Loading...
04-10-18 C/M Agenda Packet A G E N D A Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room April 10, 2018 6:30 pm Pages 1. Commission Annual Reports: a. Planning Commission 2017 Annual Report (15 minutes) b. Board of Zoning Appeals 2017 Annual Report (15 minutes) 2-12 13-25 2. Update on DeCola Ponds B & C Project (15 minutes) 26 3. Highway 169 Mobility Study Implementation Plan (30 minutes) 27-34 4. Review Process for Discussion of Organized Garbage Collection (40 minutes) 35-54 5. 2017 Positive Performance-General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund Balance (15 minutes) 55-67 6. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: Housing & Redevelopment Authority April 17, City Council April 17, City Council May 1 and Council/Manager May 8, 2018 68-71 Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting April 10, 2018 Agenda Item 1. A. Planning Commission - 2017 Annual Report Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary The Planning Commission Vice Chair, Andy Johnson, will be in attendance to provide a review of the work completed by the Commission in 2017 and to discuss issues related to planning for 2018 and beyond. Attachment • Planning Commission - 2017 Annual Report (10 pages) Planning Commission 2017 Annual Report 2017 Planning Commissioners Rich Baker, Chair Andy Johnson, Vice Chair John Kluchka, Secretary Ronald Blum Amy Blenker Adam Brookins Chuck Segelbaum Cathy Waldhauser Ian Black, Youth Member City Staff Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Kayla Grover, Community Development Intern Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Duties of the Planning Commission The Planning Commission shall: A.Review and make recommendations on specific development proposals made by private developers and public agencies. B.Review and make recommendations on proposed rezonings, subdivision plans, amendments to the zoning text, platting regulations and variances and similar items having to do with administration and regulatory measures. C.Conduct special studies dealing with items such as renewal, civic design, maintenance of a suitable living and working environment, economic conditions, etc. These studies may be conducted at the initiative of the Planning Commission and/or specific direction from the City Council. D.Review major public capital improvement plans against the policy and goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the area. E.Advise and make recommendations relative to housing, new development, and redevelopment projects proposed by the HRA prior to the final commitment of such projects by the HRA. This charge shall also relate to such responsibilities as: 1.Make recommendations to the City Council and/or HRA on the use of Federal and State Funds received for housing and community development. 2.Make recommendations to the City Council on the City’s part icipation in other Federal, State, Metropolitan Council, County and Multi-City Housing and Community Development programs. F.Advise and make recommendations in matters relating to and affecting the environment such as: 1.Taking into account environmental concerns and the impact on the environment of any Planning Commission recommended action. 2.To cooperate with and coordinate environmental proposals and programs with other City groups and Federal, State, Metro, Cou nty and other municipal groups. 3.To make such reviews of land reclamation, filling, excavation and grading applications as are required by City ordinance or referred to the Commission by the Council; provided that no review or recommendation shall remove or limit the right of a property owner in accordance with City ordinances and the statutes and constitution of the State of Minnesota. 2017 Annual Report Although busy in other ways, the Golden Valley Planning Commission had a slower year in 2017 in terms of applications submitted for review. There were two subdivisions considered – an increase from 2016 but well below the peak in 2014. Three Conditional Use Permits were also reviewed. The largest project brought forward was the proposed Tennant Company expansion in order to construct a new six-story office building to serve as their new World Headquarters. This complicated proposal involved an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development, rezonings, lot consolidations, vacations of City property, and a relocation of the Damascus Way facility. A significant amount of the Commission’s time in 2017 was spent developing and refining the content of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners took input from the public and worked with staff and consultants to review and provide feedback on all of the chapters and topics in the draft document. The information below attempts to capture in figures and graphs the activities of the Commission over the past year. Number of Planning Commission Meetings Held: 20 Meetings Cancelled: 5 Number of Joint Commission Meetings Held: 1 January 23 – Community Survey, Debt & Infrastructure Joint Meeting with Environmental, Open Space and Recreation, and Human Rights Commissions, Human Services Fund, and Board of Zoning Appeals Number of Planning Applications Considered: 14 Number of Zoning Text Amendments Considered: 2 Number of Staff Led Discussions/Presentations: 17 12 2 Planning Applications Considered Recommended Approval Recommended Denial 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Planning Applications by Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Site Plan Review Land Use Change Rezoning Subdivision CUP PUD/Major Amend 2017 Planning Applications by Type 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Site Plan Review Land Use Change Rezoning Subdivision CUP PUD/Major Amend Planning Applications by Type (5 years) 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Planning ApplicationTypes, 2013 - 2017 0 2,500 5,0001,250 Feet Sources: Print Date: 3/21/2018-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.I Planning Application A Location Type "CUP (25) ¸Land Use Change (10) "PUD (34) !Rezoning (16) ¸Site Plan Review (1) !Subdivision (20) Planning ApplicationYears, 2013 - 2017 0 2,500 5,0001,250 Feet Sources: Print Date: 3/21/2018-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.I Planning Application A Location Year !2017 (14) !2016 (21) !2015 (18) !2014 (33) !2013 (20) Zoning Text Amendments Considered Item Description Board of Zoning Appeals Adding a Youth Member to the Board of Zoning Appeals Mobile Food Vendors Expanding the scope of food truck operations to include Residential Zoning Districts Consideration of Redevelopment Area/Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District: Douglas Drive Redevelopment Plan and Project Area; Tennant TIF District Staff Led Discussions/Presentations: Zoning Code: 3 (Height and Average Grade, Outdoor Storage, Places of Assembly) Tennant Company Concept Plan 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program 2040 Comprehensive Plan: 12 (5 “Comp Plan Conversations” with the Public) (7 Planning Commission Work Sessions) Other PUD Amendments considered (not reviewed by Planning Commission): Minor Amendments: 2 (Global Pointe Senior – reduction in height of building and number of units) (Cornerstone Creek – replat to better define ownership of areas within building) Administrative Amendments: 1 (The Xenia – reduction in number of units and parking spaces, increase in parking deck area, relocation of indoor pool, revision of elevations) Major Projects Approved Item/Location Type Description Skylab Glass Arts 8838 7th Ave S CUP Accessory retail in support of a glass arts studio Tralee at Cutacross 210 Cutacross Subdivision Demolition of an existing home and subdivision of one lot into two Global Adult Day Services 6969 Madison Ave W CUP Adult day care for up to 30 individuals from refugee and immigrant communities Lions Park View 7200 Harold Ave Subdivision Demolition of an existing home and subdivision of one lot into two Tennant Company 701 Lilac Drive Major PUD Amendment, Rezoning Expansion of the existing campus to include a three-story parking ramp and a six-story office building Damascus Way 5808 Olson Memorial Hwy