City Council Worksession

South St. Paul WORKSESSION AGENDA Monday, May 10, 2021 7:00 pm Please be advised that the regular meeting location is the City Hall Training Room, located at 125 3rd Avenue North, South St. Paul. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D021, 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. Any member of the public wishing to monitor the meeting may do so electronically by logging in as follows: WebEx Meeting - Login for the Public: Join by Phone: 1-312-535-8110 Access Code: 133 419 3052 AGENDA: 1. County Library Study – Jay Biedny, Dakota County Capital Projects Manager SSP Library Board will also be in attendance 2. South Street Flats Revised Concept Plan 3. Exterior Storage at Bridgepoint 1 and Bridgepoint 2 4. Dakota County Broadband Discussion 5. 1st Quarter Financial Report and Budget adjustments 6. Emergency Declaration Extension & Council Chamber Usage 7. Council Comments & Questions A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MAY 10, 2021 1 DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY PREPARED BY: Joel Hanson/Kathy Halgren ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: County Library Study – Jay Biedny, Dakota County Capital Projects Manager DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: ♦ Review Library Study ♦ Agree on a Site ♦ Discuss Resolutions to be Submitted to County Board to be included in their agenda packet for June 8th (Library, City Council, & School Board) ♦ Address Other Concerns OVERVIEW: On November 10, 2020, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a programming study proposal in light of a possible merger of the South St. Paul Public Library into the County library system. The proposal allowed $50,000 to study the site of 7th and Marie Avenues by the high school with the City conducting a traffic study of the area as well as giving the land to the County if the site was deemed appropriate for further consideration. A joint powers agreement with the City secured $15,000 for assessment of the library’s current site. The construction guidepost authorized for a new or renovated facility and related construction costs was $6 million. County staff chose HCM Architects of Minneapolis for the study, and biweekly meetings with the architectural staff, County staff and City staff commenced in January 2021. Tasks included tours of the library’s current site as well as the parcels at 7th and Marie Aves., various assessments of the current building, zoning implications of the proposed parcel and the City’s comprehensive plan, parking requirements, utilities, incorporation of the City’s traffic study results, and the School District’s intentions for their land. In terms of programming or design, project team participants focused on visioning what our library could be for the future before getting down to actual space and functional programming considerations such as overall square footage for an optimally sized library. This, in turn, led to square footage for public spaces and community rooms, private study rooms, staff work areas, collections, etc., and the arrangement of these areas within concept plan diagrams. Concept plans were created for a cruciform-type of building on City-owned property at 7th and Marie, a double-entranced building on School District-owned property at 7th and Marie, and our current library site. The general consensus of the team was that a building of 16,146 GSF (gross square feet) would be ideal for our community. However, in 2022 dollars, all projects at this size were estimated well above the County Board’s guidepost of $6 million for site, construction and soft costs. For the City-owned 7th and Marie site, the site and building construction cost was estimated at $6.2 million with a total project cost estimate of $8.266 million. For the School District-owned 7th and Marie site, the site and building construction cost was $6.7 million with a total project estimate of $8.931 million. (The additional costs are associated with removal/filling of the amphitheater area including retaining walls.) At our current library site, the site and building construction cost was estimated at $8.6 million with a total project cost estimate of $11.463 million. (The higher costs are related to dealing with existing building deficiencies, demolition, incorporating the existing building into the project, the limited site area, and grade stabilization.) At this point, the project team members were primarily interested in the City-owned property at Marie and 7th and our current library site. Because 16,000 square feet came in higher than the recommended $6 million by the County, Margaret Stone, Director of Dakota County Library (DCL), and Kathy Halgren, Director of South St. Paul Public Library, were charged with reducing square footage to show just what $6 million would buy on these two sites. This reduced the 7th and Marie site to just 11,700 GSF, which is slightly smaller than our current building, and further reduced our current site to a mere 8,500 GSF. This produced major reductions in collection areas and meeting room space as well as reductions in other areas. Because these two options are not desirable and will not meet the needs of residents, a complete gut and remodel of our current building was also programmed out with a cost estimation of around $6 million, but again, there would be a substantial sacrifice of desired public spaces and collections with no large meeting room. A net-zero energy option for the proposed library was estimated at an additional $1.1 million. A geothermal well field could be utilized at the new site, but our current site could not support it due to lack of sufficient area. In light of all the foregoing information, the project team recommends construction of an approximately 16,000 GSF building on the City-owned property at 7th and Marie Aves. The County Board is scheduled to meet on June 8, 2021, to discuss the study’s findings. Pursuant to further County Board, City and Library Board endorsement, and coordination with the School District, the remaining schedule for the project consists of design and bidding by June of 2022 and the completion of a renovation/new building by mid-2023. Here are some key issues we need to develop consensus on in order to eliminate variables that may jeopardize approval by the County Board:  Endorse a specific site – It is unlikely the County Board will approve the $3,197,000 in additional costs associated with the current library site; especially when the site is limited in terms of any future modifications due to its tight constraints. The County Staff is recommending the City owned 7th & Marie site. This site is estimated to cost $655,000 less that the site south of Central Square due to the need to fill/modify the amphitheater area by increasing the grade for the library while also accommodating exiting from the lower level of Central Square. Another factor favoring the City owned property was the  School District staff’s preference for the City owned site in order to preserve the site south of Central Square to accommodate potential expansion of that facility. They also indicated modifications to 7th Avenue (a one-way street from Marie to 8th) would be workable. For discussion purposes, it may be worth it to contribute the additional $655,000 to help address the amphitheater concerns and to lessen any traffic impact on 7th to the School District. Placing the library south of Central Square would preserve the City’s site for future development and/or more parking for the High School, Central Square, and the Library. However, the School District will have to determine if that makes sense to them in terms of long-term planning. This option also has the double entrance for the new library that is problematic from Library Staff’s perspective. However, that might be resolvable during the design process. The key issue with this option is time!  