City Council Worksession

South St. Paul WORKSESSION MEETING SSP City Hall 125 3rd Avenue North Training room Monday, June 8, 2020 7:00 pm Please be advised that the regular meeting location is City Hall Training Room located at 125 3rd Ave. N., South St. Paul, but pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.021, under the current emergency declaration due to the COVID-19 health pandemic, some or all of the council members may participate in remote locations using WebEx. Please be advised that City Hall is closed to the public, therefore, any member of the public wishing to monitor the meeting may do so electronically by logging in as follows: WebEx Meeting For the Public Join by phone: 1-312-535-8110 Access Code: 133 320 4888 AGENDA: 1. Concord Turnback 2. Code Enforcement Position 3. Night to Unite 4. First Quarter 2020 Financial Report 5. 11th Avenue Drainage 6. 1009 Concord – Rental License Update – No Attachment 7. Discussion on Home Occupations – No Attachment 8. COVID-19 Update - No Attachment 9. Council Comments & Questions A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: JUNE 8, 2020 1 DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING Prepared by: Lee Elfering, Project Engineer ADMINISTRATOR: AGENDA ITEM: Concord Street Turnback Update ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Information only: for input and discussion OVERVIEW: We have been working with MnDOT and Dakota County on the Turnback Agreement for Concord Street and have attached the most recent version. The major factors have remained consistent include the turnback of Concord from 494 to Grand Avenue to Dakota County, and from Grand Avenue to Annapolis Avenue to the City of South St. Paul. The roadway would be transferred upon execution of the turnback agreement and the City would be responsible for completing the proposed improvements based on the agreed upon scope. The turnback agreement must be fully executed prior to the City advertising the project. We intend to bring the final turnback agreement to the City Council for action at the June 15th meeting and the County Board will take action on the agreement on June 23rd. MnDOT’s circulation and final approval of the agreement is anticipated to take approximately six months that will allow for an early 2021 project letting. Funding The latest cost analysis completed at 60% design resulted in estimated project costs of $32.05 million and is funded by the following sources: ➢ Federal Freight Grant Funding – $7,560,000 ➢ State Project #1912-59 – $7,449,000 ➢ MnDot Turnback Funds – $4,320,000 ➢ MnDot Mainstreet Funds – $5,000,000 ➢ MnDot Consultant Funds (JPA) – $1,252,989 Subtotal $25,581,989 ➢ City Utility/Street Lighting Costs – $6,467,641 ($4.4 million from Legislature?) $32,049,630 ➢ Streetscape Costs $1,240,000 (Not Previously Included) Total Project Costs $33,289,630 The estimated costs include a 10% contingency. As noted above, a new number has just been added to address landscaping and streetscape costs (i.e. trees, coloring/staining of concrete, stamping/texturing of concrete, benches, bollards, etc.). The extent of the streetscape improvements to be included on the project is up to the City and those costs are not eligible for MnDOT or Federal funding (i.e. it will be a City cost). The design team  has been working on a layout for the streetscape along the corridor, which generally includes boulevard trees along the entire roadway. More intense streetscape features (bollards, benches, banner poles, and various plantings) are included in the layout in the area between Grand Avenue and Hardman Avenue (See Streetscape Master Plan Attached). The preliminary estimate for these improvements is $1.24 million (not including Concord Exchange). As things currently stand in our negotiations with MnDot, there are two options the City can choose from for project funding. The first is a lump sum payment based on the current estimate. Under that scenario, the City would receive approximately $18.02 million from MnDOT for the improvements as scoped and currently estimated. (Note: The $18.02 million does not include the $7.56 million of Federal Grant Funds the City secured for the project.) Regardless of the bid or final project costs, the amount would remain the same and the City could use those funds for any costs regardless if the item was eligible for MnDOT funding. In other words, if the bids came in lower than the estimate, the City would benefit from the lump sum amount and could use the funds it received from