Land Use Change, Rezoning, CUP Relocation of a 24-hour residential facility serving up to 30 individuals recently released from correctional facilities or treatment centers Previously Approved Projects with Construction Pending: 2013 Global Pointe Senior Living – Senior Apartments (5200 Wayzata Boulevard) 2015 Central Park West – Phase 2 Apartments (Utica Avenue South) The Schuett Companies – Senior Apartments (9000 Golden Valley Road) 2016 Mortenson – Reconstruction of Parking Ramp (700 Meadow Lane North) Central Park West – Phase 1 Office (10 West End) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting April 10, 2018 Agenda Item 1. B. Board of Zoning Appeals - 2017 Annual Report Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planning/Grant Writer Summary Staff will provide a review of the work completed by the Board in 2017. Attachment • Board of Zoning Appeals - 2017 Annual Report (12 pages) Board of Zoning Appeals 2017 Annual Report 2 2017 Board Members David Perich, Chair George Maxwell, Vice Chair Nancy Nelson Richard Orenstein Rotating Planning Commissioner City Staff Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant 3 Duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five (5) members that meet once a month if there are any petitions pending for action. All members of the Board of Zoning Appeals serve a one-(1) year term. A Planning Commissioner serves as the fifth (5th) member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the following powers: 1. To decide appeals where it is alleged that an error has been made in any Order, requirement, decision or determination and/or interpretation made by a City administrative officer in enforcement and administration of this Chapter. 2. To hear requests for variances from the requirements of this Chapter, including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. A variance may be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with this Chapter “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter; b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Notwithstanding the foregoing, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. 4. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is not allowed for property in the Zoning District where the affected person’s land is located. The Board of Zoning Appeals may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 5. When either the City, Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota creates or worsens a nonconforming setback or prevents or worsens compliance with the applicable parking requirements by acquiring, a portion of a lot for a public improvement, the lot owner shall be entitled as a matter of right to obtain a variance for the nonconforming setback or parking condition so created or worsened. Total Number of Variances Considered: 8 Located in R-1 Residential Zoning District: 8 BZA Requests by Type - 2017 i 3 2 0 Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Height Impervious Fence Height Accessory Surface Structure Height Number of Requests BZA Decisions, 2017 s�a ii "Approved a Denied —Tabled 4 5 Garage, 2 New Home or Building, 1 Home or Building Addition, 1 Fence, 1 Paved Area, 1 Shed, 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED PROJECTS REUESTING VARIANCES, BY TYPE OF PROJECT - 2017 Number of Variances Considered: 132 Located in R-1 Residential Zoning District: 116 Located in Institutional Zoning District: 14 Located in Industrial Zoning District: 1 Located in Light Industrial Zoning District: 1 BZA Requests by Type, 2013-2017 Fence Height Accessory Structure Height Paved Area j Accessory Structure Size i Accessory Structure Location Average Grade Shoreland Setback j Articulation I Building Envelope I i I Height i Rear Setback Side Setback j i Front Setback 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 r Number of Requests 6 BZA Decisions, 2013-2017 NiApproved ■Denied —Tabled I TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS REQUESTING VARIANCES, BY TYPE OF PROJECT: 2013-2017 Shed,3 —Parking, 1 Paved Area,7 Fence,2 Garage, 22 Home or Building Addition,24 Deck, 16 ,¢r Front Porch, 1 New Home or Building, 11 7 8 Types of Variances Considered Variance Type Description Front Yard Setback Requests to build structures within 35 feet of the front yard property line in R-1, R-2, and Institutional Districts. Institutional Districts also require that at least 25 feet be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. Side Yard Setback Requests to build structures within the side yard setback area, which ranges from 5 feet to 50 feet depending on the type of structure and the Zoning District. Rear Yard Setback Requests to build structures within the rear yard setback area, which ranges from 5 feet to 50 feet depending on the type of structure and the Zoning District. Articulation Requests to waive articulation requirement, which requires inward or outward articulation of 2 feet in depth and 8 feet in length for every 32 feet of side wall on homes in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Height Requests to build principal structures over the maximum height requirement, which ranges from 25 to 28 feet depending on the type of roof and the Zoning District. Fence Height Requests to build fences over the maximum height requirements, which ranges from 4 to 12 feet depending on the location on the property (front yard or side/rear yard) and the Zoning District. Building Envelope Requests to build a structure beyond the maximum building envelope, which is defined for properties within the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. This includes the 2:1 or 4:1 slope requirement when the structure is taller than 15 feet at the side yard setback line. Accessory Structure Location Requests to build a garage, shed, or other accessory structure in a location that is not completely to the rear of the principal structure or in a location that is not at least 10 feet from the principal structure. Accessory Structure Size Requests to build a garage, shed, or other accessory structures above the allowable limit of 1,000 square feet in R-1, R-2, and Institutional Zoning Districts. Accessory Structure Height Requests to build a garage, shed, or other accessory structures above the maximum height requirements, which is 10 feet in the R-1, R-2, and Institutional Zoning Districts. Average Grade Requests to change the average grade of a property by more than 1 foot. Shoreland Setback Requests to build a structure within the minimum shoreland setbacks, which are larger than standard front, side, and rear setbacks. Impervious Surface Requests to construct additional impervious surface beyond the maximum allowable, which is 50% of the lot in R-1 and R-2 and 60% in R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!C I T Y O F N E W H O P E C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK C I T Y O F N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTHWinnetka Ave SWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NMedicine Lake Rd Glenwood AveMendelssohn Ave NPly m out h Ave N 10th Ave N Golden Valley Rd 7thAve Boone Ave NWisconsin Ave NNevada Ave NGeneralMillsBlvdG o ld e n V alleyRdRhodeIslandSandburg Rd Countr y Club Dr Olympia St Harold Ave Laur el Ave Louisiana Ave SJersey AveFloridaAve SGolden Hills DrZane Ave NLindsay St Olson Mem HwyFrontage Rd TurnersCrossroad NMeadow Ln NNoble Ave NHampshireAve SXenia Ave SWayzataBlvd W ayz a ta Blvd Zenith Ave NDecatur Ave NDuluth S t G o l d e n Val leyRd Be tty CrockerDr Pennsylvania Ave SWayzataBlvd TheodoreW i r t h Pkw yN Frontage R d LilacDrNAveN!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Christian Life Center Former OptumOffice Site Kingdom Hall ofJehovah's Witnesses BellboyCorporation Noble ElementarySchool Golden ValleyHistorical SocietyMuseum 0 1,800 3,600900Feet IPrint Date: 3/16/2018Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Types of Projectsin last 5 years:2013-2017 !(Building Addition !(Deck !(Deck !(Fence !(Front Porch !(Garage !(Home Addition !(New Building !(New Home !(Parking !(Paved Area !(Shed !