Commit to join the Dakota County Library system subject to County Board approval of an acceptable building program (16,000 square foot facility?). We have also been told that if we become part of the DCL system, we will be designated one slot on the County’s Library Advisory Board.  Address any other concerns that exist at this time to avoid surprises at a later date. SOURCE OF FUNDS: To Be Determined CC: SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #6 Summary of the Programming Study for the possible SSP Library After working collaboratively with County and City Library staff, the design team created a Base Program (see next page) for a county library in South St. Paul that totals roughly 14,000 sf of local needs. This represents a building of 16,000 gross sf. That work was then checked against existing county libraries (Farmington, Inver Glen, and Pleasant Hill). The new Base Program compared well with these examples. This program was then applied to both sites under question and yielded the following: Base Program on the Marie & 7th City-owned site would need a Project Budget of $8.3 million. +Most building for lowest cost/sf, centrally located, cross programing with School, off street parking. Base Program on the existing SSP Library site would need a Project Budget of $11.5 million. +Renovates existing 1927 building -no off-street parking, major investment in existing building. If we then apply a $6 million Project Budget cap to each of these sites, working with two separate estimating teams, it was found that we can afford to construct the following: A building 27% smaller than the Base Program could be built on the new site. (10,200 net sf / 11,700 gross sf ) - Smaller Collections: 35% less Adult; 45% less Teens; 30% less Children - Comm. Room smaller by 1/3. The Existing Building (26% of Base Program) could be renovated but not enlarged. (10,270 net sf / 11,840 gross sf ) - NO Community Room -Smaller Collections: 30% less Adult; 30% less Teens; 30% less Children’s. Note that all the costs mentioned above are Project Budgets. On a project of this type, construction costs amount to 75% of the Project Budget. The remaining 25% is used for non-construction costs including: professional and municipal fees; Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E); library specific technologies including self-check machines, security gates and book handling system; moving and storage; temporary facilities; and other “soft” costs. These Project Budgets do not include cost for books or other lending materials. These costs would be borne by annual operating budgets and include materials already a part of the county system or added to them when merged with the current SSP collection. In addition to these program outcomes, the Dakota County Board requested the Study to predict the cost premium to move the project from the current county High-Performance Building Standards to a Net Zero condition. “Net Zero” is a phrase used to describe a building which produces, stores and redeploys ALL the energy it requires by generating that energy onsite. This works best when the building already consumes as little energy as possible. Advancing the Base Program to a Net Zero building would cost $1.1 million and can only be realistically attained at the new site. Base Program on the Marie & 7th City-owned site would need a Project Budget of $8.3 million. Base Program on the existing SSP Library site would need a Project Budget of $11.5 million. A building 27% smaller than the Base Program could be built on the new site. The Existing Building (26% of Base Program) could be renovated but not enlarged. First Floor Second Floor Possible South St. Paul Library Programming Study Review Jerome (Jay) Biedny, Capital Projects Manager Facilities Management, Dakota County South St. Paul combined City Council and Library Board Meeting 10 May 2021 Outline • Background • Study Focus • Study Process • Study Outcomes • Staff Recommendations • Request for Action • Questions Background • City of South St. Paul (SSP) has run a library since the 1920’s • For decades the SSP Library has shared resources with Dakota County Library (DCL) • SSP suggested they could join DCL and offered:  Option 1 - a new site at Marie and 7th Avenues  Option 2 - redevelopment of the existing library site Study Focus In late 2020, the DC Board authorized a Programming Study which would: o Outline what could be built on the new site (Option 1) or the existing site (Option 2) given a County Project Budget limit of $6 million. o Estimate the cost for upgrading the building and its systems to meet a “Net Zero” energy model. Study Process • Selected Hagen Christensen & McIlwain’s (HCM) • Visited libraries and site in play • Design Team completed a full Facility Assessment • Visioning Workshop produced Goals • Met with Core Team including Facilities and City & County Library staff every other week • Produced Base Program Study Process Study Process New spaces in Base Program, not in existing SSP library: • More collections space for Teens • Large Community Room at front entry • Secure vestibule with modern toilet rooms • Mix of smaller conference and meeting rooms • New public seating areas throughout the building • Quiet Reading Room & multifunction Program Space • Dedicated delivery and work rooms with book handler • Full sized mechanical, electrical and networking rooms  Study Process Existing SSP library spaces changed in Base Program: • Remove dedicated Book Sales area • Replace General Storage areas under the stairs • Reduce adult and children's collections with the addition of seating space. All DC Library and workplace standards integrated into design Study Process Study Process Study Process Study Process Study Process Study Process Place this BASE PROGRAM on two site: Option 1 - Marie and 7th Avenues a. City Owned parcels b. School District site Option 2 - Existing SSP Library Study Process City- Owned Site at 7th and Marie Avenues Study Process School- Owned Site at 7th and Marie Avenues  Study Process Existing Library Site Study Process Costs for Full Base Program 1B City Site at Marie $6,200,000 constrn $8,266,000 Project 1C School District Site $6,700,000 constrn $8,931,000 Project 2A Existing Site $8,600,000 constrn $11,463,000 Project Study Process Using the full Base Program buildout cost models, the team next scaled each of the three layouts back to meet the Study’s $6 million Project Budget cap The Outcomes of applying that $4.5 million construction limit follow Study Outcomes Program at Reduced Scale (Fits $6M Budget) 1B City Site at Marie 10,200 net / 11,700 gr sf 1C School District site 9,500 net / 10,800 gr sf 2A Existing site 7,400 net / 8,500 gr sf . Existing SSP building is 10,270 net / 11,840 gr sf Base Program is 14,077 net / 16,146 gr sf Study Outcomes City- Owned Site at 7th and Marie Avenues $6 Million Study Outcomes School- Owned Site at 7th and Marie Avenues $6 Million  Study Outcomes Existing Library Site $6 Million Study Outcomes Study Outcomes Study Outcomes Program at Reduced Scale (Fits $6M Budget) 1B City Site at Marie 10,200 net / 11,700 gr sf 2A Existing site 7,400 net / 8,500 gr sf Existing SSP remodeling 10,270 net / 11,840 gr sf Base Program is 14,077 net / 16,146 gr sf Study Outcomes Study Outcomes Study Outcomes Study Outcomes Study Outcomes Study Outcomes • The largest library of all-new construction is Option 1B on the City-owned parcel because the School- owned parcel is burdened by amphitheater demo. • In Option 2B, 65% of the construction budget is consumed by the restoration and remodeling of the existing 1927 building. So, very little is left for new construction (8,500 gsf total). • A better alternative for the money on the existing site is Option 2C, a complete remodel of the 1927/1964 structure. Study Outcomes A building is termed Net Zero when it produces all the energy the building consumes. To accomplish this the building must first consume relative little