 4436 CHGS TO MOTOR VEHICLE FUND 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 4437 CHGS TO RECY FUND 51,500 51,500 51,500 51,500 100.00%51,500 51,500 100.00%51,500 4438 CHGS TO CEMETARY FUND 400 200 4439 HRA TRANS-ADMIN - 4440 CHGS TO STORM UTILITY FUND 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 100.00%200,000 200,000 100.00%200,000 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 781,013 728,480 791,500 691,500 87.37%791,500 691,500 87.37%691,500 FINES & FORFEITURES 4155 COURT FINES & FORFEITURES 354,066 283,483 300,000 320,000 106.67%300,000 320,000 106.67%320,000 TOTAL FINES & FORFEITURES 354,066 283,483 300,000 320,000 106.67%300,000 320,000 106.67%320,000 2015 2016 2017 2017 2017%2018 2018 % 2018 2019 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated B VS E Concept Proposed 2017 Concept Proposed 2018 - 2019 General Fund Revenue Report City of Golden Valley INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 4471 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 45,637 56,518 75,000 75,000 100.00%75,000 75,000 100.00%75,000 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 45,637 56,518 75,000 75,000 100.00%75,000 75,000 100.00%75,000 TRANSFERS IN 4501 PERMANENT TRANSFERS-GOLF 50,000 4501 PERMANENT TRANS-MOTOR VEH 50,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 4501 PERMANENT TRANS-TIF 39,000 TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 139,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 30,000 100.00%30,000 OTHER REVENUE 4479 TOWER RENTAL 57,869 13,995 40,000 - 0.00%40,000 - 0.00%- 4480 BUILDING RENTS -BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE 127,200 127,200 127,200 127,200 100.00%127,200 127,200 100.00%127,200 -MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 -VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 22,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 100.00%24,000 24,000 100.00%24,000 4478 SPECIAL ASSESS COLL-COUNTY 16,198 10,496 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 4483 CONTRIBUTIONS & DONATIONS 2,469 2,950 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 247,736 200,641 223,200 183,200 82.08%223,200 183,200 82.08%183,200 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 4476 BURIAL CHARGE-CEMETERY 3,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 100.00%2,000 2,000 100.00%2,000 4707 PENALTIES 3,450 4,850 - - - - - 4474 SCRAP METAL 4,822 6,146 2,500 2,500 100.00%2,500 2,500 100.00%2,500 4486 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 5,882 1,532 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4487 OVER AND SHORT - - - - - 4489 ATM 886 463 800 800 100.00%800 800 100.00%800 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 18,040 14,491 9,800 9,800 100.00%9,800 9,800 100.00%9,800 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 17,701,907$ 18,427,102$ 18,341,730$ 19,062,955$ 103.93%19,260,070$ 20,489,400$ 111.71%21,277,545$ 2015 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT 001 COUNCIL 1001 COUNCIL $328,642 $314,402 $345,470 $350,530 $332,945 $333,870 $339,685 1002 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - 1,993 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 1003 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 2,542 1,873 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1040 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 354 - 725 725 725 3,500 3,500 1050 PLANNING COMMISSION 2,308 2,187 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 3,820 1060 PARK & OPEN SPACE COMM 266 1,023 1,050 1,100 1,050 1,100 1,100 1070 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 811 922 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 TOTAL DIVISION (001)334,923 322,400 359,710 364,820 347,185 350,935 356,750 003 CITY MANAGER 1030 CITY MANAGER 452,723 503,418 533,370 464,430 543,340 515,040 535,470 1031 CITY COMMUNICATION 242,224 258,733 283,445 283,445 291,630 298,370 304,040 TOTAL DIVISION (003)694,947 762,151 816,815 747,875 834,970 813,410 839,510 004 TRANSFERS OUT 1025 TRANSFERS OUT 2,104,000 2,220,950 850,000 850,000 1,100,000 1,982,580 2,207,580 TOTAL DIVISION (004)2,104,000 2,220,950 850,000 850,000 1,100,000 1,982,580 2,207,580 005 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1101 GENERAL SERVICES 690,463 715,629 733,100 741,760 748,535 758,710 777,930 1102 ACCOUNTING 274,989 285,964 289,105 293,575 295,960 300,740 309,240 1105 COMPUTER SERVICES 728,680 759,700 819,510 820,680 847,230 870,515 889,155 1142 ELECTIONS 18,051 51,252 27,430 27,430 57,005 57,005 27,580 TOTAL DIVISION (005)1,712,183 1,812,545 1,869,145 1,883,445 1,948,730 1,986,970 2,003,905 006 LEGAL SERVICES 1121 LEGAL SERVICES 156,441 138,215 155,000 155,000 250,000 158,100 175,000 TOTAL DIVISION (006)156,441 138,215 155,000 155,000 250,000 