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!C I T Y O F N E W H O P E C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK C I T Y O F N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTHWinnetka Ave SWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NMedicine Lake Rd Glenwood AveMendelssohn Ave NPly m out h Ave N 10th Ave N Golden Valley Rd 7thAve Boone Ave NWisconsin Ave NNevada Ave NGeneralMillsBlvdG o ld e n V alleyRdRhodeIslandSandburg Rd Countr y Club Dr Olympia St Harold Ave Laur el Ave Louisiana Ave SJersey AveFloridaAve SGolden Hills DrZane Ave NLindsay St Olson Mem HwyFrontage Rd TurnersCrossroad NMeadow Ln NNoble Ave NHampshireAve SXenia Ave SWayzataBlvd W ayz a ta Blvd Zenith Ave NDecatur Ave NDuluth S t G o l d e n Val leyRd Be tty CrockerDr Pennsylvania Ave SWayzataBlvd TheodoreW i r t h Pkw yN Frontage R d LilacDrNAveN!( !( !( !( !( !( !( 0 1,800 3,600900Feet IPrint Date: 3/16/2018Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Types of Projectsin 2017 !(Fence !(Garage !(Home Addition !(New Home !(Paved Area !(Shed !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!C I T Y O F N E W H O P E C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK C I T Y O F N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTHWinnetka Ave SWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NMedicine Lake Rd Glenwood AveMendelssohn Ave NPly m out h Ave N 10th Ave N Golden Valley Rd 7thAve Boone Ave NWisconsin Ave NNevada Ave NGeneralMillsBlvdG o ld e n V alleyRdRhodeIslandSandburg Rd Countr y Club Dr Olympia St Harold Ave Laur el Ave Louisiana Ave SJersey AveFloridaAve SGolden Hills DrZane Ave NLindsay St Olson Mem HwyFrontage Rd TurnersCrossroad NMeadow Ln NNoble Ave NHampshireAve SXenia Ave SWayzataBlvd W ayz a ta Blvd Zenith Ave NDecatur Ave NDuluth S t G o l d e n Val leyRd Be tty CrockerDr Pennsylvania Ave SWayzataBlvd TheodoreW i r t h Pkw yN Frontage R d LilacDrNAveN!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( Christian Life Center Former OptumOffice Site Kingdom Hall ofJehovah's Witnesses BellboyCorporation Noble ElementarySchool Golden ValleyHistorical SocietyMuseum 0 1,800 3,600900Feet IPrint Date: 3/16/2018Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Types of VarianceRequests in last 5years: 2013-2017 !(Accessory Structure Height !(Accessory Structure Location !(Accessory Structure Size !(Articulation !(Average Grade !(Building Envelope !(Fence Height !(Front Setback !(Height !(Impervious Surface !(Parking !(Paved Area !(Rear Setback !(Shoreland Setback !(Side Setback !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!C I T Y O F N E W H O P E C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R K CITY OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK C I T Y O F N E W H O P E CITY OF PLYMOUTHCITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L O U I S P A R KCITY OFPLYMOUTHWinnetka Ave SWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NMedicine Lake Rd Glenwood AveMendelssohn Ave NPly m out h Ave N 10th Ave N Golden Valley Rd 7thAve Boone Ave NWisconsin Ave NNevada Ave NGeneralMillsBlvdG o ld e n V alleyRdRhodeIslandSandburg Rd Countr y Club Dr Olympia St Harold Ave Laur el Ave Louisiana Ave SJersey AveFloridaAve SGolden Hills DrZane Ave NLindsay St Olson Mem HwyFrontage Rd TurnersCrossroad NMeadow Ln NNoble Ave NHampshireAve SXenia Ave SWayzataBlvd W ayz a ta Blvd Zenith Ave NDecatur Ave NDuluth S t G o l d e n Val leyRd Be tty CrockerDr Pennsylvania Ave SWayzataBlvd TheodoreW i r t h Pkw yN Frontage R d LilacDrNAveN!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( 0 1,800 3,600900Feet IPrint Date: 3/16/2018Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2018).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Types of VarianceRequests in 2017 !(Accessory Structure Height !(Fence Height !(Front Setback !(Height !(Impervious Surface !(Rear Setback !(Side Setback Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting April 10, 2018 Agenda Item 2. Update on DeCola Ponds B & C Project Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer Summary Staff will provide the City Council with a verbal update on the DeCola Ponds B & C Project. Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting April 10, 2018 Agenda Item 3. Highway 169 Mobility Study Implementation Plan Prepared By Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Summary The Highway 169 Mobility Study was initiated over two years ago by Scott County, MnDOT, and Metropolitan Council to evaluate the potential for a combination of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and MnPASS express lanes from Shakopee to Minneapolis that would reduce congestion, improve safety, provide more transportation choices, and increase access to jobs and destinations. The study includes an in-depth analysis in 14 technical memos, totaling 517 pages of information. Staff has reviewed and commented on the entirety of this work and will use the results for planning in the Hwy 169 and Hwy 55 corridors. The study also includes a 48-page implementation plan. This study will be on an upcoming City Council agenda to receive and file. The implementation plan includes three major components relevant to Golden Valley. 1. Hwy 55 BRT The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for this study recommended a BRT alignment along highway 169 and Highway 55 from Shakopee to Minneapolis (see “Optimized Scenario” on attached map). It includes stops in Golden Valley at General Mills Boulevard, Winnetka Avenue, Douglas Drive, and Theodore Wirth Parkway This route would serve many transit-dependent persons (those without cars) and reverse-commute riders (those living near downtown and working in the suburbs). The Golden Valley City Council adopted a resolution of support for the Hwy 55 BRT alignment on November 21, 2017 (see attached). The Cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Edina are also supporting the Hwy 55 route over the I-394 route for this project. Next Steps The next major step for the implementation of Hwy 55 BRT is related to the Metropolitan Council’s regional transit plan. Updates are being made to the plan, which is referred to as the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). The results of this study are not currently in the TPP, but it is crucial that the TPP show this BRT project in order to receive federal, state, and regional funding when it becomes available. The Met Council staff is recommending that this project be included in the TPP update (see Project #17 on attached map). The update process includes several committee meetings and a public comment period over the summer with adoption expected in October. Golden Valley staff will provide comments during the public review period and monitor this process in order to ensure that this project is included. Additionally, staff has included transit-supportive land uses, densities, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements along Hwy 55 in the 2040 Comp Plan. 2. Interim Bus Service on Hwy 55 Since Hwy 55 BRT is only in the early planning stages, it will take many years to secure funding, complete advanced design work, construct stations, and begin operation. As this work progresses, it is essential to build up a market for increased transit service in the area, particularly for suburb-to- suburb transit service and reverse-commute trips. The study proposes that interim bus service be implemented. Two route options were presented in the study. Interim route Option 1 (shown on attached map as “Interim Service 1”) would run from Shakopee to the General Mills Station. Interim route Option 2 (“Interim Service 2” on map) would continue on Hwy 55 into Minneapolis. Interim service is designed to run less frequently than BRT. Funding for interim service has not been secured. Option 1 would cost $4.4 million to construct while Option 2 would cost $8.8 million. Next Steps The next step for the implementation of interim bus service is to initiate a coalition of project champions, which would include Scott County, Hennepin County, MnDOT, Metropolitan Council, and other local governments along the route. The coalition would work through the complex process of searching for and securing funding from federal, state, regional, and county levels of government. The study includes a list of specific funding sources to investigate. 