MnDOT for anything, including using the excess funds for other project costs such as streetscape or utilities. If the funds were not fully used on Concord Street, the City could use them for any other purpose they choose. The risk the City runs is if the bids come in high, MnDOT would not contribute any additional funds to the project and the City would need to fund the increased costs on its own. In other words the City receives all the possible reward and risk on the project. The second scenario for funding is to receive an initial upfront payment of approximately $18.02 million of MnDOT funds, which is the estimated eligible costs MnDOT is responsible for based on the current estimate. At the end of the project, a final accounting of the project costs would be completed including any change orders and extra costs incurred during construction to determine the final MnDOT and City cost responsibilities. In this scenario, the risk and reward is shared based on each bid items funding eligibility. The attached table outlines the cost responsibilities between the City and MnDOT. In short, the City is responsible for the watermain, sanitary sewer, retaining walls, a portion of the storm sewer, and lighting. The streetscape costs are not shown in this estimate and would be a City responsibility as well. Other Issues Dakota County and MnDOT have come to an agreement on maintenance responsibilities for Concord Street between 494 and Villaume until such time as the undersized storm pipe to the river is addressed. As was discussed at the previous meeting, the City will be taking the lead in scoping and design of that project. However, we are asking that we receive credit from the existing pipe for any drainage area calculations that future cost sharing arrangements are based upon.  South Project Area (I-494 to Hardman Avenue) North Project Area (Hardman Avenue to Annapolis Street) SP 168-010-004, Local Improvements SP 1912-59, CITY SAP CITY SAP SP 1912-59, SP 168-010-004, CITY SAP CITY SAP CITY SAP CP 2016-11 Utilities/Local Design/ North River Walls/Local Design/ Design/ Funding Totals Roadway Storm Sewer Eligible Landscaping Engineering ROW Acq. Roadway Storm Sewer Outlets Eligible Landscaping Engineering ROW Acq. Construction Engineering ROW Acq. SEQ COLUMN A B C D E F G H I J MHFP Funding 168-010-004 $ 7,560,000 $ 5,726,800 $ 1,833,200 SP 1912-59/Main Street $ 12,449,000 $ 7,717,073 $ 1,107,343 $ 2,801,256 $ 823,328 Turnback Funds $ 4,320,000 $ 1,138,389 $ 155,000 $ 201,987 $ 256,002 $ 1,928,621 $ 640,000 MnDOT Consultant Funds (JPA) $ 1,252,989 $ 626,494 $ 626,495 City Local Funds $ 6,467,642 $ - $ - $ 81,230 $ 137,500 $ 43,746 $ - $ - $ - $ 48,599 $ 1,618,738 $ 137,500 $ 134,366 $ - $ 3,342,470 $ 668,494 $ 255,000 Project Costs Totals $ 32,049,630 $ 7,717,073 $ 1,107,343 $ 81,230 $ 137,500 $ 1,808,629 $ 155,000 $ 8,528,056 $ 1,025,316 $ 304,601 $ 3,451,938 $ 137,500 $ 2,689,482 $ 640,000 $ 3,342,470 $ 668,494 $ 255,000 Turnback Agreement - Responsibility Matrix South Project Area I-494 to Hardman Ave Design/ Risk Responsibility SP 1912-59, CP 2016-11 Costruction Engineering for Potential Overruns Columns Costs4 Costs4 ROW Costs (Per MOU) MnDOT Eligible Costs1 A, B $ 8,824,416 $ 1,764,883 $ 155,000 MnDOT Local Improvements (SAP Eligible)3 C, D $ 218,730 $ 43,746 $ - City North Project Area Hardman Ave to Annapolis Street Design/ Risk Responsibility SP 1912-59, SP 168-010-004, Costruction Engineering for Potential Overruns CP 2016-11 Costs4 Costs4 ROW Costs (Per MOU) MnDOT Eligible Costs1 E, F $ 9,553,371 $ 1,910,674 $ 600,000 MnDOT North River Outlet G $ 304,601 $ 60,920 $ 40,000 MnDOT/City2 Local Improvements (SP/SAP Eligible)3 H, I $ 3,589,438 $ 717,888 $ - City Cooridor-Wide Local Improvements I-494 to Annapolis Street Design/ Risk Responsibility CP 2016-11 Costruction Engineering for Potential Overruns (Non-State Aid Eligible) Column Costs4 Costs4 ROW Costs (Per MOU) Local Improvements (Non-SAP Eligible)3 J $ 3,342,470 $ 668,494 $ 255,000 City 1 Per the MOU (executed April 2019), MnDOT has committed to funding project improvements as identified in the Project Scoping Study (dated August 2018) with the exception of City utility improvements and additional scope items (landscaping/lighting). Items identified in the Project Scoping Study include but are not limited to removals, earthwork, roadway, storm sewer, sidewalks, and trails. 