energy and contain equipment to produce energy. The existing site cannot practically meet Net Zero; the new site can at an addition cost of $1.1 million. Recommendations • Remove School Site from further consideration • If more funds are available, consider full Base Program being implemented at : o New Site for $8.3 million (Option 1B) o Existing Site for $11.5 million (Option 2A) Recomendations Base Program on City-Owned Site at 7th and Marie Avenues $8.3 Million  Study Process Base Program on Existing Library Site $11.5 Million Recommendations If $6 million remains the project limit, consider: o 11,700 gsf new structure on new SSP City-owned site OR o 11,840 gsf total renovated 1927 bldg & 1964 addition Understand that neither of these provide the Base Program, nor a Program that is fully consistent with County & City Needs. Recommendations Site driven considerations: o New Site  Centrally located, Adjacencies, off street Parking o Existing Site  Preserves 1927 building, no off street public parking Recommendations If alternate funding is sought for this building to be considered a Net Zero facility: The Project Budget must be increased by $1,100,000 And Net Zero can only be implemented on the new site Request for Action County Staff request further action after the effects of the Programming Study is considered by the Board. • Questions? A CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MAY 10, 2021 2 DEPARTMENT: Community Development-Planning Prepared By: Michael Healy, City Planner ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: South Street Flats Revised Concept Plan DESIRED OUTCOMES: • Review Dick Braun’s Revised Concept Plan for South Street Flats. • Discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Approval that would be necessary for Mr. Braun to move forward with his plans. OVERVIEW: Background Dick Braun owns five (5) platted 60-foot wide vacant lots at the northeast corner of 5th Avenue South and South Street. The vacant lots are directly across the street north of the 5th Avenue Plaza shopping center. Together, the five platted lots constitute roughly .92 acres of land. The lots are zoned R-4 Multifamily Residential District and the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the property towards being “High Density Residential.” The subject property was platted in 1955 but has never been developed: • In 2017, the City approved a conditional use permit and several variances for JP Bush Homes to construct a 28-unit apartment building on the property but the project was abandoned before construction started. • In 2020, the City approved a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow Dick Braun to build a 13-unit townhome condo complex on the site with all 13 units in one large building. This approval has been extended twice and is in effect until the end of 2021. Mr. Braun has now spent over a year investigating whether the 13-unit townhome building will “pencil out” as a viable development project. He says it is still unclear whether the 13 units would be able to sell for high enough prices to recoup the costs of development. Mr. Braun has indicated that he will likely abandon the townhome project and does not intend to seek another extension of his PUD approval. Mr. Braun is actively exploring other ways to develop the property and is requesting City Council feedback on a new concept plan. Zoning Status of the Five Existing Platted Lots The zoning status of the five existing lots is somewhat complicated: • South St. Paul has four (4) residential zoning districts- R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4. o The R-1 district only allows single-family homes. o The R-2 district allows duplexes/twinhomes and all uses allowed in the R-1 district. o The R-3 district allows small apartment buildings and all uses allowed in R-1 and R-2 districts. o The R-4 district allows large apartment buildings and all uses allowed in R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts City Council Worksession Report – South Street Flats Revised Concept Plan May 10, 2021 Page 2 of 9 • As previously mentioned, the comprehensive plan guides the subject property towards “High Density Residential.” Our 2040 Comprehensive Plan states that high density residential land should be developed with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density of 60 units per acre (up from a minimum of 15 units per acre in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan). This means that Mr. Braun must now design a project with at least 18 units in order for his project to be fully consistent with the new comprehensive plan’s density goal for his .92-acre property. • Because of the way the zoning code is written, Mr. Braun could obtain five building permits to construct 5 single-family homes or duplexes/twinhomes on his 5 existing platted lots. Legally, the zoning code trumps the comprehensive plan and Mr. Braun does have the legal right to build a project that 100% follows the zoning code even if it does not meet the comprehensive plan. Mr. Braun has told City Staff that he wants to build 5 twinhomes on his 5 platted lots. He could obtain building permits and start building the twinhomes immediately if he wanted to. So Why Not Just Apply for Building Permits? Mr. Braun has informed City Staff that he wants to build a type of twinhome that does not completely follow the Zoning Code which complicates his ability to obtain building permits: • Mr. Braun wants to build a very specific type of one-level twinhome that he believes will appeal to seniors and other buyers who want to live in housing without stairs but still want to own their own land and do not want to move into a community with an association. • The zoning code only allows 35% lot coverage by buildings for twinhomes. Mr. Braun is seeking to build spacious single-level twinhomes that would have roughly 36% lot coverage by buildings. • Mr. Braun wants to split each twinhome in half with a property line so that a different buyer could own each half of the twinhome property (they would own half of the building itself as well as their half of the yard). o This is not allowed under the Zoning Code because of setback requirements and lot size requirements. This setup also makes things somewhat more complicated when it comes to maintenance of the building’s shared roof. o Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s the City Council often granted variances to developers to allow them to build this type of twinhome. For example, the four twinhomes located directly east of Mr. Braun’s property are formatted this way and were built between 1980 and 1983. Because Mr. Braun’s project would not 100% follow the Zoning Code, his project’s lack of consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s density goals becomes a problem: • Legally, the City can only approve a variance if the variance is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. • Legally, the City can only approve a Planned Unit Development with zoning code flexibility if the development project is found to be fully consistent with the comprehensive plan. City Council Worksession Report – South Street Flats Revised Concept Plan May 10, 2021 Page 3 of 9 What Would Be Needed to Move Forward with the Project as Proposed? The City Attorney has advised that the City Council should not employ the practice that was used in the 1970’s and 1980’s and allow Mr. Braun’s lot-split twinhome development by granting variances. Per the City Attorney, there is no practical difficulty and a variance is not an appropriate zoning tool in situations where there is no practical difficulty. If the City Council supports this proposal and wants to see it move forward, it likely needs to be processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The purpose of a PUD is to allow the City Council to approve a “good project” that does not 100% meet the zoning code. PUD’s often employ creative subdivision and development techniques that were not contemplated by the Zoning Code but which make sense to allow on a case-by-case basis. If the development technique ends up being successful, it may eventually make sense to add “twinhomes with a lot split separating the units” to the zoning code as an allowed development format. In order for Mr. Braun’s proposed twinhome project to move forward, he would need: 1. A Comprehensive Plan amendment to guide the property towards “Medium Density Residential” which allows a density of 6-12 units per acre. 2. A rezoning to R-3 General Residence District. 3. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development which allows slightly increased lot coverage and allows the proposed twinhomes to be split in half with a property line. DIRECTION NEEDED Mr. Braun is seeking informal City Council feedback on his proposal. The City Council is not expected to make any official decisions at this time and the Planning Commission will need to also review any formal development applications that may be submitted. Is the City Council comfortable with the idea of a less dense housing project on this corner? It takes a supermajority of the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan so Mr. Braun’s project cannot move forward unless at least five (5) City Council members are willing to consider allowing medium density on this site instead of high density. ATTACHMENTS A- Site Location Map B- Excerpt from Walter and Arthur Addition Plat Showing Subject Properties C- Site Plan Showing Proposed Twinhome Footprints with Lot Splits D- Concept Plan for Twinhome Units E- Aerial Photographs Showing Existing SSP Twinhomes with Property Line Separating Units  ATTACHMENT A SITE LOCATION MAP  ATTACHMENT B EXCERPT FROM WALTER AND ARTHUR ADDITION PLAT SHOWING SUBJECT PROPERTIES  ATTACHMENT C SITE PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED TWIN HOME FOOTPRINTS WITH LOT SPLITS  ATTACHMENT D CONCEPT PLAN FOR TWINHOME UNITS C  ATTACHMENT E AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING EXISTING SSP TWINHOMES WITH PROPERTY LINE SEPARATING UNITS Existing Lot Split Twinhomes to East of Subject Property (Built between 1980-1983) Existing Split Lot Twinhomes Near Hawley Avenue (Built between 1978-1988) A CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MAY 10, 2021 3 DEPARTMENT: Community Development-Planning Prepared By: Michael Healy, City Planner ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Exterior Storage at Bridgepoint Office Condominiums I and II DESIRED OUTCOMES: • Review zoning history of Bridgepoint Office Condominiums I and II • Discuss Bridgepoint Condo Associations’ desire for exterior storage (which is currently prohibited) OVERVIEW: Background The Bridgepoint Industrial Park and the industrial area around it are zoned “I-1 Light Industrial.” This is a zoning district that is designed to support the needs of industrial businesses. The district allows “manufacturing in an enclosed building,” “offices,” and “warehousing and distribution” as the three main permitted uses. Many other types of uses are also allowed but most require Conditional Use Permits and review by the City Council. The I-1 zoning district allows “exterior storage” with a conditional use permit. Typically, the City Council uses the CUP requirement to regulate the size and location of the exterior storage area, to require screening that blocks the exterior storage from all public streets and adjacent properties, and to regulate what types of items are stored outdoors. The City’s main goal in regulating this is to prevent the exterior storage from creating a nuisance or a hazard that negatively impacts adjacent properties or community aesthetics. The Bridgepoint Office Condominiums development at 150 Hardman Avenue was approved in 2003 and the Bridgepoint Office Condominiums II development at 151 Bridgepoint Drive was approved in 2006. Both projects were developed by Langer Development LLC. Both projects required variances in order to move forward. While exterior storage is usually allowed in industrial areas with a CUP, the City attached conditions to the variance approvals for both developments that completely prohibit all types of exterior storage. Zoning Issue That Needs to Be Addressed Each of the Langer condo developments consists of two buildings on one lot with a common area between the two buildings where loading/unloading is handled. Each condo suite has a small space in the loading area that is considered a “limited common element” which the suite owner has the right to use semi-exclusively. Over the last 15 years, many businesses have elected to use their limited common element area for unauthorized exterior storage. Some businesses store trailers, some businesses store equipment, and at least one business is storing PODS that it uses as extra warehousing space for items that do not fit within their condo suite. Code enforcement in South St. Paul is done in response to complaints. In recent months, City Staff have received a high volume of complaints regarding exterior storage in the Bridgepoint area. The initial complaints were about the business with the PODS but the complaints have snowballed. Businesses that receive a code enforcement letter often react by demanding “fairness” and submitting complaints about other businesses that are violating the same rule. At this point, there are several businesses in the Bridgepoint area that are actively submitting complaints about each other and asking that the City enforce its exterior storage rules by either requiring the exterior storage to be removed OR requiring the businesses to get Conditional Use Permits. City Council Worksession Report – Exterior Storage at Bridgepoint Office Condominiums I and II May 10, 2021 Page 2 of 13 What does this Mean for the Bridgepoint Office Condominiums I and II? At this point, numerous businesses in the Bridgepoint area have received code enforcement letters relating to their unauthorized exterior storage. Some of the businesses have stated that they intend to apply for Conditional Use Permits and will install screening while others have indicated that they will simply remove their exterior storage. Most of the properties in Bridgepoint have a single owner who can make this decision. The situation with the two condo developments is more complicated: • The two condo developments are not adjacent and are located down the street from each other. In each complex, the condo suites are owned individually. Each of the two condo developments is governed by its own condo association. • The two condo complexes have similar layouts and similar architecture. The two condo complexes do still have a relationship with each other and they are both managed by Langer Real Estate Services. • The two condo complexes are both completely prohibited from having exterior storage because of the conditions attached to their existing variance approvals. This means that the complexes are currently ineligible to obtain CUP’s to legalize any of their unauthorized exterior storage. • In order for one or both of the condo developments to legally have exterior storage, it would require two City Council approvals: 1. An amendment to the variance(s) to remove the total ban on exterior storage. 