Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-23-22-R
APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL This is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. To facilitate a timely meeting, a speaker that is repeating, or agreeing with, a previous comment should simply state such and forego a longer comment. If a large number of citizens wish to speak, the Mayor may shorten the individual comment period. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council Meeting. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES Public Inquiry Response From May 9, 2022 City Council Meeting Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 2021 Financial Statements Gayle Bauman, Finance Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Beyond The Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) –Suburban Ramsey County Eileen Scott, Beyond the Yellow Ribbon MEMO.PDF STAFF COMMENTS Transportation Update David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 18, 2022 City Council Work Session 04 -18 -22 -WS.PDF April 25, 2022 Regular City Council 04 -25 -22 -R.PDF May 9, 2022 Regular City Council 05 -09 -22 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve 2021 City Financial Statements And Audit Gayle Bauman, Finance Director MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -029 Accepting Donation From Arden Hills Foundation Joe Vaughan, Recreation Supervisor MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -030 Entering Into A Master Partnership Contract With MnDOT David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Change Order No. 1 And Payment No. 1 –Insituform Technologies USA, LLC –2021 CIPP Lining Project David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -031 City Of Arden Hills Commitment To Supporting The Suburban Ramsey County Beyond The Yellow Ribbon Network ’s Support Of Service Members, Veterans And Military Families Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2022 -034 Approving Municipal Support For The Old Snelling Avenue N And County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Intersection Improvements Joey Lundquist, Ramsey County Brian Johnson, SRF MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Resolution 2022 -032 –Site Plan Review –4440 Round Lake Road W (Baker Hostetler LLP/Saltbox) –PC 22 -007 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF Resolution 2022 -033 –Variance –1152 Benton Way (William And Adrienne Guelker) –PC 22 -004 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Steve Scott David Radziej Regular City Council Agenda May 23, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website. CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 6. 6.A. Documents: 6.B. Documents: 6.C. Documents: 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 7.C. Documents: 7.D. Documents: 7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 10.B. Documents: 10.C. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. To facilitate a timely meeting, a speaker that is repeating, or agreeing with, a previous comment should simply state such and forego a longer comment. If a large number of citizens wish to speak, the Mayor may shorten the individual comment period. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council Meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPublic Inquiry Response From May 9, 2022 City Council MeetingDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 2021 Financial Statements Gayle Bauman, Finance Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Beyond The Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) –Suburban Ramsey County Eileen Scott, Beyond the Yellow Ribbon MEMO.PDF STAFF COMMENTS Transportation Update David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 18, 2022 City Council Work Session 04 -18 -22 -WS.PDF April 25, 2022 Regular City Council 04 -25 -22 -R.PDF May 9, 2022 Regular City Council 05 -09 -22 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve 2021 City Financial Statements And Audit Gayle Bauman, Finance Director MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -029 Accepting Donation From Arden Hills Foundation Joe Vaughan, Recreation Supervisor MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -030 Entering Into A Master Partnership Contract With MnDOT David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Change Order No. 1 And Payment No. 1 –Insituform Technologies USA, LLC –2021 CIPP Lining Project David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -031 City Of Arden Hills Commitment To Supporting The Suburban Ramsey County Beyond The Yellow Ribbon Network ’s Support Of Service Members, Veterans And Military Families Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2022 -034 Approving Municipal Support For The Old Snelling Avenue N And County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Intersection Improvements Joey Lundquist, Ramsey County Brian Johnson, SRF MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Resolution 2022 -032 –Site Plan Review –4440 Round Lake Road W (Baker Hostetler LLP/Saltbox) –PC 22 -007 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF Resolution 2022 -033 –Variance –1152 Benton Way (William And Adrienne Guelker) –PC 22 -004 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottDavid Radziej Regular City Council Agenda May 23, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 6. 6.A. Documents: 6.B. Documents: 6.C. Documents: 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 7.C. Documents: 7.D. Documents: 7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 10.B. Documents: 10.C. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. To facilitate a timely meeting, a speaker that is repeating, or agreeing with, a previous comment should simply state such and forego a longer comment. If a large number of citizens wish to speak, the Mayor may shorten the individual comment period. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council Meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPublic Inquiry Response From May 9, 2022 City Council MeetingDave Perrault, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFPUBLIC PRESENTATIONS2021 Financial StatementsGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFBeyond The Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) –Suburban Ramsey CountyEileen Scott, Beyond the Yellow RibbonMEMO.PDFSTAFF COMMENTSTransportation UpdateDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 18, 2022 City Council Work Session04-18 -22 -WS.PDFApril 25, 2022 Regular City Council04-25 -22 -R.PDFMay 9, 2022 Regular City Council 05 -09 -22 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve 2021 City Financial Statements And Audit Gayle Bauman, Finance Director MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -029 Accepting Donation From Arden Hills Foundation Joe Vaughan, Recreation Supervisor MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -030 Entering Into A Master Partnership Contract With MnDOT David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Change Order No. 1 And Payment No. 1 –Insituform Technologies USA, LLC –2021 CIPP Lining Project David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -031 City Of Arden Hills Commitment To Supporting The Suburban Ramsey County Beyond The Yellow Ribbon Network ’s Support Of Service Members, Veterans And Military Families Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2022 -034 Approving Municipal Support For The Old Snelling Avenue N And County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Intersection Improvements Joey Lundquist, Ramsey County Brian Johnson, SRF MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Resolution 2022 -032 –Site Plan Review –4440 Round Lake Road W (Baker Hostetler LLP/Saltbox) –PC 22 -007 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF Resolution 2022 -033 –Variance –1152 Benton Way (William And Adrienne Guelker) –PC 22 -004 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottDavid Radziej Regular City Council Agenda May 23, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:6.6.A.Documents:6.B.Documents:6.C. Documents: 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 7.C. Documents: 7.D. Documents: 7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 10.B. Documents: 10.C. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. To facilitate a timely meeting, a speaker that is repeating, or agreeing with, a previous comment should simply state such and forego a longer comment. If a large number of citizens wish to speak, the Mayor may shorten the individual comment period. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council Meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPublic Inquiry Response From May 9, 2022 City Council MeetingDave Perrault, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFPUBLIC PRESENTATIONS2021 Financial StatementsGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFBeyond The Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) –Suburban Ramsey CountyEileen Scott, Beyond the Yellow RibbonMEMO.PDFSTAFF COMMENTSTransportation UpdateDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 18, 2022 City Council Work Session04-18 -22 -WS.PDFApril 25, 2022 Regular City Council04-25 -22 -R.PDFMay 9, 2022 Regular City Council05-09 -22 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorPang Silseth, Accounting AnalystMEMO.PDFMotion To Approve 2021 City Financial Statements And AuditGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorMEMO.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2022 -029 Accepting Donation From Arden Hills Foundation Joe Vaughan, Recreation SupervisorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2022 -030 Entering Into A Master Partnership Contract With MnDOT David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFMotion To Approve Change Order No. 1 And Payment No. 1 –Insituform Technologies USA, LLC –2021 CIPP Lining Project David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2022 -031 City Of Arden Hills Commitment To Supporting The Suburban Ramsey County Beyond The Yellow Ribbon Network ’s Support Of Service Members, Veterans And Military Families Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2022 -034 Approving Municipal Support For The Old Snelling Avenue N And County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Intersection Improvements Joey Lundquist, Ramsey County Brian Johnson, SRF MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Resolution 2022 -032 –Site Plan Review –4440 Round Lake Road W (Baker Hostetler LLP/Saltbox) –PC 22 -007 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF Resolution 2022 -033 –Variance –1152 Benton Way (William And Adrienne Guelker) –PC 22 -004 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottDavid Radziej Regular City Council Agenda May 23, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:6.6.A.Documents:6.B.Documents:6.C.Documents:7.7.A.Documents:7.B.Documents:7.C.Documents:7.D.Documents:7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 10.B. Documents: 10.C. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. To facilitate a timely meeting, a speaker that is repeating, or agreeing with, a previous comment should simply state such and forego a longer comment. If a large number of citizens wish to speak, the Mayor may shorten the individual comment period. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council Meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPublic Inquiry Response From May 9, 2022 City Council MeetingDave Perrault, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFPUBLIC PRESENTATIONS2021 Financial StatementsGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFBeyond The Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) –Suburban Ramsey CountyEileen Scott, Beyond the Yellow RibbonMEMO.PDFSTAFF COMMENTSTransportation UpdateDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESApril 18, 2022 City Council Work Session04-18 -22 -WS.PDFApril 25, 2022 Regular City Council04-25 -22 -R.PDFMay 9, 2022 Regular City Council05-09 -22 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorPang Silseth, Accounting AnalystMEMO.PDFMotion To Approve 2021 City Financial Statements And AuditGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorMEMO.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2022 -029 Accepting Donation From Arden Hills Foundation Joe Vaughan, Recreation SupervisorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2022 -030 Entering Into A Master Partnership Contract With MnDOT David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFMotion To Approve Change Order No. 1 And Payment No. 1 –Insituform Technologies USA, LLC –2021 CIPP Lining ProjectDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2022 -031 City Of Arden Hills Commitment To Supporting The Suburban Ramsey County Beyond The Yellow Ribbon Network ’s Support Of Service Members, Veterans And Military FamiliesDave Perrault, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFPULLED CONSENT ITEMSThose items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.PUBLIC HEARINGSNEW BUSINESSResolution 2022 -034 Approving Municipal Support For The Old Snelling Avenue N And County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Intersection ImprovementsJoey Lundquist, Ramsey CountyBrian Johnson, SRFMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFResolution 2022 -032 –Site Plan Review –4440 Round Lake Road W (Baker Hostetler LLP/Saltbox) –PC 22 -007Jessica Jagoe, City PlannerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF Resolution 2022 -033 –Variance –1152 Benton Way (William And Adrienne Guelker) –PC 22 -004 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottDavid Radziej Regular City Council Agenda May 23, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:6.6.A.Documents:6.B.Documents:6.C.Documents:7.7.A.Documents:7.B.Documents:7.C.Documents:7.D.Documents:7.E.Documents:7.F.Documents:8.9.10.10.A.Documents:10.B.Documents: 10.C. Documents: 11. 12. Page 1 of 1 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: May 23, 2022 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Public Inquiry Response from May 9, 2022 City Council meeting Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ Background A verbal response will be provided at the May 23, 2022 City Council meeting. Page 1 of 1 PUBLIC PRESENTATION – 4A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2021 City Financial Statements Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Background/Discussion The City’s auditor, Aaron Nielsen from MMKR, will be present at the May 23, 2022, City Council meeting to give an overview and answer questions. The auditors have issued an unmodified (“clean”) opinion on our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021. The total general fund balance at December 31, 2021 was $3,169,812 with $2,899,564 of unassigned balance; the new balance equates to a decrease in the General Fund balance of $210,694. The ending unassigned General Fund balance makes up approximately 55.3 percent of next year’s budgeted expenditures. The City’s total net position increased by $3,450,101. The combined ending fund balances for governmental funds was $10,814,728; the combined ending unrestricted net position for the enterprise funds was $3,921,634, and internal service funds was $164,953. We have completed the report in the form prescribed by the Government Finance Officers Association of United States and Canada (GFOA) for their Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. In order to qualify for this, the report has to be published in an easily readable and efficiently organized Annual Comprehensive Financial Report that satisfies both accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and applicable legal requirements. As a note of information, the Auditing Standards are constantly increasing and changing. With these changes, you may see increased findings. This does not mean that the City has done anything wrong compared to previous years, only that the reporting requirements have become much stricter. One finding was noted in the report related to Segregation of Duties. This finding was downgraded in 2020, from a material weakness to a significant deficiency, due to improvements made in the internal controls over financial reporting. We are pleased with the outcome of the audit. Attachments A. PowerPoint presentation B. Management Report C. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report D. Special Purpose Audit Report CITY OF ARDEN HILLS AUDIT REPORT YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021 Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA AUDITOR’S ROLE •Opinion on Financial Statements •Financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America •Internal Controls and Compliance •Financial Statement Audit •MN Legal Compliance Audit AUDIT OPINIONS AND FINDINGS •Basic Financial Statements •Unmodified or clean opinion •Internal Control over Financial Reporting •2021-001 Limited Segregation of Duties •Compliance –Financial Statement Audit •No Findings Reported for 2021 •Minnesota Legal Compliance •No Findings Reported for 2021 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 2021 2020 Change Fund balances of governmental funds Total by classification Nonspendable 35,030$ 32,462$ 2,568$ Restricted 1,220,287 1,137,740 82,547 Committed 654,042 619,013 35,029 Assigned 6,229,343 5,959,059 270,284 Unassigned 2,676,026 2,925,156 (249,130) Total governmental funds 10,814,728$ 10,673,430$ 141,298$ Total by fund General 3,169,812$ 3,380,506$ (210,694)$ Permanent Improvement Revolving 4,990,120 4,928,470 61,650 Other governmental funds 2,654,796 2,364,454 290,342 Total governmental funds 10,814,728$ 10,673,430$ 141,298$ as of December 31, Governmental Fund Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION GENERAL FUND REVENUES GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ENTERPRISE FUNDS 2021 2020 Change Net position of enterprise funds Total by classification Net investment in capital assets 18,373,335$ 17,248,962$ 1,124,373$ Unrestricted 3,921,634 3,000,493 921,141 Total enterprise funds 22,294,969$ 20,249,455$ 2,045,514$ Total by fund Water 9,870,248$ 8,524,928$ 1,345,320$ Sewer 7,022,865 6,598,119 424,746 Surface Water Management 5,211,661 4,984,413 227,248 Nonmajor Recycling 190,195 141,995 48,200 Total enterprise funds 22,294,969$ 20,249,455$ 2,045,514$ Enterprise Funds Change in Financial Position Net Position as of December 31, WATER FUND SEWER FUND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FUND RECYCLING FUND GOVERNMENT-WIDE NET POSITION 2021 2020 Change Net position Governmental activities Net investment in capital assets 27,474,959$ 26,418,066$ 1,056,893$ Restricted 1,220,301 1,137,740 82,561 Unrestricted 10,799,339 10,534,206 265,133 Total governmental activities 39,494,599 38,090,012 1,404,587 Business-type activities Net investment in capital assets 18,373,335 17,248,962 1,124,373 Unrestricted 3,921,634 3,000,493 921,141 Total business-type activities 22,294,969 20,249,455 2,045,514 Total net position 61,789,568$ 58,339,467$ 3,450,101$ As of December 31, Management Report for City of Arden Hills, Minnesota December 31, 2021 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK To the City Council and Management City of Arden Hills, Minnesota We have prepared this management report in conjunction with our audit of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota’s (the City) financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021. We have organized this report into the following sections: •Audit Summary •Governmental Funds Overview •Enterprise Funds Overview •Government-Wide Financial Statements •Legislative Updates •Accounting and Auditing Updates We would be pleased to further discuss any of the information contained in this report or any other concerns that you would like us to address. We would also like to express our thanks for the courtesy and assistance extended to us during the course of our audit. The purpose of this report is solely to provide those charged with governance of the City, management, and those who have responsibility for oversight of the financial reporting process comments resulting from our audit process and information relevant to city finances in Minnesota . Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 21, 2022 C E R T I F I E D A C C O U N T A N T S P UBLIC PRINCIPALS Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA Jaclyn M. Huegel, CPA Kalen T. Karnowski, CPA Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com Standard Letterhead-r2.qxp_167639 Letterhead-RV1 9/7/18 6:34 PM Page 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1- AUDIT SUMMARY The following is a summary of our audit work, key conclusions, and other information that we consider important or that is required to be communicated to the City Council, administration, or those charged with governance of the City. OUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER AUDITING STANDARDS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information to you verbally, in our audit engagement letter, and in a separate letter dated March 2, 2022. Professional standards also require that we communicate the following information related to our audit. PLANNED SCOPE AND TIMING OF THE AUDIT We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously discussed and coordinated in order to obtain sufficient audit evidence and complete an effective audit. AUDIT OPINION AND FINDINGS Based on our audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021: • We have issued an unmodified opinion on the City’s basic financial statements. • We reported one matter involving the City’s internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be a significant deficiency, as detailed in the Special Purpose Audit Reports. Due to the limited size of the City’s office staff, the City has limited segregation of duties in certain areas. • The results of our testing disclosed no instances of noncompliance required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. • We reported no findings based on our testing of the City’s compliance with Minnesota laws and regulations. FUND BALANCE/NET POSITION DEFICITS As reported in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), the EDA TIF District No. 5 Fund, Karth Lake Improvement District Fund, and TCAAP Fund, had year-end deficit equity balances of $22,047, $6,612, and $194,879, respectively. Management has disclosed that these deficits will be eliminated with future contributions, grants, and internal fund transfers, if needed. -2- SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 of the notes to the basic financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year ended December 31, 2021. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND MANAGEMENT JUDGMENTS Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were: • Depreciation – Management’s estimates of depreciation expense are based on the estimated useful lives of the assets. • Compensated Absences – Management’s estimate is based on current rates of pay and unused compensated absences balances estimated to be paid out as termination pay. • Pension Benefits – The City has recorded amounts and activities for pension benefits. Actuarial estimates of the net pension balances are calculated using actuarial methodologies described in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 68. The actuarial calculations include significant assumptions, including projected changes, investment returns, retirement ages, proportionate share, and employee turnover. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used by management to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The disclosures included in the notes to the basic financial statements related to pension benefits are particularly sensitive, due to the materiality of the liabilities, and the large and complex estimates involved in determining the disclosures. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. There were no misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures that were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole. -3- DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT For purposes of this report, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated April 21, 2022. MANAGEMENT CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consult ant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. OTHER AUDIT FINDINGS OR ISSUES We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. OTHER MATTERS We applied certain limited procedures to the management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) and the required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the combining and individual fund statements and schedules, reported as supplemental information accompanying the financial statements, which are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory section and the statistical section, which accompany the financial statements, but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -4- GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City’s governmental funds, which includes the General, special revenue, debt service, and capital project funds. These funds are used to account for the basic services the City provides to all of its citizens, which are financed primarily with property taxes. The governmental fund information in the City’s financial statements focuses on budgetary compliance and the sufficiency of each governmental fund’s current assets to finance its current liabilities. PROPERTY TAXES Minnesota cities rely heavily on local property tax levies to support their governmental fund activities. For the 2020 fiscal year, local ad valorem property tax levies provided 40.9 percent of the total governmental fund revenues for cities over 2,500 in population, and 36.5 percent for cities under 2,500 in population. Total property taxes levied by all Minnesota cities for taxes payable in 2021 increased 4.0 percent compared to the prior year, and 5.9 percent for taxes payable in 2022. The total tax capacity value of property in Minnesota cities increased about 6.3 percent for the 2021 levy year. The tax capacity values used for levying property taxes are based on the assessed market values for the previous fiscal year (e.g., tax capacity values for taxes levied in 2021 were based on assessed market values as of January 1, 2020), so the trend of change in these tax capacity values lags somewhat behind the housing market and economy in general. The City’s estimated market value increased 7.1 percent for taxes payable in 2020 and increased 3.8 percent for taxes payable in 2021. The following graph shows the City’s changes in estimated market value over the past 10 years: $– $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,400,000,000 $1,600,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Estimated Market Value -5- Tax capacity is considered the actual base available for taxation. It is calculated by applying the state’s property classification system to each property’s market value. Each property classification, such as commercial or residential, has a different calculation and uses different rates. Consequently, a city’s total tax capacity will change at a different rate than its total market value, as tax capacity is affected by the proportion of its tax base that is in each property classification from year-to-year, as well as legislative changes to tax rates. The City’s tax capacity increased 6.9 percent for taxes payable in 2020, and increased 4.5 percent for taxes payable in 2021. The following graph shows the City’s change in tax capacities over the past 10 years: $– $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Local Tax Capacity The following table presents the average tax rates applied to city residents for each of the last three levy years: 2019 2020 2021 Average tax rate City 25.5 25.4 25.1 County 52.9 52.3 47.7 School 26.3 25.0 23.9 Special taxing 8.3 8.2 7.8 Total 113.0 110.9 104.5 Rates Expressed as a Percentage of Net Tax Capacity City of Arden Hills The overall decrease in the average tax rate was spread across each of the taxing authorities as presented in the table above. The improvement in tax capacity values previously discussed, contributed to the change in the City’s average tax rate. -6- GOVERNMENTAL FUND BALANCES The following table summarizes the changes in the fund balances of the City’s governmental funds during the year ended December 31, 2021, presented both by fund balance classification and by fund: 2021 2020 Change Fund balances of governmental funds Total by classification Nonspendable 35,030$ 32,462$ 2,568$ Restricted 1,220,287 1,137,740 82,547 Committed 654,042 619,013 35,029 Assigned 6,229,343 5,959,059 270,284 Unassigned 2,676,026 2,925,156 (249,130) Total governmental funds 10,814,728$ 10,673,430$ 141,298$ Total by fund General 3,169,812$ 3,380,506$ (210,694)$ Permanent Improvement Revolving 4,990,120 4,928,470 61,650 Other governmental funds 2,654,796 2,364,454 290,342 Total governmental funds 10,814,728$ 10,673,430$ 141,298$ as of December 31, Governmental Fund Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance In total, the fund balances of the City’s governmental funds increased by $141,298 during the year ended December 31, 2021. The majority of the increase was in assigned fund balance in the Parks Fund, due to revenues exceeding current year spending for park and trail projects. -7- GOVERNMENTAL FUND REVENUES The following table presents the per capita revenue of the City’s governmental funds for