2 Per the Project Scoping Study (dated August 2018), funding of proposed river outlet(s) required to manage stromwater for the project will be funded by both MnDOT and the City as proportionate to the contributing drainage area from current MnDOT ROW and off-roadway areas. Final cost split to be determined by State Aid hydraulics review. Aniticipated split is approximately 80%-MnDOT/20%-City 3 Local improvements include State Aid/Federal Aid eligible items such as retaining walls, landscaping and utilities impacted by the roadway construction as well as Non-State Aid eligible items such as utility upgrades and lighting improvements. 4 Costs shown in this basis of agreement are based on current engineer's opinion of probable cost at 60% plan completion. A 10% construction contingency is included. Design/Engineering is shown as 20% of construction costs. A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: JUNE 8, 2020 2 DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES Prepared by: Joel ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Code Enforcement Position DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: DISCUSS THE NEED TO PROCEED WITH HIRING A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO ENABLE STAFF TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE POSITION OVERVIEW: In early March, Derek Quade resigned as our Code Enforcement Officer. We had advertised for the position, but delayed action given the impacts of COVID-19. As you may recall, we talked about a scaled back approach of only responding to call versus proactive enforcement to not increase stress levels due to the challenges many people faced due to the pandemic. For the most part, we were able to keep up for a few weeks using those parameters, but with the warmer weather, the demand for code enforcement activity had surged. In our Expense Reduction Options related to the pandemic, we had proposed not filling this position for the remainder of 2020. That was estimated to save us about $54,000. Staff’s position has now changed and we believe we should fill the position to address the need for on- going code enforcement services to meet community expectations. The position can also address enforcement of conditional use permits and sign permits to ensure compliance with past approvals. We do have a list of prospective candidates from our earlier advertising. If we are able to fill the position by July 1st (more likely the middle of July if the person is already employed), we would still achieve about $19,000 in savings assuming a full-time hire. Staff would like the Council’s input on the need to fill this position. SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund Budgeted Expenditures  City Council WorkSession Report Date: June 8, 2020 3 Department: Community Affairs Administrator: JRH Agenda Item: Discussion – South St. Paul Night to Unite History: South St. Paul Night to Unite normally takes place on the first Tuesday in August, so this year it was scheduled for August 4th. The number of South St. Paul block parties has grown as a traditional summer community get together in their neighborhoods. In 2019, there were 55 registered block parties. Overview: Due to COVID 19, the National Association of Town Watch or National Night Out is strongly recommending that all National Night Out 2020 Celebrations take place on Tuesday, October 6th. Minnesota Crime Prevention Association (MCPA), who hosts Minnesota Night to Unite, is also recommending delaying the celebration until the first Tuesday in October 2020 as well. Giving this much thought, I have concerns with pushing back SSP Night to Unite to October 6 th. My main concern is temperature and sunlight. Below is a chart of pros and cons. August 4, 2020 October 6, 2020 Pro Con Pro Con Warmer weather Cooler weather Sunset at 8:59 pm Sunset at 6:52 pm School not in session School could be in session COVID19 1st wave COVID 19 - 2nd wave Many events are Many events being being pushed to fall pushed to the fall Backpack Campaign Too late for Backpack Campaign Surrounding communities are going to October These are just a few pros and cons and I am sure the list can grow. Last year, most parties started between 5:30 and 6:00, some at 6:30. With the sun setting at 6:52, it could make for a short block party. While I believe neighborhoods can social distance during the block parties, I would suggest that the visits from police, fire, city staff, and school staff not take place this year or occur in a limited fashion. Being a visitor to multiple parties could spread COVID 19. I’d also look for suggestions about sharing food. Would this be ok to have a pot luck or eat what you bring? Or eat at your own risk? I have spoken with Chief Messerich and his response was “we are fine with either”. However, in a follow-up email he stated, “If the recommendations are to move it to October, then I would prefer to do it then. Here are four ideas for 2020 South St. Paul Night to Unite: 1. Host on August 4, 2020 as a traditional South St. Paul Night to Unite with limited visits. 