3. Safety Improvements at Betty Crocker Drive/Hwy 55/I-394 The study identified the need for safety and congestion improvements at the Betty Crocker Drive interchange area on Hwy 169. Sub-standard ramp connections result in bottleneck traffic conditions and high crash rates. The improvements (shown on the attached map) would also prepare the highway for MnPASS express lanes and BRT service. The Implementation Plan is separated into several stages in order to align with other scheduled improvements by MnDOT in the area. This is the last and most costly stage of the Implementation Plan (Stage H). The phase includes multiple components that will cost approximately $190 million (out of a total investment of $400 million). As part of an earlier phase of implementation (Stage B), the Betty Crocker Drive bridge over Hwy 169 is scheduled for reconstruction by MnDOT between 2022 and 2027. Next Steps The next step is for staff to work with MnDOT to ensure that the Betty Crocker Drive bridge is designed to a width that accommodates future construction of MnPASS express lanes and BRT as well as bicycle and pedestrian. Staff will coordinate with MnDOT to encourage the inclusion of as many components from Stage H in the bridge reconstruction as possible. Attachments • Map - Optimized Scenario (1 page) • Resolution 17-72 Supporting BRT Service on Highway 169 and Highway 55 (2 pages) • Map - Proposed Update to 2040 TPP Increased Revenue Scenario (1 page) • Map - Interim Route Options 1 and 2 (1 page) • Exhibit - Safety Improvements on Highway 169 at Betty Crocker Drive/Hwy 55/I-394 (1 page) Eden Prairie �i Optimized Scenario Theodore Winnetka Douglas Wirth' Penn Avenue— Drive Parkway Ave eneral-Mills • ,\, U��^. Golden Valley a:,. �—�.----•:-- . , 7J/ St. Louis Penn Ave serve Park by Blue Line LRT Minneapolis L and C Line �r a A O O Hopkins pkins• BRT Enters MnPASS Lane d Hopkins Station served by Green Line LRT �YYE�r 11 O • Bren Road Edina E rM-NME 4 Viking Station served by American Blvd ABRT 0 -A.-- Viking Dr Canterbury Road • Marschall Shakopee Road BRT Enters MnPASS Lane Bloomington BRT Leaves MnPASS Lane Richfield 7th Street Station �* served by D Line •��` 7th Street COQ Station ���` �', 7th Street09 Transit Center �• �� r�c� ��'* •.�6rh s ��'�` PJB • Inline Station I� ® Offline Station) Optimized Scenario MnPASS lanes not ) 1 used by BRT G MnPASS lanes used 1 by BRT Planned Transitway Alignments Increased Revenue Scenario American Boulevard nn r,I, '""""r" +"""" Current Revenue Scenario D Line C Line t Green Line Extension ? Blue Line Extension 1 2 �0 Miles Eden Prairie �i Optimized Scenario Theodore Winnetka Douglas Wirth' Penn Avenue— Drive Parkway Ave eneral-Mills • ,\, U��^. Golden Valley a:,. �—�.----•:-- . , 7J/ St. Louis Penn Ave serve Park by Blue Line LRT Minneapolis L and C Line �r a A O O Hopkins pkins• BRT Enters MnPASS Lane d Hopkins Station served by Green Line LRT �YYE�r 11 O • Bren Road Edina E rM-NME 4 Viking Station served by American Blvd ABRT 0 -A.-- Viking Dr Canterbury Road • Marschall Shakopee Road BRT Enters MnPASS Lane Bloomington BRT Leaves MnPASS Lane Richfield 7th Street Station �* served by D Line •��` 7th Street COQ Station ���` �', 7th Street09 Transit Center �• �� r�c� ��'* •.�6rh s ��'�` PJB Resolution 17-72 November 21, 2017 Member Schmidgall introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUTURE BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 169 AND HIGHWAY 55 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHWAY 169 MOBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Metropolitan Council, and Scott County funded and participated in the US Highway 169 Mobility Study, in partnership with cities and counties along the corridor, to evaluate the potential for MnPASS Express Lanes in the southwest metro area on Highway 169, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the same corridor from the city of Shakopee north to corridors connecting to downtown Minneapolis; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the project, as established through the study process, is to increase access to jobs and destinations, provide transportation choices, and improve safety and travel time for Highway 169 travelers; and WHEREAS, two (2) BRT alternatives were identified and studied: US 169 from Marschall Road north to Betty Crocker Drive (segment common to both alternatives) and east to downtown Minneapolis via 1-394 (Alternative 1) or via Highway 55 (Alternative 2); and WHEREAS, the evaluation of BRT alternatives shows strategic differences between the two alternatives: Alternative 1 serves a higher number of jobs along the corridor and has higher total projected ridership, Alternative 2 serves a higher number of people living along the corridor, has higher projected transit-dependent and reverse-commute ridership, and connects to the future METRO Blue Line light rail extension; and WHEREAS, six (6) project goals for evaluation of alternatives were established through the study process and both BRT alternatives similarly satisfy each of the project goals: Improve Access, Provide Improved Mobility, Attract Ridership, Provide a High Return on Investment, Prioritize Service to Transit-Supportive Development Areas, and Preserve the Environment; and WHEREAS, the project evaluation also shows that the addition of MnPASS lanes on Highway 169 between Marschall Road and Highway 55 is feasible and would satisfy the project goals by improving access to jobs and destinations, improving mobility by reducing and better managing congestion, providing a transit advantage for express bus service and in some areas BRT service, providing a high long-term return on investment, and preserving the environment; and WHEREAS, staff and elected officials from the City of Golden Valley have thoughtfully participated in the Highway 169 Mobility Study; and WHEREAS, it is understood that the current financial constraints of the region for highway and transit expansion projects beyond what are already assumed to be funded in the Transportation Policy Plan are challenging, but should additional funding become available, this project should be given due consideration for advancement in part or total. Resolution 17-72 2- November 21, 2017 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the City of Golden Valley recommends support of future BRT service on Highway 169 connecting to downtown Minneapolis via Highway 55 (Alternative 2) and MnPASS Lane additions on Highway 169 including future planning studies and infrastructure or transit investment to enable and support implementation. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, the City of Golden Valley requests the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT incorporate, prioritize, and consider these MnPASS and BRT improvements in plans, programs and projects. zz745 1/40 v 22Ca Shep rd M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: i Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Harris and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Proposed Update to 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) Increased Revenue Scenario Metropolitan Council, April 2018 Inline Stop Offline Stop Optimized Scenario MnPASS lanes not used by BRT MnPASS lanes used by BRT Planned Transitway Alignments Increased Revenue Scenario American Boulevard Current Revenue Scenario D Line C Line Green Line Extension 0 Blue Line Extension 0 9 2 4 Miles Carver ..._ Interim Service 1 r �a General_Mills y 12 Goldede n Vale; Wa zata St. Louis 169 Park O M nne its Bland Minnetonka 9" BRT Enters MnPASS Lane—yam Hopkin e Theodore,, iIV; Hopkins t Hopkins Station served Inline Stop Wlnnetka Douglas by Green Line LRT Interim Service 2 Offline Stop wmw Optimized Scenario eAvvenue—;DrWlve General_Mills Wayzata 1 2 % _`� Goldemy..alley� = � ill a Wo Edina MnPASS lanes not used by BRT M PASS' St. Louis y bby ,A Viking Station served Richfield American BlvdABRT - Viking Drive - ,,�jj►► Eden Prairie BRT Leaves MnPASS Lane ET, Marschall Shakopee Savage Road BRT Enters Mn PASS Lane LL;M op ' e Theodore,, iIV; Inline