City Council Worksession

South St. Paul MAYOR/COUNCIL WORKSESSION SSP City Hall 125 3rd Avenue North Training room Monday, April 22, 2019 7:00 p.m. AGENDA: 1. 5th Ave Street Lighting and Crushing 2. Close Out of Park Referendum Fund and Projects 3. City-Provided Park Amenities Discussion – No Attachment 4. Council Representative on the Progress Plus Board of Directors 5. Hardman Triangle Update 6. Public Housing Management Update - No Attachment 7. Continued Participation in Dakota County CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs 8. Library Update – No Attachment 9. Council Comments/Questions A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: APRIL 22, 2019 1 DEPARTMENT: Engineering ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: 5th Avenue Lighting, Crushing, & Other General Information ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Information only: for input and discussion LIGHTING: Based on resident input and at the direction of the City Council, staff has been reviewing options for increased lighting along 5th Avenue South. In order to get estimated costs, a preliminary layout of two intersection lights and 4 decorative lights per block was provided (this results in three lights per block on each side of the street). Xcel has provided a rough estimate based on that layout of $6,300 per light which was the unit cost on Southview Boulevard. A private installation option was also received and we have summarized the options below. Option 1: Xcel Installation (Estimated Cost $280,000 – $327,600) • City provides a map with locations along with fixture/pole from Xcel Energy product offerings. • Xcel provides cost and installs unmetered lights. • City pays monthly fee per light for electricity and maintenance. Xcel is responsible for all maintenance. ($6.23 to $7.11 per luminaire) Option 2: Private Installation (Estimated Cost $392,000 - $407,670) • Design services provided for layout including photometrics based on light options chosen by the City. • Project is typically bid out by designer. City could choose to purchase materials and bid out installation only. • Street lights are metered and City pays Xcel for electricity used and contracts with a third party for maintenance services. (Cost will vary depending on maintenance needed.) The costs above are for a similar system to what was installed on Southview Boulevard. The private company indicating that staggering the decorative lights on opposite sides of the roadway would provide for more even lighting and did provide a photometric comparison of the two. The staggering would increase the number of lights on each block by 1 and the cost associated with that increase is the high end of the estimate range. There are other scenarios that could be reviewed, but we feel this is probably the highest level of lighting that should be considered. The City’s CIP programed $4.64 million for the improvement of 5th Avenue South in 2019. Based on the low bid and estimated overhead costs we anticipate expenditures of about $4.2 million on the project at this time if no major issues are encountered. I would be hesitant to say there is a City Council Report – Concord Street Improvement Discussion January 28, 2019 Page 2 of 2 project savings of $440,000 on the project, but there are funds that could be reallocated to other improvements or needs within the City without affecting the 2019 budget. One question to keep in mind if you are interested in re-allocating the possible $440,000 would be: “Are these savings best spent on 5th Avenue lighting or on other future street needs? CONCRETE CRUSHING: The Contractor for the 5th Avenue South project has inquired if the City would allow a temporary crushing permit for the project. Their request would be for a crushing permit for the project only and they estimate that two rounds of crushing; each lasting about a week would be sufficient. The latest dust control features would be used and they were hoping to secure a site within the industrial park for this process. Staff has informed him that the process would need to take place in an area where the current zoning would allow for the use and he has made contact with Sanimax about their site adjacent to Verderosa. The City is not under any contractual obligation to provide for this operation to occur and the Contractor is required complete the project regardless of our decision. SOURCE OF FUNDS: No fiscal impact at this time. A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: April 22, 2019 2 DEPARTMENT: Finance ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Close Out Park Referendum Fund and Projects DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Review and discuss close out of the park referendum fund and projects and authorize transfer from the capital programs fund to cover the deficits. OVERVIEW: In 2014, the referendum approved issuing $10 million in bonding to finance renovations at the Arena, creation of the Kaposia Landing ball fields and the renovation of McMorrow fields. Previous discussions have occurred with the council regarding the various phases and projects as bids were received and change orders occurred between 2014 and 2018. Two key factors that staff believes contributed to the deficits incurred are as follows: • The original project estimates were developed in 2013 when the recession was turning around. This may have contributed to lower estimated costs that what we actually experienced. • The Woog refrigeration system was bid right around the time the State mandated change over to non-freon systems. This have contributed to higher bids than expected for this project component. The original estimates and the final costs for the four projects are as follows: All planned projects have been completed, but we have a deficit in the Park Referendum Fund of $1,315,196. In order to close this fund, the finance director is recommending a transfer from the capital programs fund. Formal action on this transfer will be on consent agenda at the May 6, 2019 Council meeting, subject to Council comments at Monday’s worksession. SOURCE OF FUNDS: Capital Program Funds A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019 4 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Council Representative for the Progress Plus Board of Directors DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: DETERMINE SUBSTITUTE FOR MAYOR FRANCIS TO SERVE ON THE PROGRESS PLUS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OVERVIEW: Mayor Francis has indicated he would like someone else from the City Council to serve on the Progress Plus Board of Directors due to his other commitments. After informing the City Council of this opportunity, four members indicated interest. The four who expressed interest were Council Members Hansen, Seaberg, Forrester, and Flatley. Therefore, we are placing this on the worksession agenda to give you a chance to discuss this matter and determine the replacement before we notify the River Heights Chamber of Commerce. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019 7 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Discuss Continued Participation in Dakota County CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: PROVIDE DIRECTION AS TO THE CITY’S CONTINUED PARTICIPATING IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS; SPECIFICALLY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME), AND THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS OFFERED THROUGH DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. OVERVIEW: Every three years, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires urban counties to requalify their entitlement status and their participating communities for the purposes of awarding CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds. Dakota County qualifies as an urban county and has received an annual allocation of CDBG funds since 984. CDBG funded activities have been a key element in keeping area communities strong and vibrant. The HOME program was designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. The ESG program assists individuals and families to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis or homelessness. If SSP continues our partnership with Dakota County CDA for these programs, we would continue to be eligible for funding through the CDA. However, we would be ineligible to apply for the state Small Cities CDBG program. If we choose to continue our participation with the CDA, no action is necessary. However, should we wish to terminate our partnership, then we must notify the CDA and the HUD Field Office of our election to be excluded from the Dakota County programs. Staff’s recommendation would be to continue our partnership with the CDA. By doing so, we guarantee an on-going and stable source of program funding to benefit our residents in addition to gaining administrative efficiencies. In the long-run, this is more advantageous than participating in the highly competitive Small Cities program. SOURCE OF FUNDS: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development