the past three years, along with state-wide averages. We have included the most recent comparative state-wide averages available from the Office of the State Auditor to provide a benchmark for interpreting the City’s data. The amounts received from the typical major sources of governmental fund revenue will naturally vary between cities based on factors such as a city’s stage of development, location, size and density of its population, property values, services it provides, and other attributes. It will also differ from year -to-year, due to the effect of inflation and changes in its operation. Also, certain data in these tables may be classified differently than how they appear in the City’s financial statements in order to be more comparable to the state-wide information, particularly in separating capital expenditures from current expenditures. We have designed this section of our management report using per capita data in order to better identify unique or unusual trends and activities of the City. We intend for this type of comparative and trend information to complement, rather than duplicate, information in the management’s discussion and analysis. An inherent difficulty in presenting per capita information is the accuracy of the population count, which for most years is based on estimates. Year 2019 2020 2021 Population 2,500–10,000 10,000–20,000 20,000–100,000 10,008 9,939 10,038 Property taxes 540$ 517$ 537$ 379$ 412$ 427$ Tax increments 34 33 44 39 27 40 Franchise and other taxes 49 60 46 10 10 10 Special assessments 54 39 54 83 33 66 Licenses and permits 36 39 46 71 43 75 Intergovernmental revenues 474 367 273 60 124 50 Charges for services 113 89 91 44 22 46 Other 83 69 69 64 93 61 Total revenue 1,383$ 1,213$ 1,160$ 750$ 764$ 775$ December 31, 2020 City of Arden Hills Governmental Funds Revenue per Capita With State-Wide Averages by Population Class State-Wide The City’s governmental funds have generated significantly less revenue per capita in total than other Minnesota cities in its population class. A city’s stage of development, along with the way a city finances various capital projects, will impact the mix of revenue sources it receives. The City generated $7,775,706 of total revenue in its governmental funds in 2021, an increase of $168,358 (2.2 percent) from the prior year. The City’s per capita governmental fund revenues for 2021 were $775, an increase of $11 (1.4 percent) per capita from the prior year. Most sources reported increases over the prior year, as presented in the table above. An increase in the approved levy contributed to the change in property taxes. An increase in developer building projects and more special assessments with the City’s 2021 pavement management project also contributed to the growth over the prior year. Intergovernmental revenues decreased $74 per capita, with recognition of federal coronavirus relief funds in the prior year. Other sources were less than the prior year, largely due to a decline in market rates and values of the City’s investment portfolio. -8- GOVERNMENTAL FUND EXPENDITURES The expenditures of governmental funds will also vary from state-wide averages and from year-to-year, based on the City’s circumstances. Expenditures are classified into three types as follows: • Current – These are typically the general operating type expenditures occurring on an annual basis, and are primarily funded by general sources, such as taxes and intergovernmental revenues. • Capital Outlay and Construction – These expenditures do not occur on a consistent basis, more typically fluctuating significantly from year-to-year. Many of these expenditures are project-oriented, and are often funded by specific sources that have benefited from the expenditure, such as special assessment improvement projects. • Debt Service – Although the expenditures for debt service may be relatively consistent over the term of the respective debt, the funding source is the important factor. Some debt may be repaid through specific sources, such as special assessments or redevelopment funding, while other debt may be repaid with general property taxes. The City’s expenditures per capita of its governmental funds for the past three years, together with comparative state-wide averages, are presented in the following table: Year 2019 2020 2021 Population 2,500–10,000 10,000–20,000 20,000–100,000 10,008 9,939 10,038 Current 176$ 140$ 118$ 119$ 121$ 113$ 315 288 320 240 245 270 146 122 112 63 68 62 100 112 95 68 55 62 95 108 104 30 42 35 832 770 749 520 531 542 Capital outlay and construction 586 429 331 145 64 252 Debt service 172 149 91 – – – 45 42 33 – – – Total debt service 217 191 124 – – – Total expenditures 1,635$ 1,390$ 1,204$ 665$ 595$ 794$ Principal December 31, 2020 Interest and fiscal General government Public safety Public works Parks and recreation Total current Governmental Funds Expenditures per Capita With State-Wide Averages by Population Class City of Arden HillsState-Wide All other Total expenditures in the City’s governmental funds for 2021 were $7,967,478, an increase of $2,057,381 (34.8 percent). The City’s per capita governmental funds current expenditures for 2021 were $794, a significant increase from the per capita expenditures of $595 in the prior year. Capital outlay and construction increased by $188 per capita, with increased activity in the City’s Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund, due to the 2021 pavement management program street project in the current year. -9- GENERAL FUND The City’s General Fund accounts for the financial activity of the basic services provided to the community. The primary services included within this fund are the administration of the municipal operation, police and fire protection, building inspection, street maintenance, and parks and recreation. The graph below illustrates the change in the General Fund fina ncial position over the last five years. We have also included a line representing annual expenditures and transfers out to reflect the change in the size of the General Fund operation over the same period. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fund Balance $3,639,317 $3,340,369 $3,215,583 $3,380,506 $3,169,812 Cash Balance $3,906,088 $3,850,270 $3,946,278 $4,032,832 $5,194,930 Exp & Trans Out $4,536,636 $5,181,629 $5,549,691 $5,064,618 $5,515,284 $– $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $5,500,000 $6,000,000 General Fund Financial Position Year Ended December 31, The City’s General Fund cash and investments balance at December 31, 2021 was $5,194,930, an increase of $1,162,098 from the prior year. Total fund balance at December 31, 2021 was $3,169,812, a decrease of $210,694 from the prior year. This fund balance level represents approximately 64 percent of the City’s annual General Fund expenditures based on 2021 expenditure levels, which compares to a prior year fund balance level of 74 percent. The overall impact of operations on fund balance was $447,016 better than anticipated in the final budget. The City received a large developer deposit contributing to the increase in cash balance in the current year. As the graph illustrates, the City has generally been able to maintain stable cash and fund balance levels as the volume of financial activity has fluctuated. This is an important factor because governments, like organizations, require certain amounts of equity to operate. A healthy financial position allows the City to avoid volatility in tax rates, helps minimize the impact of state funding changes, allows for the adequate and consistent funding of services, repairs, and unexpected costs, and is a factor in determining the City’s bond rating and resulting interest costs. Maintaining an adequate fund balance has become increasingly important given the fluctuations in state funding for cities in recent years. A trend that is typical to Minnesota local governments, especially the General Fund of cities, is the unusual cash flow experienced throughout the year. The City’s General Fund cash disbursements are made fairly evenly during the year other than the impact of seasonal services, such as snowplowing, street maintenance, and park activities. Cash receipts of the General Fund are quite a different story. Property taxes comprise approximately 71 percent of the fund’s total annual revenue. Approximately half of these revenues are received by the City in July and the rest in December. Consequently, the City needs to have adequate cash reserves to finance its everyday operations between these payments. -10- GENERAL FUND REVENUES The following graph reflects the City’s General Fund revenues, budget and actual, for 2021: Other Charges for Services Intergovernmental Licenses and Permits Taxes General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual Budget Actual Total General Fund revenues for 2021 were $5,304,590, which was $201,320 (3.9 percent) over the final budget. Conservative budgeting and elevated development activity contributed to most categories exceeding amounts planned in the budget, as seen in the graph above. Other ($41,783) was under budget, due to unfavorable market adjustments for the City’s investments at year-end. The following graph presents the City’s General Fund revenues by source for the last five years. The graph reflects the City’s reliance on property taxes: Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Other 2017 $3,541,705 $729,197 $151,425 $590,141 $218,672 2018 $3,578,628 $526,444 $149,097 $427,905 $200,607 2019 $3,795,624 $714,530 $162,041 $440,616 $312,094 2020 $3,629,819 $431,628 $629,432 $215,918 $322,744 2021 $3,763,384 $752,532 $160,279 $459,638 $168,757 $– $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 General Fund Revenue by Source Year Ended December 31, Total General Fund revenues for 2021 were $75,049 (1.4 percent) more than prior year. Taxes were up in the General Fund, due to