Stop Wlnnetka Douglas WIrtHi� Aven d\r–/ Pa ay Interim Service 2 Offline Stop wmw Optimized Scenario eAvvenue—;DrWlve General_Mills Wayzata 1 2 % _`� Goldemy..alley� = � ill a Wo MnPASS lanes not used by BRT M PASS' St. Louis y r� — O. ,A n anes used by BRT 1 ]�.39 Park {1 Minneapolis \., Planned Transitway Alignments woodland MinnetonkaJ 1 Penn Ave served Increased Revenue Scenario � by Blue Line LRT American Boulevard ¢� and C Line oeephaven BRT Enters MnPASS Lane d Current Revenue Scenario Hopkins wy D Line opkins rj Hopkins Station served C Line by Green Line LRT Green Line Extension t� — - si Blue Line Extension 0 . • ."' I� ct Edina 1{ 40 0 2 4 ., �+' —� Miles 4 Viking Station served by American BlvdABRT Richfield Ila Chanhassen ;t _ Viking Eden Prairie Bloomington BRT Leaves MnPASS Lane Marschall shako,pee BRT Enters MnPASS Lane Savage Road Burnsville 7th Street Station served by D Line � °,.001:•;*��Ft Highway 169 Mobility Study Implementation Plan - SRF Consulting Group, Inc. – March 2018 Highway 169 Safety Improvements at I-394, Betty Crocker Drive, and Highway 55 Stage H Vision Improvements: Betty Crocker Drive Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting April 10, 2018 Agenda Item 4. Review Process for Discussion of Organized Garbage Collection Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary At the March 13th Council Manager meeting, staff presented an outline of a process for a community discussion regarding residential waste hauling. Staff has two goals to accomplish with this meeting: First, staff will present baseline information for Council regarding waste collection. Secondly, it is important for Council to identify and agree upon its goals for waste collection in Golden Valley. Having clear goals will help to focus the discussion and arrive at a conclusion. Examples of goals may include: 1. Reducing the number of trucks on streets and in neighborhoods 2. Promote environmental stewardship in Golden Valley 3. Create a more efficient collection system 4. Provide option for curbside organics collection 5. Reduce costs to residents for collection 6. Increase level of service available to residents 7. Position Golden Valley to comply with County requirements 8. Quantify the amount of residential waste to monitor policy decisions 9. Keep costs of waste collection at current levels 10. Achieve zero waste landfill in Golden Valley 11. Begin long term strategy to better manage waste in Golden Valley Staff requests Council be prepared to discuss and establish its goals for waste collection. Attachments • Organized Collection PowerPoint (19 pages) Organized Collection Baseline Information & Goal Discussion April 10, 2018 Council Manager Meeting Why discuss solid waste collection? Interest in protecting infrastructure Concerns about safety, operations or number of trucks Desire to reduce noise and environmental impacts Interest in specific services or collection methods Achieve a community goal or objective Better understanding and management of waste collections Cities and residents often express interest in a variety of topics associated with waste collection. Current System Open system where residents contract with a licensed hauler 9 haulers serving residential customers Recycling is contracted by the City and is an “All-In” program 6787 residential accounts Commercial entities not included in contract Businesses, institutions, residential properties with more than 4 units City Ordinance Section 6.35: Solid Waste Collection Residents & Businesses must have waste disposal service or a waiver Haulers must be licensed by the City Haulers must offer solid waste and yard waste collection License application and performance requirements Requirements for truck features and conditions Requirements for disposal of waste City to maintain an “All-In” residential recycling program Special events (e.g. Mighty Tidy) Summary of ordinance provisions Licensed Haulers in Golden Valley 2018 Hauler Refuse Trucks Recycling Trucks* Republic Services 10 10 Randy’s 10 3 Waste Management 8 1 Aspen Waste 5 3 Dick’s Sanitation 3 2 Ace Solid Waste 3 1 Suburban Waste 1 1 Curbside Waste 1 0 Darling Ingredients**1 0 *Republic Services is the City’s residential recycling hauler. All other recycling trucks serve commercial properties. **Darling Ingredients only collects grease. Hennepin County 2030 Goal for residential waste: 60% Recycle 15% Organics 24% Waste to Energy 1% landfill An aggressive goal!!! Potential requirement by 2022 for cities to offer curbside organics County encouraging organics by redirecting recycling grant Solid Waste Management Master Plan 2018-2023 Golden Valley Recycling Program Currently organized and collected every other Friday 6787 recycling accounts in GV Enables accurate reporting to County for grant funding Part of quarterly utility bill and also funds Brush Pick Up, Leaf Drop & Mighty Tidy Challenge : Markets for recycling are soft and China demanding higher quality Requested proposal to extend contract Republic is now offering organics collections Two models: Opt-In or All-In Plymouth is including language to enable organics collection but as part of an amended or additional contract in future. Minnetonka is weighing Opt-In vs. All-In options. Summary of Community Survey Data 2013 Decision Resources 2016 Morris Leatherman (formerly Decision Resources) Composting & Yard Waste 26% have curbside pick up of organics 44% are very or somewhat interested in such service 29% are not interested 42% have curbside pick up of yard waste 37% are interested in such service 21% are not interested 2016 Morris Leatherman Survey Organized Collection vs. Open System Favor or Oppose an Organized Collection System? 2016 2013 Favor an organized system 51%39% Oppose an organized system 38%54% Don’t Know/Refused 12%7% 2016 Morris Leatherman Survey 2013 Decision Resources Survey Why do you feel that way?2016 2013 Don’t know/Refused/Scattered 0%2% Want Choice 21%36% Like current hauler 26%18% Choice is cheaper 6%9% Organized is cheaper 14%12% Less truck traffic 23%20% Less road maintenance 11%4% Is it better? 2016 Morris Leatherman Survey Open System Strongly feel Organized System Strongly Feel Don’t Know Street Maintenance 40%5%31%16%9% Cost of service 26%27%30%8%9% Pollution from trucks 23%18%27%23%10% Customer Service 33%17%26%10%15% Is ______________ better under an Open or Organized System? Same day collection? If you could pick your hauler but have neighborhood service on the same day, would you favor or oppose? Favor 63% Oppose 28% Don’t Know/Refused 10% 2013 Decision Resources Survey Summary of Hauler Discussion with New Hope Haulers want to be engaged in discussions and understand what cities need in waste collection. Contracts in organized cities are rigid and increase operational costs for haulers. Haulers get paid as City can assess unpaid bills. Open market allows for innovation. Haulers partner with each other to provide organics Freeze/Thaw is main reason roads deteriorate, not trucks 9 ton road can handle weight of trucks* *Local streets are built to 7 tons, State Aid & County roads are built to 9 ton or more April 2, 2018 Summary of Hauler Discussion with New Hope All haulers said they offer organics collection for an added fee Organized collection limits ability to go the extra mile for Efficiency gains do not make up for lost revenue Organized systems may not reflect true costs Cities may see increased overall costs due to administration needs Trucks are trending towards natural gas and away from diesel Haulers are better positioned to deal with customer service calls and billing than cities are April 2, 2018 Scenarios No Change Maintain Open system of trash collection Continue with a recycling contract Consider adjustments to ordinance and licensing Consortium Work with haulers to develop a system to coordinate trash collection throughout the City Incorporate City goals and needs into agreement Operations, Service Levels, Impacts, etc… Organized Collection City selects a hauler to service entire city Incorporate City goals and needs into contract Three basic outcomes but many options and nuances within each. Processes to Modify Waste Collections Community