2. A Conditional Use Permit(s) for exterior storage. The condo boards have met and have decided that they would like to try to get permission to legally have exterior storage at both properties. They have asked Langer Real Estate Services to approach the City Council to see if there is any willingness to amend the variances. If the City Council is willing to consider amending the variances, the two condo complexes both intend to submit zoning applications seeking legal exterior storage. DIRECTION NEEDED Langer Real Estate Services is seeking informal Council feedback regarding whether they would consider amending the existing variances. If the Council is not willing to consider amending the variances, there is no path forward to legalize the exterior storage and all exterior storage will need to be removed from both properties. If there is a willingness to reconsider the zoning status of these properties, Langer wants to move forward with a zoning application. The Applicant will need to go through a full Planning Commission and City Council review to determine whether the proposed exterior storage requires additional screening or whether any specific restrictions need to be placed on the storage (location, type of stored items, height of stored items, etc.). ATTACHMENTS A- Site Location Map B- Site Plans and Aerial Photographs Showing Proposed Exterior Storage Areas C- Site Photographs D- Existing Variance Approval Resolutions for Bridgepoint Office Condominiums I and II E- Narrative from Langer Real Estate Services Explaining Request  ATTACHMENT A SITE LOCATION MAP  ATTACHMENT B SITE PLANS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PROPOSED EXTERIOR STORAGE AREAS Brigepoint Office Condominiums I with Proposed Exterior Storage Locations Highlighted Aerial Photograph of Bridgepoint Office Condominiums I with Approximate Proposed Exterior Storage Area Outlined in Blue Bridgepoint Office Condominums II with Proposed Exterior Storage Locations Highlighted Aerial Photograph of Bridgepoint II with Approximate Proposed Exterior Storage Area Outlined in Red  ATTACHMENT C SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Bridgepoint I (Submitted by Langer Real Estate Services) Bridgepoint II (Submitted by Langer Real Estate Services)  ATTACHMENT D EXISTING VARIANCE APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS FOR BRIDGEPOINT OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS I & II  ATTACHMENT E NARRATIVE FROM LANGER REAL ESTATE SERVICES EXPLAINING REQUEST May 5, 2021 TO: City of South St. Paul City Council RE: Outside Storage Variance FROM: Bridgepoint Condominium Association 150-168 Hardman Avenue South 375-395 Bridgepoint Drive Bridgepoint II Condominium Association 151-177 Bridgepoint Drive 181-199 Bridgepoint Drive _____________________________________________________________________________________ The two Bridgepoint Associations request discussion regarding the variance at the above referenced properties that prohibits outside storage. The associations request a review of the variance and discussion regarding what types of outside storage the City would consider allowing under a Conditional Use Permit. The associations would like discussion regarding the allowance of vehicles, trash dumpsters and storage containers, all of which are currently prohibited. Please see the attached Site Plan reports for each of the buildings. We have provided the City Planner and City Attorney with copies of our legal documents, i.e. bylaws and declaration. I have also attached pictures of each complex for your review. Please let us know if there are other documents you would like to see before our work session. We appreciate your assistance in this matter, and we look forward to further discussion with you on May 10th. Regards, Ann Langer David Langer Property Manager Developer Langer Real Estate Services Langer Development LLC Ann Langer 651-450-9669 612-840-4795 Check out WHAT’S NEW at https://langercommercial.com/news/ A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MAY 10, 2021 4 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION Prepared By: Joel Hanson, City Administrator ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Dakota County Broadband (DBB) Discussion DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Provide input to our DBB Representative, Mayor Francis, regarding key outcomes desired by the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. OVERVIEW: The DBB Board is preparing to issue an RFP to gain a better understanding of the current state of broadband in Dakota County and the DBB network as a whole. That information would then be used to inform members as they determine future policy direction. Before moving forward with the RFP, some members of the DBB Board indicated that they wanted to have additional discussions in their communities before approving the issuance of an RFP. Those discussions were asked to occur prior to the June 9, 2021 DBB Board meeting. Members were also encouraged to send thoughts, comments, and suggestions about the current Request for Information document to the Executive Director prior to the meeting as well. Attached to this memo are some pertinent documents that provide further information regarding the DBB RFP process as well as additional background material. Mayor Francis and Ian Hardie will lead the discussion to provide the SSP City Council with the opportunity to influence this process as you deem appropriate. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A  DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD APRIL 2021 SYSTEMS PLAN UPDATE/RFP SUMMARY DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD OVERVIEW The Dakota Broadband Board (DBB) was created in December 2017 through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between Dakota County, the Dakota County Community Development Agency, and the following cities: Apple Valley Burnsville Farmington Hastings Inver Grove Heights Lakeville Mendota Heights Rosemount South St Paul West St Paul The DBB Board consists of one representative and one alternate from the elected governing body of each member. As stated in the JPA, the intent of the DBB is to: • To create a high-performance institutional network (I-Net) for the efficient management of physical network assets owned among members (conduit, fiber cable, etc.), and to enable more efficient and lower cost price agreements for members for a variety of IP-based services • To utilize excess I-Net capacity to enhance business attraction, business retention and economic development opportunities through the provision of wholesale access to private sector service providers (C-Net) • The DBB will not be a retail provider of services to businesses and residents in Dakota County What are the ongoing benefits for DBB members and the community as a whole? Efficient Use of Public Resources • Working collaboratively, and combining resources to manage the DBB network, enables communities to leverage economies of scale and lower network costs. • Expanded utilization of the fiber network provides additional opportunities to connect public facilities like parks, water towers, schools, traffic signals, libraries, public safety, and core infrastructure. Redundancy to Protect Against Unforeseen Disruptions • The structure of the network, and the redundant connections, protects communities from unexpected breaks in service which can negatively impact the ability of members to provide critical public services to citizens. • The structure of the network also supports increased capacity for Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning and disaster preparedness. Potential for Economic Development Opportunities Throughout Dakota County • In collaboration with the private sector, DBB members could decide to lease the excess capacity in the DBB network to providers who would then offer internet services to businesses of all sizes in Dakota County. Access to a high-speed fiber network can be a key requirement for many new businesses and residents looking to relocate, and the DBB network could serve as a catalyst for service when this is needed, particularly in unserved/underserved areas of the county. SYSTEMS PLAN BACKGROUND AND CURRENT DISCUSSION Following its strategic planning session in late 2019, the DBB Board determined that in order to further delve into strategy discussions it was important to have an update to the existing Systems Plan that was created in 2017. The objective is to gather data to obtain a better understanding of the current state of broadband in Dakota County and