2. Host on October 6, 2020 as a traditional South St. Paul Night to Unite with limited visits. 3. Host a non-traditional one, where you could do a Pay it Forward or a Niceness Campaign in your neighborhood with no visits. 4. Cancel the 2020 South St. Paul Night to Unite Event I am opened to suggestions and/or new ideas. I can also reach out to previous block captains as to their thoughts. I can also do an informal Facebook poll as to what the community would like to see. However, before I do that, I am looking for guidance at the Council’s level. Source of Funds: At this time, no additional funding is requested. It is budgeted in the 2020 budget. A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: JUNE 8, 2020 4 DEPARTMENT: FINANCE Prepared by: Clara Hilger ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: 2020 First Quarter Financial Report DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Discussion on the 2020 First Quarter Financial Report OVERVIEW: The first quarter of 2020 is completed and financial results are available. The Acting Finance Director prepared the attached first quarter financial report for Council review. The following items are important to note when reviewing the report:  The Benchmark is roughly 25% and is based on a fluid calendar year of operations, minus 2 weeks due to timing of payroll.  Many of the variances result from seasonality and not all financial transactions occur evenly throughout the year. Some are one time or periodic activities that do not occur in each quarter.  Investment income is recorded and allocated to the funds on a semi-annual basis.  Large revenue sources (i.e. tax settlements and LGA) are received in May, July and December, which underscores the importance of a strong fund balance as a tool to avoid General Fund borrowing for operations. Finance has not noted any worrisome variances in the operating funds for the first quarter. The variances that have occurred are noted in the attached report. There are no budget amendments this quarter. The first quarter financial report will be placed on consent for formal council action at the June 15, 2020 meeting. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A  Benchmark 2020 2020 Actual thru 25% Description Original Amended March Percent Budget Budget 2020 of Budget GENERAL OPERATING FUND GENERAL FUND - REVENUES Taxes 10,395,834.00 10,395,834.00 0.00 0.00% A Fees 1,802,285.00 1,802,285.00 123,293.73 6.84% B Intergovernmental 2,359,003.00 2,359,003.00 166,095.35 7.04% C Charges for Services 1,779,419.00 1,779,419.00 465,499.15 26.16% Other Revenues 91,700.00 91,700.00 2,747.06 3.00% D Transfers In/Fund Balance 190,000.00 190,000.00 40,005.00 21.06% Total Revenues 16,618,241.00 16,618,241.00 797,640.29 4.80% GENERAL FUND - EXPENDITURES General Government Mayor & Council 158,641.00 158,641.00 42,017.66 26.49% Administration 440,939.00 440,939.00 84,988.80 19.27% E Human Resources 144,368.00 144,368.00 33,349.89 23.10% City Attorney 70,000.00 70,000.00 19,370.42 27.67% City Attorney - Criminal 170,000.00 170,000.00 34,949.08 20.56% City Clerk 178,167.00 178,167.00 37,999.39 21.33% Information Technology 575,429.00 575,429.00 116,932.82 20.32% Recycling 52,292.00 52,292.00 4,354.85 8.33% F Finance 520,330.00 520,330.00 123,488.49 23.73% Total General Government 2,310,166.00 2,310,166.00 497,451.40 21.53% Police 6,515,393.00 6,515,393.00 1,373,106.35 21.07% Fire 2,527,068.00 2,527,068.00 631,649.04 25.00% Total Public Safety 9,042,461.00 9,042,461.00 2,004,755.39 22.17% Engineering 485,085.00 485,085.00 87,977.79 18.14% Streets, Alley's and Blvd's 1,860,522.00 1,860,522.00 461,973.99 24.83% Buildings 258,147.00 258,147.00 62,520.80 24.22% Parks Facilities and Maintenance 1,022,067.00 1,022,067.00 196,171.26 19.19% Total Public Works 3,625,821.00 3,625,821.00 808,643.84 22.30% City Planner 170,293.00 170,293.00 29,353.68 17.24% Code Enforcement 558,906.00 558,906.00 118,721.83 21.24% Total Community Development 729,199.00 729,199.00 148,075.51 20.31% Parks Administration 439,594.00 439,594.00 110,223.31 25.07% Splash Pool 76,854.00 76,854.00 5,197.22 6.76% G Northview