158,100 175,000 007 RISK MANAGEMENT 1115 INSURANCE 169,213 154,842 305,000 275,000 310,000 310,000 320,000 TOTAL DIVISION (007)169,213 154,842 305,000 275,000 310,000 310,000 320,000 011 BUILDING OPERATIONS 1180 BUILDING OPERATIONS 546,903 526,229 583,635 601,715 639,500 692,680 688,960 TOTAL DIVISION (011)546,903 526,229 583,635 601,715 639,500 692,680 688,960 016 PLANNING 1166 PLANNING 279,858 326,394 362,450 354,915 369,250 409,655 424,350 TOTAL DIVISION (016)279,858 326,394 362,450 354,915 369,250 409,655 424,350 018 INSPECTIONS 1162 INSPECTIONS 654,772 735,455 791,310 782,985 767,000 769,280 790,100 TOTAL DIVISION (018)654,772 735,455 791,310 782,985 767,000 769,280 790,100 022 POLICE 1300 POLICE ADMINISTRATION 903,122 921,427 975,440 977,350 996,975 1,002,300 1,032,850 1320 POLICE OPERATIONS 3,751,373 4,018,985 4,618,170 4,754,935 4,782,105 4,897,805 5,155,750 1321 DRUG TASK FORCE 2,921 8,717 - - - - - 1323 SAFE AND SOBER 13,995 17,432 - - - - - 1130 PROSECUTION AND COURT 243,856 290,409 291,655 285,655 295,470 304,470 308,655 TOTAL DIVISION (022)4,915,267 5,256,970 5,885,265 6,017,940 6,074,550 6,204,575 6,497,255 023 FIRE 1346 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 1,146,396 1,246,085 1,336,825 1,501,365 1,481,345 1,496,150 1,539,945 TOTAL DIVISION (023)1,146,396 1,246,085 1,336,825 1,501,365 1,481,345 1,496,150 1,539,945 / PROGRAM DIVISION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROPOSED 2018 - 2019 OPERATING BUDGET 2015 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT / PROGRAM DIVISION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PROPOSED 2018 - 2019 OPERATING BUDGET 035 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 1400 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 259,423 290,377 304,310 300,870 312,095 309,505 317,785 TOTAL DIVISION (035)259,423 290,377 304,310 300,870 312,095 309,505 317,785 036 ENGINEERING 1420 GENERAL ENGINEERING 421,646 423,815 453,630 452,700 455,100 461,345 470,585 1425 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 42,292 51,478 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 1430 STREET LIGHTING 202,844 194,853 265,000 265,000 265,000 230,000 220,000 1452 MISC CONCRETE REPAIR 31,503 18,373 35,750 35,750 35,895 35,750 35,750 TOTAL DIVISION (036)698,285 688,519 803,380 802,450 804,995 776,095 775,335 037 STREETS 1440 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,132,791 1,357,408 1,419,605 1,436,980 1,466,435 1,634,385 1,663,845 1448 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL 141,523 142,385 190,125 190,125 196,580 196,540 199,440 TOTAL DIVISION (037)1,274,314 1,499,793 1,609,730 1,627,105 1,663,015 1,830,925 1,863,285 065 COMMUNITY CENTERS 1605 BROOKVIEW COMM CTR-GENERAL 35,032 40,082 - - - - - 1669 RONALD B DAVIS-MEADOWBROOK 37,873 40,094 - - - - - TOTAL DIVISION (065)72,905 80,176 - - - - - 066 PARK AND REC ADMINISTRATION 1600 PARK AND REC ADM 682,885 675,467 719,970 720,780 735,870 737,210 756,760 TOTAL DIVISION (066)682,885 675,467 719,970 720,780 735,870 737,210 756,760 067 PARK MAINTENANCE 1620 PARK MAINTENANCE 889,912 927,613 967,635 983,520 991,075 1,010,600 1,062,795 1646 TREE MAINTENANCE 187,179 194,501 202,705 203,015 205,030 205,345 208,075 TOTAL DIVISION (067)1,077,091 1,122,114 1,170,340 1,186,535 1,196,105 1,215,945 1,270,870 068 PARK AND REC PROGRAMS ADULT PROGRAMS: 1596 ADULT-ATHLETICS 7,251 9,326 12,325 12,325 12,605 12,630 13,165 1597 ADULT-SOFTBALL 23,420 24,687 25,895 26,715 26,410 31,690 31,790 1680 ADULT-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 26,765 28,635 28,835 28,835 28,855 30,955 30,955 TOTAL ADULT PROGRAMS 57,436 62,648 67,055 67,875 67,870 75,275 75,910 YOUTH PROGRAMS: 1660 YOUTH-SUMMER PLAYGROUND 85,497 72,804 90,575 83,700 92,170 72,900 72,900 1670 YOUTH-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 61,503 61,385 59,140 59,140 59,755 61,805 62,510 1673 YOUTH-ATHLETICS 5,941 11,290 27,765 40,525 27,860 57,100 57,830 1678 YOUTH-WINTER REC TRAILS 9,047 3,459 - - - - - 1679 YOUTH-RINK SUPERVISION 17,269 25,968 29,090 29,090 29,810 29,810 30,695 TOTAL YOUTH PROGRAMS 179,257 174,906 206,570 212,455 209,595 221,615 223,935 SENIOR PROGRAMS: 1691 SENIOR-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 44,165 24,982 46,635 46,635 48,705 48,705 49,840 1694 SENIOR-TRIPS 55,550 59,853 56,200 56,200 56,200 56,200 56,200 TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS 99,715 84,835 102,835 102,835 104,905 104,905 106,040 RONALD B DAVIS COMM CTR: 1669 MEADOWBROOK COMM CTR - - 42,385 42,385 43,090 43,590 44,270 TOTAL RONALD B DAVIS COMM CTR - - 42,385 42,385 43,090 43,590 44,270 TOTAL DIVISION (068)336,408 322,389 418,845 425,550 425,460 445,385 450,155 GENERAL FUND TOTAL DIVISIONS 17,116,214 18,181,071 18,341,730 18,598,350 19,260,070 20,489,400 21,277,545