an increase in the tax levy. Licenses and permits and charges for services were up in the current year, with several large projects occurring in the community. Intergovernmental revenues returned to their typical level after an increase for federal COVID-19 funding reported last year. Other sources were down, due to the unfavorable market adjustments reported in the current year, as noted earlier. -11- GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES The following graph reflects the City’s General Fund expenditures, budget and actual, for 2021: Parks and Recreation Public Works Public Safety General Government General Fund Expenditures Budget Actual Total General Fund expenditures for 2021 were $4,967,284, which was $245,696 (4.7 percent) under the final budget. As presented in the budgetary comparison schedule (within the City’s ACFR), expenditure variances were both favorable and unfavorable within the various functions and departments, while overall, they remained within total appropriations approved by the City Council. The functions for general government, public works, and parks and recreation, were under budget, largely in personal services and other services and charges. The public safety function was $251,927 over budget, mainly in other services and charges for protective inspections with elevated activity in the current year and the need to outsource these services, due to difficulty in filling open positions. The following graph presents the City’s General Fund expenditures by function for the last five years: General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks and Recreation 2017 $1,076,352 $2,058,037 $443,633 $618,614 2018 $1,039,772 $2,088,345 $579,535 $653,977 2019 $1,058,275 $2,399,296 $632,531 $679,589 2020 $927,319 $2,435,773 $675,739 $547,787 2021 $1,014,282 $2,708,137 $618,236 $626,629 $– $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000 $2,000,000 $2,250,000 $2,500,000 $2,750,000 General Fund Expenditures by Function Year Ended December 31, Overall, General Fund expenditures increased $380,666 (8.3 percent) from the prior year. The largest increase was in public safety for other services and charges in protective inspections similar to the budget variance noted earlier. -12- ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW The City maintains enterprise funds to account for services the City provides that are financed primarily through fees charged to those utilizing the service. This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City’s enterprise funds, which include the Water, Sewer, Surface Water Management, and Recycling Funds. The utility funds comprise a considerable portion of the City’s activities. We understand that the City is proactive in reviewing these activities on an ongoing basis, and we want to reiterate the importance of continually monitoring these operations. Over the years, we have emphasized to our city clients the importance of these utility operations being self-sustaining, preventing additional burdens on general government funds. This would include the accumulation of net position for future capital improvements and to provide a cushion in the event of a negative trend in operations. ENTERPRISE FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION The following table summarizes the changes in the financial position of the City’s enterprise funds during the year ended December 31, 2021, presented both by classification and by fund: 2021 2020 Change Net position of enterprise funds Total by classification Net investment in capital assets 18,373,335$ 17,248,962$ 1,124,373$ Unrestricted 3,921,634 3,000,493 921,141 Total enterprise funds 22,294,969$ 20,249,455$ 2,045,514$ Total by fund Water 9,870,248$ 8,524,928$ 1,345,320$ Sewer 7,022,865 6,598,119 424,746 Surface Water Management 5,211,661 4,984,413 227,248 Nonmajor Recycling 190,195 141,995 48,200 Total enterprise funds 22,294,969$ 20,249,455$ 2,045,514$ Enterprise Funds Change in Financial Position Net Position as of December 31, In total, the net position of the City’s enterprise funds increased by $2,045,514 during the year ended December 31, 2021. The increase in net position is primarily related to positive operating results and capital contributions for connection fees and capital grants recognized in the current year. -13- WATER FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Water Fund: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Oper Rev $2,104,639 $2,256,859 $2,286,542 $2,316,891 $2,789,472 Oper Exp Excl Dep $1,921,138 $1,812,772 $1,945,021 $1,619,171 $1,749,217 Oper Inc Before Dep $183,501 $444,087 $341,521 $697,720 $1,040,255 $– $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $2,800,000 $3,000,000 Water Fund Year Ended December 31, The Water Fund ended 2021 with a net position of $9,870,248, an increase of $1,345,320, from the prior year. Of total net position, $7,351,831 represents the net investment in capital assets, leaving $2,518,417 of unrestricted net position. Water Fund operating revenues were $2,789,472 for 2021, an increase of $472,581, due to increased rates and consumption. Operating expenses (excluding depreciation of $365,453) were $1,749,217, which represents an increase of $130,046. Expenses increased, largely due to an increase in the amount of water purchased from the City of Roseville due to increased consumption. Consumption will fluctuate from year-to-year based on many factors, including weather patterns and number of utility customers. -14- SEWER FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Sewer Fund: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Oper Rev $1,723,699 $1,769,466 $1,892,740 $1,870,850 $2,110,766 Oper Exp Excl Dep $1,615,427 $1,467,028 $1,442,919 $1,466,453 $1,552,274 Oper Inc Before Dep $108,272 $302,438 $449,821 $404,397 $558,492 $– $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 Sewer Fund Year Ended December 31, The Sewer Fund ended 2021 with a net position of $7,022,865, an increase of $424,746 from the prior year. Of total net position, $5,943,617 represents the net investment in capital assets, leaving $1,079,248 of unrestricted net position. Sewer Fund operating revenues for 2021 were $2,110,766, an increase of $239,916 compared to last year, largely due to a rate increase and more usage by businesses with more individuals returning to the workplace. Operating expenses for 2021 (excluding depreciation of $194,428) were $1,552,274, an increase of $85,821 from the prior year, with the largest change in sewer charges. -15- SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Surface Water Management Fund: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Oper Rev $834,973 $839,499 $850,971 $876,527 $902,044 Oper Exp Excl Dep $395,715 $390,882 $405,042 $439,066 $454,076 Oper Inc Before Dep $439,258 $448,617 $445,929 $437,461 $447,968 $– $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 Surface Water Management Fund Year Ended December 31, The Surface Water Management Fund ended 2021 with a net position of $5,211,661, an increase of $227,248 from the prior year. Of this, $5,077,887 represents the net investment in capital assets, leaving $133,774 of unrestricted net position. Surface Water Management Fund operating revenues for 2021 were $902,044, an increase of $25,517 from last year, due to an increase in rates. Operating expenses for 2021 (excluding depreciation of $145,008) were $454,076, or $15,010 more than the prior year. Expense increases were largely in purchased services over the prior year. -16- RECYCLING FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Recycling Fund: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Oper Rev $151,272 $134,228 $140,149 $136,865 $177,057 Oper Exp $147,919 $168,145 $172,232 $139,840 $154,611 Oper Inc (Loss)$3,353 $(33,917)$(32,083)$(2,975)$22,446 $(50,000) $(25,000) $– $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 Recycling Fund Year Ended December 31, The Recycling Fund ended 2021 with an unrestricted net position of $190,195, an increase of $48,200 from the prior year. Recycling Fund operating revenues for 2021 were $177,057, an increase of $40,192 from the prior year. Operating expenses for 2021 were $154,611, an increase of $14,771 from the prior year. The Recycling Fund also received $26,131 of nonoperating intergovernmental revenues that are available for the operation of the City’s Recycling Program. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -17- GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS In addition to fund-based information, the current reporting model for governmental entities also requires the inclusion of two government-wide financial statements designed to present a clear picture of the City as a single, unified entity. These government-wide financial statements provide information on the total cost of delivering services, including capital assets and long-term liabilities. STATEMENT OF NET POSITION The Statement of Net Position essentially tells you what your city owns and owes at a given point in time, the last day of the fiscal year. Theoretically, net position represents the resources the City has leftover to use for providing services after its debts are settled. However, those resources are not always in spendable form, or there may be restrictions on how some of those resources can be used. Therefore, net position is divided into three components: investment in capital assets, restricted, and unrestricted. The following table presents the components of the City’s net position as of December 31, 202 1 and 2020, for governmental activities and business-type activities (utility fund operations): 2021 2020 Change Net position Governmental activities Net investment in capital assets 27,474,959$ 26,418,066$ 1,056,893$ Restricted 1,220,301 1,137,740 82,561 Unrestricted 10,799,339 10,534,206 265,133 Total governmental activities 39,494,599 38,090,012 