Discussion Process Council Decision No System Changes Consortium Organized Collection •Notice to Public & Haulers •Form Options Committee •Prepare Report to Council •If proceed, Public Hearing •6 Mo. until implementation •Notice to Public & Haulers •Min. 60 days to negotiate •6 Mo. until implementation •If no agreement, can proceed to O.C. process •Minor changes possible •Ordinance modifications Goals for Waste Collection in Golden Valley Communities have different reasons for considering how waste collection is managed: Financial Infrastructure Neighborhood interests Level of service Statutory requirements Environmental Administrative “When your values are clear to you, making decisions becomes easier.” -Roy Disney Examples of Goals for Waste Collection Management Reduce the number of trucks on streets and in neighborhoods Create a more efficient collection system Provide option for curbside organics collection Reduce costs to residents for collection Increase level of service available to residents Position Golden Valley to comply with County requirements Quantify the amount of residential waste to monitor policy decisions Keep costs of waste collection at current levels Promote environmental stewardship in Golden Valley through enhanced waste collection Achieve zero waste landfill in Golden Valley Begin long term strategy to better manage waste in GV Discussion of Goals and Values Identify and prioritize goals and values around waste hauling. Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting April 10, 2018 Agenda Item 5. 2017 Positive Performance-General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund Balance Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary The City of Golden Valley seeks to have a good balance in its General Fund in order to have sufficient reserves for cash flow purposes, projects, and unexpected shortfalls or emergencies. In December 2011, the City established a formal policy that states the level of fund balance should be maintained at 60% of adopted expenditures in the General Fund. Adequate reserves indicates fiscal prudence and maintains a high rating with bond-rating agencies, which prefer to see very strong and healthy balances. When the fund balance is greater than 60 percent, it should be reduced to 60 percent by using the excess funds for specific one-time projects, acquisitions, or transfers to capital funds to lessen the future impact on the property tax rate or long-term debt reduction. The one-time use protocol is important to ensure the City does not commit itself to expenditures that may create deficits in future budgets. For instance, when the City experiences an excess fund balance due to a one-time building permit revenue from a major commercial development, the City should not expect that same revenue will be received from future building permits. Budgets should be set using an average year of revenues and expenditures and not an exceptional year. In 2017, Golden Valley was extremely fortunate once again to have a positive performance level. Fund balance was over 60 percent of 2018 Expenditures by $1,966,420 and based on the 2018 Council Goals to reduce debt, staff recommends making the following transfers: General Fund (stays in fund) $85,000 The General Fund included two items that were not completed. One was the Crisis Management Plan documentation for $20,000 and the other was fire coat purchases for $65,000. This one-time amount of $85,000 will be restricted in the General Fund for these two purchases in 2018. Equipment Replacement Fund $1,881,420 One of the Council goals was to create a long-term debt strategy that would lessen or lower the overall debt the city has from the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and using certificates of indebtedness to finance equipment purchases. The use of positive performance will allow the City to finance equipment purchases without selling certificates of indebtedness. With this transfer, the City will still need an additional $155,977 (pg. XXX) to fund the Equipment Fund as outlined in the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In 2017, Council approved the debt levy for certificates of indebtedness to be added to the General Fund Levy. In 2018, this amount would be transferred to Debt Service to make the remaining payment of the current certificates. The Certificates are short term so the City does not have a call feature. The last payment for certificates will be in 2021. As the certificates outstanding decrease, the levy amount will be transferred to the Equipment Replacement Fund to pay for projects outlined in the CIP. If the City receives future positive performance and to meet the Council Goals, staff would recommend reducing future debt service payments to pay off bonds early or to transfer monies to help fund the Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP). This plan begins in 2023 but financing involves many sources of revenue such as utility (water, storm, sewer) funds, franchise fees, general fund transfers, assessments and sale of bonds. After discussion, staff will proceed with formal action on the April 17 Council Meeting. Attachments • Resolution Authorizing the Transfer (1 page) • December 2017 General Fund Financial Reports (2 pages) • Fund Balance Policy for General Fund (3 pages) • Fund Balance Year-End Classifications Policy in Accordance with GASB (4 pages) • Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund Financial Report (1 page) Resolution 18-XX April 17, 2018 Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $1,881,420 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND WHEREAS, the General Fund Reserves meets 60% of 2018 expenditures, and WHEREAS, per Resolution 11-82 states that staff will review with the Council any amounts above the 60% and recommend proposed uses of the funds, and WHEREAS, in 2017, permit revenue was at an exceptional high due to record high number of developments and cost containment from various expenditures from employee retention, general liability insurance, electric service, and maintenance materials in the amount above the 60% is $1,966,420; and WHEREAS, the amount of $85,000 will stay in the General Fund for completing the Crisis Management Plan for $20,000 and purchase the remaining fire coats for $65,000; and WHEREAS, the transfer of $1,881,420 to the Equipment Replacement Fund to help fund purchases of vehicles and equipment outlined in the 2018-2022 Vehicles and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Fund and to reduce the debt with eliminating the need to sell certificates of indebtedness to finance the equipment, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley to authorize the transfer of $1,881,420 from the General Fund to the Equipment Replacement Fund. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kristine A Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Clausen and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: none and the following voted against the same: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Over % 2017 December YTD (Under)Of Budget Budget Actual Actual Budget Expend. 