Pool 99,654.00 99,654.00 4,655.27 4.67% G Recreation Programs 169,323.00 169,323.00 29,001.36 17.13% Community Affairs 118,669.00 118,669.00 26,230.81 22.10% Total Leisure Services 904,094.00 904,094.00 175,307.97 19.39% Contingencies 0.00 0.00 Transfers out 20,000.00 20,000.00 5,001.00 25.01% Total Nondepartmental 20,000.00 20,000.00 5,001.00 25.01% Total Expenditures 16,631,741.00 16,631,741.00 3,639,235.11 21.88% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (13,500.00) (13,500.00) (2,841,594.82)  Benchmark 2020 2020 Actual thru 25% Description Original Amended March Percent Budget Budget 2020 of Budget OTHER OPERATING FUNDS LIBRARY FUND Revenues 823,942.00 823,942.00 2,426.63 0.29% A Expenditures 823,942.00 823,942.00 180,654.52 21.93% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (178,227.89) DOUG WOOG ARENA Revenues 1,088,104.00 1,088,104.00 274,067.14 25.19% Expenditures 838,573.00 838,573.00 177,078.83 21.12% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 249,531.00 249,531.00 96,988.31 AIRPORT OPERATING FUND Revenues 1,217,242.00 1,217,242.00 427,156.64 35.09% H Expenditures 1,127,742.00 1,127,742.00 219,020.94 19.42% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 89,500.00 89,500.00 208,135.70 CENTRAL SQUARE FUND Revenues 386,478.00 386,478.00 89,161.85 23.07% Expenditures 378,022.00 378,022.00 81,096.99 21.45% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 8,456.00 8,456.00 8,064.86 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Operating Revenues and Grants 1,319,490.00 1,319,490.00 35,589.87 2.70% I Expenditures - Operating 1,432,692.00 1,432,692.00 151,733.61 10.59% Transfers - Capital 134,500.00 134,500.00 19,240.33 14.31% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (247,702.00) (247,702.00) (135,384.07) STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND Revenues 290,865.00 290,865.00 24,006.62 8.25% I Expenditures 276,103.00 276,103.00 37,720.57 13.66% J Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 14,762.00 14,762.00 (13,713.95) WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND Revenues Administration 486,056.00 486,056.00 0.00 0.00% D Water Utility 2,363,416.00 2,363,416.00 187,665.91 7.94% I Sewer Utility 3,685,500.00 3,685,500.00 356,531.17 9.67% I Total Revenues 6,534,972.00 6,534,972.00 544,197.08 8.33% Expenditures Adminsitration 486,506.00 486,506.00 120,695.33 24.81% I Water Utility 993,575.00 993,575.00 207,119.23 20.85% I Sewer Utility 3,326,557.00 3,326,557.00 1,016,877.98 30.57% I Total Expenditures 4,806,638.00 4,806,638.00 1,344,692.54 27.98% Transfers Water Utility 770,056.00 770,056.00 31,647.11 4.11% Sewer Utility 100,000.00 100,000.00 53,404.06 53.40% Total Transfers 870,056.00 870,056.00 85,051.17 9.78% Net Income (Loss) 858,278.00 858,278.00 (885,546.63)  Benchmark 2020 2020 Actual thru 25% Description Original Amended March Percent Budget Budget 2020 of Budget OTHER OPERATING FUNDS CENTRAL GARAGE - INTERNAL SERVICE FUND Revenues 1,448,880.00 1,448,880.00 350,720.00 24.21% Expenditures 1,420,022.00 1,420,022.00 244,646.23 17.23% Net Income (Loss) 28,858.00 28,858.00 106,073.77 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Revenues 313,329.00 313,329.00 0.00 0.00% A Expenditures 313,329.00 313,329.00 67,419.39 21.52% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (67,419.39) EDA HOUSING (HRA LEVY) Revenues 303,211.00 303,211.00 765.64 0.25% A Expenditures 303,211.00 303,211.00 32,774.23 10.81% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (32,008.59) HRA - PUBLIC HOUSING Revenues 1,986,855.00 1,986,855.00 537,634.84 27.06% Operating Expenses 1,840,049.00 1,840,049.00 256,493.64 13.94% Capital Expenses 0.00 0.00 190,475.97 Net Income (Loss) 146,806.00 146,806.00 90,665.23 Tickmark Explanations for Budget VS Actual Variances A. For 2021, taxes will be received in May/July and December/January B. 1st quarter Franchise fees come in April, other fees are seasonal and will come in over the next 3 quarters; Building Permits are seasonal and will come in later in the year C. LGA is received in July and December D. Interest earnings are posted semi‐annually and other minor revenues are unpredictable E. Professional services billed after provided; only 1 or 2 months’ worth F. Recycling costs lag as we are billed by WSP quarterly, and composite site costs occur later in the year G. Outdoor pools will be closed in 2021 H. Certain revenues come in at the start of the year at the Airport (land leases) I. Utility revenues are based on service delivery, bills issued