the DBB network as a whole, and then be able to use that information to inform members as they determine policy direction and next steps. An RFP was issued in 2020 that received one response. The DBB Board expressed interest in the ability to consider multiple responses before awarding a contract for the project so an RFI was developed and issued in October of 2021. Four responses were received. All of the respondents indicated that the requested outcomes of the intended RFI were feasible, and the Technical Advisory Committee recommended the issuance of an RFP in April 2021 with some minor changes. This recommendation was presented at the April DBB Board meeting where some DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD 430 THIRD STREET, FARMINGTON, MN 55024 members of the DBB Board indicated that they would like to have additional conversations in their communities before moving forward with an RFP. What are the key outcomes identified in the RFI/proposed RFP? A. Stakeholder and Community Input a. Understanding of the existing availability and satisfaction level of broadband services for Dakota County stakeholders including: i. Residents (Single family and multi-tenant properties) ii. Employers (Large, Medium, and Small) iii. Healthcare providers iv. K-12 and Higher Education v. Local government and non-profit organizations vi. Private Sector ISPs (Existing service areas and challenges) B. Identification of Opportunities for I-Net Expansion a. Evaluation of the existing DBB fiber network capacity and the identification of future routes/projects to benefit member communities and strengthen the network C. Economic Development Opportunities and Community Value a. Identification of strategic steps DBB members can take to further expand economic development opportunities throughout Dakota County D. Models, Structures and Pricing Options for Use of the Network Fiber by Non-Members (C-Net) a. Identification of potential options/approaches for future public/private partnerships to meet community broadband needs, including a market analysis and recommendations for system structure and leasing/pricing E. Outreach and Communications Strategy a. Development of an ongoing communications/outreach strategy that promotes organizational transparency, efficiency, collaboration The Stakeholder and Community Input segment in particular is a critical piece that will provide DBB members with important information they are looking for about the current state of broadband in their communities. The DBB Board has already allocated funds for the RFP in its 2021 budget; this saves individual communities time and money versus gathering input from stakeholders on their own. NEXT STEPS DBB Board members who indicated that they wanted to have additional discussions in their communities before approving the issuance of an RFP were asked to have these discussions prior to the June 9, 2021 DBB Board meeting. Members were also encouraged to send thoughts, comments, and suggestions about the current RFI document to the Executive Director prior to the meeting as well. Additional information about the DBB, broadband resources, and meeting agendas and minutes are available on the DBB website at: www.dbbmn.gov. Please reach out with any questions to Carah Koch, DBB Executive Director at: ckoch@farmingtonmn.gov DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD 430 THIRD STREET, FARMINGTON, MN 55024 DAKOTA BROADBAND BOARD UPDATE Dakota County Managers/Administrators Meeting April 23, 2021  OVERVIEW OF RECENT ACTIVITIES AND TOPICS • 2021 Budget and 2022 Budget Process • Project Request Process/Records Management • IRU Update • RFP/RFI Process and Discussion • Federal Broadband Funding and Programs  2021 BUDGET AND 2022 BUDGET PROCESS • 2021 Budget approved in October 2020 • 2022 Budget Timeline • April and May 2021: TAC representatives and Executive Director meet with DBB Fiscal Agent to begin crafting budget • June 2021: TAC and DBB Executive Committee review draft budget and offer feedback/suggested changes • July 2021: TAC and Executive Committee review the final proposed budget and make a recommendation to the DBB Board • July 2021: DBB Board receives recommendation and reviews for possible adoption  PROJECT REQUEST PROCESS AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT • Updates to project request from and process through ongoing input with TAC • Focus on improved documentation of collaborative projects between DBB members • Board approval of Laserfiche for records management • One TAC representative from each member will have access to records  INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO USE (IRU) UPDATE • Eight of the eleven DBB member organizations signed the IRU in 2020 • IRU identifies the assets that the member gives the DBB the right to manage on behalf of the member • Members continue to maintain ownership and local control of the asset after signing the IRU • Burnsville, Lakeville, and Dakota County have not yet signed • Per a request, the DBB Legal Agent crafted a memo to provide additional insight on the IRU/JPA relationship  RFI/RFP FOR DBB SYSTEMS PLAN UPDATE AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS • A Systems Plan update was a request of the DBB Board as an outcome of the strategic planning session in Fall 2019 • Data expected to be collected as part of the Systems Plan update will provide important insight to use for future policy discussions/decisions • RFP issued in late 2020; the one response that was received was rejected by the DBB Board as they wanted more vendors to choose from • RFI issued in February 2021; four responses were received • TAC recommended the issuance of an RFP to the DBB Board in April 2021; DBB Board decided to table this issuance as some members wanted to bring back to their communities for additional discussion  FEDERAL BROADBAND FUNDING STATE AND LOCAL RECOVERY FUNDS EMERGENCY CONNECTIVITY FUNDS • $231 billion to states, territories and • $7.17 billion to schools and libraries for tribal entities reimbursement of broadband services and devices provided to students and • $130 billion to local governments patrons during the pandemic including cities and counties • Appears to expand the scope and definition of the existing federal E-Rate • Funding available until December 31, Program to include the provision of 2024 services in homes Capital Projects Fund • FCC will issue new E-Rate rules in May 2021 • Provides an additional $10 billion for • Funds available until one year after the states/territories/Tribes to cover capital COVID-19 emergency ends project costs including broadband infrastructure to help reduce inequities  OTHER RECENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON BROADBAND Emergency Broadband Benefit Program • $3.2 billion in grants to help low-income households pay for internet service during the pandemic Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Program • $285 million in grants intended to fund internet access services and equipment for minority-serving institutions, students, and nearby communities Promote Broadband Expansion Grant Program • $300 million in grants to support public-private partnerships in unserved, rural areas  Request for Information Dakota Broadband Board Systems Plan Update and Business Analysis February 2021 Dakota Broadband Board 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Overview and Purpose of the RFI The Dakota Broadband Board (DBB) is interested in updating the existing Systems Plan for its broadband fiber network, and in conducting a business analysis of the current broadband environment in Dakota County. The outcome of the project is expected to inform future operational and policy decisions of the Dakota Broadband Board regarding the use of its broadband fiber network. The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to identify qualified vendors who are interested in assisting the DBB in achieving the