001 Council $362,710 26,774 306,907 ($55,803)84.61% 003 City Manager 816,815 84,864 726,964 (89,851)89.00%(3) 004 Transfers Out 850,000 0 850,000 0 100.00%(1) 005 Admin. Services 1,874,665 215,512 1,860,542 (14,123)99.25% 006 Legal 215,000 41,350 206,807 (8,193)96.19%(2) 007 Risk Management 305,000 (19,926)225,617 (79,383)73.97% 011 General Gov't. Bldgs.583,635 105,832 533,164 (50,471)91.35% 016 Planning 362,450 37,931 317,174 (45,276)87.51% 018 Inspections 791,310 104,484 714,044 (77,266)90.24%(3) 022 Police 5,885,265 709,265 5,544,701 (340,564)94.21%(3) 023 Fire 1,494,620 140,493 1,348,889 (145,731)90.25% 035 Physical Dev Admin 304,310 36,837 293,558 (10,752)96.47% 036 Engineering 803,380 104,509 733,273 (70,107)91.27% 037 Streets 1,609,730 185,342 1,408,173 (201,557)87.48%(3) 066 Park & Rec. Admin.719,970 87,333 738,561 18,591 102.58%(4) 067 Park Maintenance 1,170,340 116,614 1,153,228 (17,112)98.54% 068 Recreation Programs 418,845 37,420 352,647 (66,198)84.20% TOTAL Expenditures $18,568,045 $2,014,634 $17,314,249 ($1,253,796)93.25% (1) This transfer was made in June, 2017. (2) Legal services are billed thru December (amended budget 12-19-17). (3) Following Departments had employee changes. (4) Due to the new building, more employee costs and supplies were needed. City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Expenditures December 2017 (unaudited) Division 100.00% Over % 2017 December YTD (Under)of Budget Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received Ad Valorem Taxes $14,814,685 7,325,359 14,853,621 $38,936 100.26%(1) Licenses 217,365 8,920 249,439 $32,074 114.76% Permits 1,128,790 138,293 2,892,472 $1,763,682 256.25%(2) Federal Grants 0 4,557 19,785 $19,785 State Aid 268,380 134,945 350,069 $81,689 130.44% County Aid 0 0 408 $408 #DIV/0! Charges For Services: General Government 19,000 5,402 50,794 $31,794 267.34%(2) Public Safety 154,175 10,691 152,045 ($2,130)98.62% Public Works 150,800 (1,187)151,526 $726 100.48% Park & Rec 385,350 17,379 384,838 ($512)99.87% Other Funds 791,500 63,087 766,525 ($24,975)96.84% Fines & Forfeitures 300,000 60,609 400,233 $100,233 133.41% Interest On Investments 75,000 102,007 102,007 $27,007 136.01% Miscellaneous Revenue 233,000 21,881 222,654 ($10,346)95.56% Transfers In 30,000 2,500 30,000 $0 100.00% TOTAL Revenue $18,568,045 $7,894,443 $20,626,416 $2,058,371 111.09% Notes: (1) Payments are received in July, December, and January (delinquencies). (2) The City set a record for the valuation of permits. 1% of System Availability Charges (SAC) is collected. Percentage Of Year Completed City of Golden Valley Monthly Budget Report - General Fund Revenues December 2017 (unaudited) Resolution 11-82 December 20, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FUND BALANCE POLICY FOR GENERAL FUND WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued Statement No. 54, which changes the terminology used for fund balance reporting on balance sheets of Governmental Funds; and WHEREAS, the Office of the State Auditor has recommended a Fund Balance Policy is approved by the Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has formalized a Fund Balance Policy for the General Fund; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley that is adopts the Fund Balance Policy for the General Fund, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, 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 her signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 11-82 - Continued December 20, 2011 Exhibit A City of Golden Valley Fund Balance Policy - General Fund The City Council authorizes the City Manager and/or Finance Director to assign fund balance that reflects the City's intended use of those funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned. These fund balance classifications apply only to Governmental Funds, not Enterprise or Internal Service Funds. Unassigned Fund Balance—Working Capital Policy The City's unassigned fund balance -working capital as of the end of the year should equal 60% of the current year's adopted expenditures. Any amount in excess of 60% will be used for budget stabilization. If the balance falls below 60%, a plan will be developed and implemented to replenish the funds. A balance equal to 60% of the current year's adopted expenditures is needed to fund the following year's operations until the tax settlement is received at the beginning of July. Unassigned Fund Balance— Budget Stabilization In recognition that the amount for working capital only covers operating costs for the first six months of the year, the City wants to maintain additional resources on hand to provide for contingencies. Therefore, at the end of each year, staff will review with the Council any amounts above 60% and recommend proposed uses of the funds. Proposed uses may include transfer to the capital maintenance or other funds, use for one-time projects to minimize the issuance of debt, or any other City purpose. The balance may be used for various contingencies including the following: • Provide flexibility if state law significantly limits the City's taxing and spending powers. This could include legislation regarding levy limits, property tax freezes, levy referendum requirements, etc. • Provide flexibility if the State eliminates or reduces State revenue including fire pension aid, police pension aid, state street aid, or PERA aid. • Provide some protection for future funding needs of the capital improvement plan (CIP). • Support the City's bond rating. • Cover expenses created by natural disaster, including flood, fire, or tornado; provided that if federal or state funds are received to offset these expenditures, the budget stabilization fund will be reimbursed. Resolution 11-82 - Continued December 20, 2011 • Cover a General Fund deficit when actual revenues are less than expenditures and to allow for a reasonable degree of error in budget forecasting. • Protect against other unforeseen expenditures and any other items. This policy protects the City in the event of temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted expenditures and provides time to react to permanent changes in the City's operating environment. Staff will seek council approval prior to use of the budget stabilization fund. Resolution 11-83 December 20, 2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FUND BALANCE YEAR-END CLASSIFICATIONS POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued Statement No. 54, which changes the terminology used for fund balance reporting on balance sheets of Governmental Funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley has set up Fund Balance Year-End Classification Policy in Accordance with GASB #54; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Golden Valley that is adopts the Fund Balance Year-End Classification Policy In Accordance with GASB #54, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Virnig, 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 her signature attested by the City Clerk. Resolution 11-83 - Continued December 20, 2011 Exhibit A City of Golden Valley Fund Balance Year-End Classification Policy in Accordance with GASB #54 PURPOSE: The Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA's) guiding principle for classifying the various components of fund balance is to indicate the extent to which the government is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in the fund can be spent. Following governmental accounting standards, the City has three basic categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. This fund balance classification policy applies only to the governmental categories. GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS In 2009, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued a new standard, GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. This new standard has altered the categories and terminology used to describe the components of fund balance in the governmental funds (but it does not apply to the proprietary or fiduciary funds). This standard is effective for Golden Valley beginning December 2011. The City's governmental funds include the following fund types: A. General Fund B. Special Revenue Funds C. Debt Service Funds D. Capital Projects Funds Definitions (as they apply to Governmental Funds under GASB 54): Fund balance -the difference between assets and liabilities reported in a governmental fund. Non-spendable fund balance - amounts that are not in a spendable form (e.g., prepaid items and inventories of supplies). Resources that must be maintained intact pursuant to legal or contractual requirements are also considered non-spendable. Restricted fund balance - amounts subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions (creditors, grantors, contributors, and by law through constitutional provisions or enabling regulations). Resolution 11-83 - Continued December 20, 2011 Unrestricted fund balance -the total of committed fund balance, assigned fund balance, and unassigned fund balance, as described below: Committed fund balance - amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of the government's highest level of decision-making authority (City Council). Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the City Council taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally. The City Council must take action on these commitments before year end. Assigned fund balance - amounts a government intends to use for a specific purpose; intent can be expressed by the government body or by an official or body to which the governing body delegates the authority to City Manager and/or Finance Director. Unassigned fund balance - amounts that are available for any purpose in the general fund. Only the general fund can report a positive amount of unassigned fund balance. A. General Fund The General Fund is established to account for all revenues and expenditures which are not required to be accounted for in other funds. Revenue sources include property taxes, license and permit fees, fines and forfeits, program revenues, intergovernmental revenues, investment interest earnings, and transfers. The General Fund's resources finance a wide range of functions including the operations of general government, public safety, and public works. The General Fund may have assigned fund balances at year end for approved transfers that meet the City's General Fund policy. The General Fund may have a portion of its fund balance classified as non-spendable if there are long term receivables, inventories, or prepaid items on the balance sheet. The General Fund is the only fund that can have any unassigned fund balance. The working capital balance of the general fund will fall into the unassigned fund balance classification. B. Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. Governmental accounting standards require that substantial inflows of revenues into a special revenue fund be either restricted or committed in order for the fund to be considered a special revenue fund. The City has three different special revenue funds as follows: Resolution 11-83 - Continued December 20, 2011 1. Tax Increment Funds -this is considered restricted based on state statute, redevelopment plan or financing plan. 2. Cemetery Trust-this is considered restricted based on state statute. 3. Human Service Fund -this fund balance is considered committed. C. Debt Service Funds Debt service fund balances are considered restricted; they are resources that are being accumulated for payments of principal and interest maturing in current and future years. All of the City of Golden Valley debt service funds are considered restricted. D. Capital Proiect Funds Capital project fund balances are considered restricted or committed; they are resources that are being accumulated for current and future projects. Capital project funds are used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets. In Golden Valley, capital project funds are split into four categories: 1. Capital Projects -this category has balances that are considered both restricted and committed. Balances are committed by the City Council for future projects. 2. Improvement Construction -these funds are considered restricted either through bond covenants, enabling legislation or city ordinance. 3. State Aid Construction -this fund balance is considered restricted by Minnesota Department of Transportation agreements. 4. HRA Capital Projects -The HRA General Fund, Housing Fund, Golden Hills TIF District and the North Wirth# 3 are restricted through enabling legislation. Order of Fund Balance Spend-down When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use resources in the following order: (1) committed, (2) assigned, and (3) unassigned. Eliminate: Equipment Certificates 2018-2022 CIP Financing 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Current Certificates O/S 2014B 251,125.00 2015B 275,050.00 272,700.00 2016B 278,350.00 273,050.00 272,700.00 2017A 25,197.00 285,475.00 282,450.00 284,200.00 Debt Service Payments 829,722.00 831,225.00 555,150.00 284,200.00 0.00 Equipment Fund Needs 1,200,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 Transfer to Eq Fund (50,000.00)(100,000.00)(100,000.00)(100,000.00)(100,000.00) Transfer to Debt Service (882,580.00)(882,580.00)(882,580.00)(882,580.00)(882,580.00) Total Needs 1,097,142.00 648,645.00 372,570.00 101,620.00 (182,580.00)2,037,397.00 1,881,420.00 Future Needs 155,977.00 A G E N D A Regular Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber April 17, 2018 6:30 pm Pages 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting - January 16, 2018 Special Meeting - February 20, 2018 4. Approval of Bills: Reimbursement of City Expenditures City of Golden Valley Bank Mutual TOTAL Bill Summary: General Fund North Wirth Capital Project Fund Highway 55 West Capital Project Fund Capital Project Fund (Cornerstone) Winnetka-Medicine Lake Capital Project Fund TOTAL 5. Receipt of Financial Reports 6. Amendment to Global Pointe Agreement 7. Douglas Drive Redevelopment Plan 8. Adjournment AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber April 17, 2018 Immediately following HRA meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Presentation: Proclamation for Robbinsdale Cooper High School Girls Basketball Team 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 - March 13, 2018 2. City Council Meeting - April 3, 2018 B. Approval of City Check Register C. Licenses: 1. Approve On-Sale Liquor License for LAT 14 Asian Eatery 2. General Business Licenses - Refuse and Recycling Vehicles 3. General Business Licenses - Fireworks Sales D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: E. Approve Pavement Marking Project #18-11 F. Modify Parking Restrictions on Schaper Road G. Board/Commission Appointments 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan Expansion B. Public Hearing - CUP - Class III Restaurant at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway C. Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - 7040 Glenwood Ave D. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit (Damascus Way) (Will postpone to May 1 CC meeting) 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Resolution Authorizing Bond Sale for 2018 Pavement Management Program B. Support Highway 169 Mobility Study Implementation Plan C. Approve Verizon Wireless Revised Small Cell Agreement D. Approve Agreement with Metropolitan Council E. Review of Council Calendar F. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT ion AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber May 1, 2018 6:30 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGES A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Presentation: Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) Award for Excellence for Schaper Park Challenge Course & Inclusive Play Area D. Presentation: Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) Award for Brookview 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. City Council Meeting - April 17, 2018 B. Approval of City Check Register C. Licenses: D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: E. Bids and Quotes: F. Tennant - Blight 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Import Auto Sales - 750 Florida Ave B. Public Hearing - Assessment and Improvement Hearings for Golden Hills/Xenia Public Improvement Project C. Public Hearing - Major PUD Amendment - Tennant (Damascus Way) D. Public Hearing - Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit (Damascus Way) 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Approve Contract T.H. 100 Ped. Bridge Repairs B. First Consideration - Amending the Chapter 5 Alcoholic Beverage Licensing and Regulation C. Review of Council Calendar D. Mayor and Council Communications 7. ADJOURNMENT A G E N D A Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room May 8, 2018 6:30 pm Pages 1. Commission 2017 Annual Report: a. Environmental Commission 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Proposed Work Plan (15 minutes) b. Open Space & Recreation Commission 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Proposed Work Plan (15 minutes) 2. Housing Policy Update ( minutes) 3. Comprehensive Plan - Review Full Draft ( minutes) 4. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council May 15, City Council June 5 and Council/Manager June 12, 2018 Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.