in Jan, Feb, Mar of 2020 are accrued back to the 2019 books as they are for services delivered in 2019. This is a regular & routine occurrence. Debt and other expenses in water fund will occur later this year. Sewer has 4 months of MCES charges J. Only two months of utility service paid through the end of March A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: JUNE 8, 2020 5 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION Prepared by: Joel Hanson ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: 11th Avenue Drainage DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Update the Council and the Property Owner on the challenges in addressing the drainage issue affecting 308 11th Avenue, South OVERVIEW: The property owner at 308 11th Avenue South has experience flooding from the alley that has entered his garage and then into his residence. At a worksession held on October 22nd, 2018, we reviewed the drainage issue that exists in the 11th Avenue, South alley and talked about potential solutions. The two solutions offered at that time involved the construction of new storm sewer trunk lines ranging in cost from $530,000 to $750,000 with a recommendation this be pursued in the 2030’s in conjunction with a street project. Here is a summary of the key points regarding this issue: • Flooding occurred in 2018 during the construction of Southview Boulevard during heavy rain events. • With the Southview construction project, storm sewer inlets were blocked to prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer system during construction. This forced drainage to other areas including the 11th Avenue alley area. • When flooding occurred in 2018, 308 11th Avenue received water that entered through the attached garage. No other homes were inundated, but other detached garages experienced some short duration flooding. • This issue predates work on Southview as indicated by a 2012 letter from the City Engineer. • Storm sewer pipes were cleaned in this area at the end of 2018 to remove materials from the line. • Staff did evaluate an alternative option whereby we would purchase the home from Mr. Cavalier (this option was proposed by the Cavalier’s and an appraisal was completed). The idea was we could remedy the house flooding by removing the garage and modifying the house foundation/entry area to prevent water from flowing into the existing opening. Once corrective work was completed, the house could re-sold and either allow for construction of a detached garage or no garage at all via deed restriction. In reviewing this option with the City Attorney, we could not solve the “public purpose” test for the expenditure of City funds.  • Another problem with the purchase option or the program creation option is the precedent that could be set. While we are trying to resolve a home flooding situation, do we have other instances where a similar request could be made? • The options discussed do not solve the issue for the other garage structures. • We also investigated the use of EDA funds given the public purpose test may be easier to meet with that funding source. The thought was to create a new program to provide assistance to resolve this problem. However, with the discontinuance of the Rediscover South St. Paul program, no policy or funding source existed for this option. • To staff’s knowledge, the home has not been impacted since the completion of the Southview project. • Staff’s perspective is that spending $530,000 to $750,000 to solve this issue is not as high a priority as other community infrastructure needs. • The City Attorney has discussed this matter with LMC and has been informed that the city has minimal or no liability exposure here. The city would likely have either statutory and/or official immunity protection available to it. A city need not construct nor have a storm water system that can handle every possible weather event. Any policy-level decision making by the City Council or administrative level as to what it can afford for financial improvements or what is best for the general public v. individual owner will be protected. Moreover, the operational discretionary decisions by the PW department employees are also protected under common law official immunity. The City Attorney will be present at Monday’s work session to provide more details (and answer questions) relating to the legal and practical obstacles we have faced that are preventing the resolution of this issue. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A CC: ANDREW CAVALIER