anticipated outcome. The DBB expects this process will include meeting with select vendors to have additional in-depth discussions regarding their proposed approach, and also their experience with similar projects in the public sector. At the conclusion of the RFI process, the DBB will consider next steps which may include the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP). Dakota Broadband Board: Background The Dakota Broadband Board (DBB) is a Joint Powers Organization created in December 2017 between Dakota County, the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and the following 10 communities in Dakota County: Apple Valley Burnsville Farmington Hastings Inver Grove Heights Lakeville Mendota Heights Rosemount South St Paul West St Paul As stated in the existing Joint Powers Agreement, the purpose of the DBB is: • To create a high-performance institutional network (I-Net) for the efficient management of physical network assets owned among members (conduit, fiber, etc.), and to enable more efficient and lower cost price agreements for members for a variety of IP-based services • To utilize excess I-Net capacity to enhance business attraction, business retention, and economic development opportunities through the provision of whole access to private sector providers (C-Net) The DBB currently manages over 197 miles of broadband fiber for its members (Exhibit A). It is important to note that the DBB will not be a retail provider of services to businesses and residents in Dakota County. Dakota County (MN) is a part of the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and its communities range from urban and suburban in the northern portion of the county to its rural towns and townships in the southern half. Organizational Structure The DBB is governed by a Board that consists of one elected official from each member entity. In addition to the Board, the DBB maintains two additional committees to provide guidance and oversight of its actions. The Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of one staff representative from each member who provides insight on technical/operational decisions and activities. An Executive Committee, whose membership includes the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board, and the Chair and Vice- Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Executive Director, provides a key connection between policy and technical decisions. 2 In addition to the existing board and committee structure, daily operations are managed by an Executive Director who also oversees a variety of vendors for network operations and maintenance, as well as fiscal and legal services. Anticipated Scope and Outcomes The DBB Board has identified a number of specific outcomes and deliverables that it would like to see as a result of this analysis. These include: A. Update of the December 2017 C-Net/I-Net Systems and Business Plan that was created by Design Nine (Copies available on the DBB website at: http://www.DBBMN.gov) B. Stakeholder and Community Input a. Understanding of the existing availability and satisfaction level of broadband services for Dakota County stakeholders including: i. Residents (Single family and multi-tenant properties) ii. Employers (Large, Medium, and Small) iii. Healthcare providers iv. K-12 and Higher Education v. Local government and non-profit organizations vi. Private Sector ISPs (Existing service areas and challenges) b. Due to the impacts of COVID-19, the DBB is particularly interested in specific feedback from residents/businesses working from home and distance learning C. Identification of Opportunities for I-Net Expansion a. Evaluation of the existing DBB fiber network capacity and the identification of future routes/projects to benefit member communities and strengthen the network D. Economic Development Opportunities and Community Value a. Identification of strategic steps DBB members can take to further expand economic development opportunities throughout Dakota County b. Examples from other communities who have successfully utilized broadband infrastructure and public/private partnerships to attract and retain businesses E. Models, Structures and Pricing Options for Use of the Network Fiber by Non-Members (C-Net) a. Development of a market analysis for the options available to the DBB to lease excess fiber to non-members, including an acknowledgement of the impact that potential policy decisions by the DBB Board (i.e. availability in unserved/underserved areas of Dakota County only) would have on feasibility including short and long-term viability i. Options, pricing, and recommendations for dark fiber leasing/use ii. Options, pricing, and recommendations for lit fiber leasing/use b. Identification of options/approaches for future public/private partnerships to meet community broadband needs F. Outreach and Communications Strategy a. Development of an ongoing communications/outreach strategy that promotes organizational transparency, efficiency, collaboration 3 General Information The DBB welcomes responses from any qualified vendors who are interested in assisting the organization in achieving its desired outcome. Responses should include the following: A. Vendor history, qualifications, and contact information a. Please include organizational experience with similar projects for public entities as well as individual team member experience in these areas B. A description of the approach you would take to achieve each of the project deliverables and outcomes identified in the RFI (A-F above) C. Expected project schedule and timeline D. Identification of any issues or challenges that you may encounter in order to meet the desired outcomes of the project E. Identification of expected resource requirements that would be necessary to fulfill the DBB’s request for this project. Please provide a breakdown of expected resources and pricing necessary for each deliverable, as well as the project as a whole. Responses should be submitted to the DBB at the email/address below. Please submit any questions in advance of the deadline via email. The DBB will accept responses until 5pm (CST) on March 12, 2021. Please send responses to: Carah Koch DBB Executive Director Via Email: ckoch@farmingtonmn.gov Via Mail: 430 Third Street, Farmington MN 55024 4 Exhibit A: DBB Member Fiber September 2020 5 A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MAY 10, 2021 5 DEPARTMENT: FINANCE Prepared by: Clara Hilger ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: 2021 First Quarter Financial Report DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Discussion on the 2021 First Quarter Financial Report OVERVIEW: The first quarter of 2021 is complete and financial results are available. The 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. • 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. The attached financial report includes budget revisions that affect several departments and funds: • Personnel costs including fringe benefits were adjusted to reflect settled contracts and insurance elections. These adjustments are reflected in the general, library, arena, airport, water and sewer utility, and central garage funds. Property taxes were reallocated from the general fund to the library to balance that budget. The contingency fund was reallocated to cover the general fund expenditure budget increases. The first quarter financial report will be placed on consent for formal council action at the May 17, 2021 meeting. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A  Benchmark 2021 2021 Actual thru 25% Description Original Amended March Percent Budget Budget 2021 of Budget GENERAL OPERATING FUND GENERAL FUND - REVENUES Taxes 10,933,514.00 10,868,372.00 0.00 0.00% A Fees 1,753,760.00 1,753,760.00 146,125.12 8.33% B Intergovernmental 2,292,248.00 2,292,248.00 138,274.14 6.03% C Charges for Services 1,807,080.00 1,807,080.00 411,791.17 22.79% D Other Revenues 82,710.00 82,710.00 6,364.65 7.70% E Transfers In/Fund Balance 190,000.00 190,000.00 47,505.00 25.00% Total Revenues 17,059,312.00 16,994,170.00 750,060.08 4.41% GENERAL FUND - EXPENDITURES General Government Mayor & Council 155,063.00 155,063.00 43,209.48 27.87% Administration 448,404.00 454,106.00 89,485.24 19.71% Human Resources 145,010.00 147,397.00 46,037.55 31.23% City Attorney 70,000.00 70,000.00 8,875.50 12.68% F City Attorney - Criminal 170,000.00 170,000.00 38,558.57 22.68% F City Clerk 143,527.00 146,077.00 32,009.16 21.91% Information Technology 630,562.00 637,555.00 181,495.93 28.47% Recycling 52,988.00 52,988.00 8.45 0.02% G Finance 509,276.00 497,029.00 98,137.86 19.74% Total General Government 2,324,830.00 2,330,215.00 537,817.74 23.08% Public Safety Police 6,475,672.00 6,560,384.00 1,425,276.11 21.73% Fire 2,598,462.00 2,598,462.00 1,291,860.26 49.72% H Total Public Safety 9,074,134.00 9,158,846.00 2,717,136.37 29.67% Public Works Engineering 507,458.00 516,879.00 105,820.31 20.47% Streets, Alley's and Blvd's 1,860,758.00 1,873,918.00 398,131.47 21.25% Buildings 259,618.00 258,215.00 52,237.08 20.23% Parks Facilities and Maintenance 1,112,273.00 1,120,384.00 206,295.56 18.41% Total Public Works 3,740,107.00 3,769,396.00 762,484.42 20.23% Community Development Development Services 478,294.00 484,502.00 89,817.79 18.54% Code Enforcement 288,271.00 292,195.00 66,952.63 22.91% Total Community Development 766,565.00 776,697.00 156,770.42 20.18% Leisure Services Parks Administration 463,854.00 488,297.00 72,938.07 14.94% I Splash Pool 76,869.00 75,363.00 1,494.49 1.98% J Northview Pool 99,669.00 98,163.00 582.53 0.59% J Recreation Programs 174,391.00 169,818.00 5,953.09 3.51% K Community Affairs 118,893.00 120,592.00 25,339.39 21.01% Total Leisure Services 933,676.00 952,233.00 106,307.57 11.16% Nondepartmental Contingencies 220,000.00 6,783.00 0.00 0.00% Total Nondepartmental 220,000.00 6,783.00 0.00 0.00% Total Expenditures 17,059,312.00 16,994,170.00 4,280,516.52 25.19% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (3,530,456.44)  Benchmark 2021 2021 Actual thru 25% Description Original Amended March Percent Budget Budget 2021 of Budget OTHER OPERATING FUNDS LIBRARY FUND Revenues 826,598.00 841,464.00 158.35 0.02% A Expenditures 826,598.00 841,464.00 179,235.86 21.30% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (179,077.51) DOUG WOOG ARENA Revenues 1,051,954.00 1,051,954.00 208,007.30 19.77% A Expenditures 893,659.00 943,935.00 167,668.52 17.76% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 158,295.00 108,019.00 40,338.78 AIRPORT OPERATING FUND Revenues 1,203,242.00 1,203,242.00 352,102.03 29.26% L Expenditures 1,359,321.00 1,366,916.00 207,834.40 15.20% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (156,079.00) (163,674.00) 144,267.63 CENTRAL SQUARE FUND Revenues 119,509.00 119,509.00 58,109.01 48.62% M Expenditures 132,833.00 132,833.00 48,492.09 36.51% M Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (13,324.00) (13,324.00) 9,616.92 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Operating Revenues and Grants 625,950.00 625,950.00 38,925.40 6.22% N Expenditures - Operating 361,913.00 361,913.00 139,652.37 38.59% O Transfers - Capital 1,215,000.00 1,215,000.00 31,902.00 2.63% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (950,963.00) (950,963.00) (132,628.97) STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND Revenues 305,570.00 305,570.00 20,800.26 6.81% N Expenditures 251,340.00 251,340.00 55,590.27 22.12% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 54,230.00 54,230.00 (34,790.01) WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND Revenues Administration 56,000.00 56,000.00 0.00 0.00% Water Utility 2,564,700.00 2,564,700.00 215,971.36 8.42% N Sewer Utility 3,975,600.00 3,975,600.00 395,209.81 9.94% N Total Revenues 6,596,300.00 6,596,300.00 611,181.17 9.27% Expenditures Administration 500,662.00 490,648.00 115,549.34 23.55% Water Utility 1,133,148.00 1,135,630.00 195,617.22 17.23% Sewer Utility 3,510,780.00 3,512,830.00 1,109,098.67 31.57% P Total Expenditures 5,144,590.00 5,139,108.00 1,420,265.23 27.64% Transfers Water Utility 2,100,000.00 2,100,000.00 56,801.00 2.70% Q Sewer Utility 500,000.00 500,000.00 108,051.00 21.61% Total Transfers 2,600,000.00 2,600,000.00 164,852.00 6.34% Net Income (Loss) (1,148,290.00) (1,142,808.00) (973,936.06)  Benchmark 2021 2021 Actual thru 25% Description Original Amended March Percent Budget Budget 2021 of Budget OTHER OPERATING FUNDS CENTRAL GARAGE - INTERNAL SERVICE FUND Revenues 1,452,917.00 1,452,917.00 377,369.94 25.97% Expenditures 1,327,087.00 1,329,749.00 274,874.23 20.67% Net Income (Loss) 125,830.00 123,168.00 102,495.71 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Revenues 327,725.00 327,725.00 0.00 0.00% A Expenditures 327,725.00 327,725.00 73,657.32 22.48% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (73,657.32) EDA - HOUSING (HRA LEVY) Revenues 446,891.00 446,891.00 24,089.53 5.39% A Expenditures 446,891.00 446,891.00 69,723.90 15.60% Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 0.00 0.00 (45,634.37) HRA - PUBLIC HOUSING Revenues 2,049,100.00 2,049,100.00 215,333.90 10.51% R Operating Expenses 1,933,408.00 1,933,408.00 343,062.56 17.74% R Capital Expenses 0.00 0.00 19,346.15 0.00% Net Income (Loss) 115,692.00 115,692.00 (147,074.81) Amounts in red reflect proposed budget adjustments for 1st quarter 2021 Tickmark Explanations for Budget VS Actual Variances A. Taxes will be received in May/July and December/January B. 1st quarter Franchise fees come in April C. LGA is received in July and December D. No winter/spring recreation activities E. Interest earnings are posted semi‐annually and other minor revenues are unpredictable F. Legal service invoices for two months only G. Recycling costs lag as we are billed by WSP quarterly, and composite site costs occur May‐ October H. Paid two quarters for Fire I. Recreation short‐staffed during first quarter J. Pools are only open June through August K. Recreation programs have been limited in the first quarter L. Certain revenues come in at the start of the year at the Airport (land leases) M. Budget amounts for 6 months – benchmark is 50% for CSCC N. Utility revenues are based on service delivery, bills issued in Jan, Feb, Mar of 2021 are accrued back to the 2020 books as they are for services delivered in 2020. This is a regular & routine occurrence. O. Memberships and bond payments made in 1st quarter P. Sanitary Sewer has 4 months of MCES charges Q. Transfers to capital projects and utility administration to cover deficit will not be posted until the end of the year R. Activity from management company has not been updated for all of 2020 A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: 6 DEPARTMENT: Prepared by: ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Emergency Declaration Extension and Council Chamber Usage DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Discuss the need to extend the Emergency Declaration relating to the COVID-19 Pandemic beyond May 14th. OVERVIEW: With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City enacted a Declaration of Local Emergency on March 16, 2020. This declaration has been extended multiple times since that date. The last extension was approved on April 5th and it expires on May 14th unless extended by future Council action. The State’s Emergency declaration also is set to expire on that day. Given the Legislative Session is set to end on May 17th, it would not surprise me that it is extended to avoid the need for a Special Session. The Council will need to decide if we want to continue our Emergency Declaration. To continue to meet remotely for work session meetings, we would need to do so. The one benefit of extending the Emergency Declaration would solve the challenge of a meeting room that can accommodate social distancing. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A