1,404,587 Business-type activities Net investment in capital assets 18,373,335 17,248,962 1,124,373 Unrestricted 3,921,634 3,000,493 921,141 Total business-type activities 22,294,969 20,249,455 2,045,514 Total net position 61,789,568$ 58,339,467$ 3,450,101$ As of December 31, Net position for governmental activities increased by $1,404,587 in 2021, as presented above. The investment in capital assets increased $1,056,893 this year, mainly due to the amount of construction activity in the current year. The remaining change in this category of net position typically depends on the relationship of the rate at which the City is adding capital assets, the rate capital assets are being depreciated, and how the City finances the purchase and construction of capital assets. The restricted portion of net position increased $82,561, due to increases in the amounts restricted for tax increment purposes. The increase in unrestricted net position is due to the positive operations of the City, with an increase in charges for services and capital grants and contributions. The change in net position for business-type activities is consistent with our earlier discussion of the utility operations, which are presented under the same, full accrual basis of accounting. -18- STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES The Statement of Activities tracks the City’s yearly revenues and expenses, as well as any other transactions that increase or reduce total net position. These amounts represent the full cost of providing services. The Statement of Activities provides a more comprehensive measure than just the amount of cash that changed hands, as reflected in the fund-based financial statements. This statement includes the cost of supplies used, depreciation of long-lived capital assets, and other accrual-based expenses. The following table presents the change in the net position of the City for t he years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020: 2020 Program Expenses Revenues Net Change Net Change Governmental activities 1,283,605$ 338,939$ (944,666)$ (1,116,635)$ 2,804,933 1,057,957 (1,746,976) (2,151,702) 1,310,895 1,227,162 (83,733) (773,039) 883,155 416,738 (466,417) (366,950) 411,016 – (411,016) (480,307) Business-type activities 2,166,362 3,616,903 1,450,541 358,231 1,754,753 2,308,557 553,804 230,073 599,084 902,318 303,234 330,554 154,611 203,188 48,577 20,867 Total net (expense) revenue 11,368,414$ 10,071,762$ (1,296,652) (3,948,908) General revenues General property taxes 4,293,895 4,100,177 Tax increments 396,891 273,043 Franchise taxes 97,549 101,057 Unrestricted grants and contributions – 745,040 Unrestricted investment earnings (charges)(41,582) 417,667 Gain on sale of capital assets – 17,500 Total general revenues 4,746,753 5,654,484 Change in net position 3,450,101$ 1,705,576$ Water Recycling Economic development Sewer Surface water management 2021 Net (expense) revenue General government Public safety Parks and recreation Public works One of the goals of this statement is to provide a side-by-side comparison to illustrate the difference in the way the City’s governmental and business-type operations are financed. The table clearly illustrates the dependence of the City’s governmental operations on general revenues, such as taxes and unrestricted grants, contributions, and investment earnings. It also shows that the City’s business-type activities are generating sufficient program revenues (service charges and program -specific grants) to cover expenses. This is critical given the current downward pressures on the general revenue sources. Increases in capital grants and contributions (program revenues) contributed to the larger changes in the public works, water, and sewer functions in the table above when compared to the prior year. -19- LEGISLATIVE UPDATES As the first year of the fiscal biennium, the primary focus of the 2021 Minnesota legislative session would typically have been the development of the state’s fiscal year (FY) 2022–2023 biennial budget. Positive news on the state’s budget forecast entering the session, with projections for the end of the FY 2020–2021 biennium improving from a $2.4 billion shortfall predicted in a May 2020 special pandemic budget projection to a $940.0 million surplus predicted in the February 2021 budget and economic forecast, was expected to ease the budget process and relieve the pressure to make budget cuts during an already uncertain time. However, given the significant events of the preceding year, including the COVID -19 pandemic and death of George Floyd, the focus of the regular session shifted to legislation responding to the pressing issues that resulted from those events. The business of setting a biennial budget was ultimately not addressed until a June special session that ended in the early morning hours of July 1st. The following is a brief summary of legislative changes from the 2021 session or previous legislative sessions potentially impacting Minnesota cities. American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act – The federal ARP Act, signed into law in March 2021, provided federal economic recovery funding for federal, state, and local government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Minnesota local governments received approximately $2.1 billion in funding under the ARP Act, including $644.0 million awarded to 21 large cities (over 50,000 population) and $377.0 million awarded to cities and towns with a population below 50,000, with half distributed in FY 2021 and half in FY 2022. Local governments can use ARP Act funding in four broad categories: responding to public health and economic impacts; providing premium pay to essential workers; providing general government services to the extent of revenue loss; or investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure. Potential State Aid Enhancements – The 2021 Legislature increased state general fund base spending by approximately $1.3 billion. Included are funding increases for several programs potentially of benefit to Minnesota cities, Including: • A one-time appropriation of $5.5 million for supplemental aid to cities for FY 2022, to offset losses of local government aid (LGA) for 96 cities under the current formula. It is expected the Legislature will review and consider updating the LGA formula during the 2022 session. • Annual appropriations of $1.8 million for the Greater Minnesota Business Development Public Infrastructure Grant Program, intended to bolster local economic growth by providing grant assistance to cities for public infrastructure needed to create and retain jobs. • Annual appropriations of $2.5 million for local community childcare grants, intended to assist local communities to increase the number of childcare providers to support economic development. • Allocating a total of $70.0 million from the state’s ARP Act funds over the biennium ($35.0 million per year) to fund the Border-to-Border Broadband Grant Program, which provides grants to local governments for enhancing broadband availability. • Annual allocations of $4.5 million for reimbursements to local governments for firefighter training and education costs. • Annual allocations of $2.9 million for reimbursement to local governments for peace officer training costs. • A one-time appropriation of $18.0 million for FY 2022 to the small cities assistance account to provide additional road repair funding for cities under 5,000 population. Truth-in-Taxation Changes – Effective for property taxes payable in 2023 and thereafter, county auditors will be required to prepare a new statement for inclusion in its parcel -specific truth-in-taxation notices that contains summary budget information for the county, cities, and school districts for which they spread and collect tax levies. Cities with a population greater than 500 will be required to compile and provide current and proposed summary budget information to the county auditor, based on the summary budget information cities are required to submit each year to the Minnesota state auditor. -20- Tax Base Change for Low-Income Rental Property – Effective for assessment years 2022 and 2023, the first-tier limit for class 4d low-income rental property is reduced from $174,000 to $100,000, with class rates remaining at 0.75 percent on the first $100,000 and 0.25 percent on the remaining balance. The tier limit will once again be adjusted annually after assessment year 2023. Local Sales Tax Projects Defined – Minnesota cities are authorized to include up to five capital projects in proposals for local sales taxes. The definition of a capital project for this purpose was updated to include: a single building or structure, including associated infrastructure; improvements within a single park or recreation area, or; a contiguous trail. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Flexibility – The Legislature enacted several measures that provide additional flexibility for TIF spending, including: • Allowing unobligated TIF to be used to provide loans, interest rate subsidies, or other assistance to private developers for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, if doing so will create jobs. Transfer authority expires on December 31, 2022, and all transferred increment must be spent by December 31, 2025, or returned to the TIF district. • Allowing TIF districts that have elected to increase pooling by 10 percent to use the increment for owner-occupied housing that meets the requirements of a housing TIF district, in addition to current low-income rental housing. • Providing three-year extensions of the five-year and six-year rules for redevelopment districts created after December 31, 2017, but before June 30, 2020, thereby extending their duration. • Creating a three-city pilot program, giving temporary authority to transfer unobligated housing TIF district increment to the cities affordable housing trust funds. Sales and Use Tax Refund Process – Effective for purchases made after June 30, 2021, cities and other local governments are allowed to utilize a streamlined process to secure a sales tax refund on construction materials purchased by a contractor on behalf of the city for construction, remodeling, expansion, or improvement of public safety facilities owned by local governments, such as police and fire stations. The process also applies to materials used in related facilities, such as access roads, lighting, sidewalks, and utility components. Under the process, local governments would continue to initially pay sales tax on these materials, but would then be allowed to file for a refund of the sales tax paid. Contractors would be required to provide the local government with the information necessary to file for the refund. Fire Protection Special Taxing District Authority – Effective for property tax levies payable in 2023 and thereafter, the current law giving emergency medical districts taxing authority is expanded to include fire protection districts. Two or more local units of government are now permitted to establish a special taxing district to provide fire protection, emergency medical services, or both. The special taxing district will have authority to levy property taxes to finance district operations, spread either across the entire district at a set rate, or allocated to each participating jurisdiction based on factors , such as population or service calls. Districts will also have authority to issue debt related to the function of the district. The property tax and debt issuance authority also apply to existing districts established prior to June 30, 2021. Open Meeting Law – The Legislature made several pandemic-related changes to the Open Meeting Law, including removing the statutory cap of three times per year for elected officials to utilize a medical exception for attending meetings remotely between January 1, 2021, and July 1, 2021, and removing the requirement for elected officials participating in public meetings remotely, due to military service or medical exceptions, to disclose their remote locations. The law changes also updated the definition of “interactive technology” to replace “interactive television” throughout the text of the Open Meeting Laws, and added requirements for public bodies meeting remotely to enable remote participation by the public free of charge and enable public comment from remote locations, when practical. -21- ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING UPDATES The following is a summary of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards expected to be implemented in the next few years. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the GASB has delayed the original implementation dates of these and other standards as described below. GASB STATEMENT NO. 87, LEASES A lease is a contract that transfers control of the right to use another entity’s nonfinancial asset as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction. Examples of nonfinancial assets include buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment. Any contract that meets this definition should be accounted for under the leases guidance, unless specifically excluded in this statement. Governments enter into leases for many types of assets. Under the previous guidance, leases were classified as either capital or operating depending on whether the lease met any of the four tests. In many cases, the previous guidance resulted in reporting lease transactions differently than similar nonlease financing transactions. The goal of this statement is to better meet the information needs of users by improving accounting and financial reporting for leases by governments. It establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. This statement increases the usefulness of financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of resources or outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. Under this statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right to use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments’ leasing activities. To reduce the cost of implementation, this statement includes an exception for short -term leases, defined as a lease that, at the commencement of the lease term, has a maximum possible term under the lease contract of 12 months (or less), including any options to extend, regardless of their probability of being exercised. Lessees and lessors should recognize short-term lease payments as outflows of resources or inflows of resources, respectively, based on the payment provisions of the lease contract. The requirements of this statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. -22- GASB STATEMENT NO. 91, CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS The primary objectives of this statement are to provide a single method of reporting conduit debt obligations by issuers and eliminate diversity in practice associated with (1) commitments extended by issuers, (2) arrangements associated with conduit debt obligations, and (3) related note disclosures. This statement achieves those objectives by clarifying the existing definition of a conduit debt obligation; establishing that a conduit debt obligation is not a liability of the issuer; establishing standards for accounting and financial reporting of additional commitments and voluntary commitments extended by issuers and arrangements associated with conduit debt obligations; and improving required note disclosures. A conduit debt obligation is defined as a debt instrument having all of the following characteristics: • There are at least three parties involved: (1) an issuer, (2) a third party obligor, and (3) a debt holder or a debt trustee. • The issuer and the third party obligor are not within the same financial reporting entity. • The debt obligation is not a parity bond of the issuer, nor is it cross-collateralized with other debt of the issuer. • The third party obligor or its agent, not the issuer, ultimately receives the proceeds from the debt issuance. • The third party obligor, not the issuer, is primarily obligated for the payment of all amounts associated with the debt obligation (debt service payments). This statement also addresses arrangements, often characterized as leases, that are associated with conduit debt obligations. In those arrangements, capital assets are constructed or acquired with the proceeds of a conduit debt obligation and used by third party obligors in the course of their activities. This statement requires issuers to disclose general information about their conduit debt obligations, organized by type of commitment, including the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the issuers’ conduit debt obligations and a description of each type of commitment. Issuers that recognize liabilities related to supporting the debt service of conduit debt obligations also should disclos e information about the amount recognized and how the liabilities changed during the reporting period. The requirements of this statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2021. Earlier application is encouraged. -23- GASB STATEMENT NO. 92, OMNIBUS 2020 The objectives of this statement are to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting and to improve the consistency of authoritative literature by addressing practice issues that have be en identified during implementation and application of certain GASB Statements. This statement addresses a variety of topics and includes specific provisions about the following: • The effective date of Statement No. 87, Leases, and Implementation Guide No. 2019-3, Leases, for interim financial reports. • Reporting of intra-entity transfers of assets between a primary government employer and a component unit defined benefit pension plan or defined benefit other post-employment benefit (OPEB) plan. • The applicability of Statements No. 73, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68, as amended, and No. 74, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans, as amended, to reporting assets accumulated for post-employment benefits. • The applicability of certain requirements of Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities, to post-employment benefit arrangements. • Measurement of liabilities (and assets, if any) related to asset retirement obligations in a government acquisition. • Reporting by public entity risk pools for amounts that are recoverable from reinsurers or excess insurers. • Reference to nonrecurring fair value measurements of assets or liabilities in authoritative literature. • Terminology used to refer to derivative instruments. The requirements of this statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2021. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB STATEMENT NO. 96, SUBSCRIPTION-BASED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARRANGEMENTS This statement provides guidance on the accounting and financial reporting for subscription -based information technology arrangements (SBITAs) for government end users (governments). This statement (1) defines a SBITA; (2) establishes that a SBITA results in a right-to-use subscription asset—an intangible asset—and a corresponding subscription liability; (3) provides the capitalization criteria for outlays other than subscription payments, including implementation costs of a SBITA; and (4) requires note disclosures regarding a SBITA. To the extent relevant, the standards for SBITAs are based on the standards established in Statement No. 87, Leases, as amended. An SBITA is defined as a contract that conveys control of the right to use another party’s (an SBITA vendor’s) information technology (IT) software, alone or in combination with tangible capital assets (the underlying IT assets), as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction. Under this statement, a government generally should recognize a right-to-use subscription asset—an intangible asset—and a corresponding subscription liability. This statement provides an exception for short-term SBITAs with a maximum possible term under the SBITA contract of 12 months, including any options to extend, regardless of their probability of being exercised. Subscription payments for short-term SBITAs should be recognized as outflows of resources. This statement requires a government to disclose descriptive information about its SBITAs other than short-term SBITAs, such as the amount of the subscription asset, accumulated amortization, other payments not included in the measurement of a subscription liability, principal and interest requirements for the subscription liability, and other essential information. The requirements of this statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, and all reporting periods thereafter. -24- GASB STATEMENT NO. 97, CERTAIN COMPONENT UNIT CRITERIA, AND ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS—AN AMENDMENT OF GASB STATEMENT NO. 14 AND NO. 84, AND A SUPERSESSION OF GASB STATEMENT NO. 32 The primary objectives of this statement are to (1) increase consistency and comparability related to the reporting of fiduciary component units in circumstances in which a potential component unit does not have a governing board and the primary government performs the duties that a governing board typically would perform; (2) mitigate costs associated with the reporting of certain defined contribution pension plans, defined contribution OPEB plans, and employee benefit plans other than pension plans or OPEB plans (other employee benefit plans) as fiduciary component units in fiduciary fund financial statements; and (3) enhance the relevance, consistency, and comparability of the accounting and financial reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 deferred compensation plans (Section 457 plans) that meet the definition of a pension plan and for benefits provided through those plans. The requirements of this statement that (1) exempt primary governments that perform the duties that a government board typically performs from treating the absence of a governing board the same as the appointment of a voting majority of a governing board in determining whether they are financially accountable for defined contribution pension plans, defined contribution OPEB plans, or other employee benefit plans, and (2) limit the applicability of the financial burden criterion in paragraph 7 of Statement 84 to defined benefit pension plans and defined benefit OPEB plans that are administered through trusts that meet the criteria in paragraph 3 of Statement 67 or paragraph 3 of Statement 74, respectively, are effective immediately. The requirements of this statement that are related to the accounting and financial reporting for Section 457 plans are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2021. For purposes of determining whether a primary government is financially accountable for a potential component unit, the requirements of this statement that provide that for all other arrangements, the absence of a governing board be treated the same as the appointment of a voting majority of a governing board if the primary government performs the duties that a governing board typically would perform, are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. Earlier application of those requirements is encouraged and permitte d by requirement as specified within this statement. GASB STATEMENT NO. 98, THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT This statement establishes the term annual comprehensive financial report and its acronym ACFR. That new term and acronym replace instances of comprehensive annual financial report and its acronym in generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments. This statement was developed in response to concerns raised by stakeholders that the common pronunciation of the acronym for comprehensive annual financial report sounds like a profoundly objectionable racial slur. This statement’s introduction of the new term is founded on a commitment to promoting inclusiveness. The requirements of this statement are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2021. Earlier application is encouraged. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Year Ended December 31, 2021 FINANCE DEPARTMENT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page Letter of Transmittal i–iii GFOA Certificate of Achievement iv City Council and Appointed Officials v Organization Chart vi INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT 1–3 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 4–13 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Government-Wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Position 14 Statement of Activities 15 Fund Financial Statements Governmental Funds Balance Sheet 16 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances 17 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities 18 Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position 19 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position 20 Statement of Cash Flows 21 Notes to Basic Financial Statements 22–44 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION PERA – General Employees Retirement Fund Schedule of City’s and Nonemployer Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability 45 Schedule of City Contributions 45 Budgetary Comparison Schedule General Fund 46–48 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 49–51 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet 52 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances 53 INTRODUCTORY SECTION FINANCIAL SECTION CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Table of Contents RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Page SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (CONTINUED) Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules (continued) Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Combining Balance Sheet 54–55 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances 56–57 Nonmajor Capital Project Funds Combining Balance Sheet 58 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances 59 Special Revenue Funds Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual Cable Fund 60 EDA Operating Fund 61 EDA TIF District No. 3 Fund 62 EDA TIF District No. 4 Fund 63 EDA TIF District No. 5 Fund 64 Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Net Position 65 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position 66 Combining Statement of Cash Flows 67 Net Position by Component 68–69 Changes in Net Position 70–73 Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source 74 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 75–76 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 77–78 General Governmental Tax Revenues by Source 79 Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value of Taxable Property 80–81 Property Tax Rates – Direct and Overlapping Governments 82 Principal Property Taxpayers 83 Property Tax Levies and Collections 84 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type 85 Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt 86 Legal Debt Margin Information 87–88 Pledged Revenue Coverage 89 Demographic and Economic Statistics 90 Principal Employers 91 Operating Indicators by Function 92–93 Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function 94–95 Capital Asset Statistics by Function 96–97 STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Table of Contents (continued) RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTORY SECTION -i- April 21, 2022 To the Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Citizens of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota State law requires that every general-purpose local government publish a complete set of audited financial statements. This report is published to fulfill that requirement for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of the information contained in this report, based upon a comprehensive framework of internal control that it has established for this purpose. Because the cost of internal control should not exceed anticipated benefits, the objective is to provide reasonable, rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements are free of any material misstatements. Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. (MMKR), Certified Public Accountants, have issued an unmodified (“clean”) opinion on the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota’s (the City) financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021. The independent auditor’s report is located at the front of the financial section of this report. The management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) immediately follows the independent auditor’s report and provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic financial statements. The MD&A complements this letter of transmittal and should be read in conjunction with it. PROFILE OF THE GOVERNMENT The City, incorporated in 1951, is a northern suburb of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, situated in Ramsey County. The City occupies 9.65 square miles and serves an estimated population of 10,038. The City is empowered to levy a property tax on both real and personal property located within its boundaries. The City operates under the “Optional Plan A” form of government as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Under this plan, the government of the City is directed by a City Council composed of an elected mayor and four elected councilmembers. The City Council exercises legislative authority and determines all matters of policy. The City Council appoints personnel responsible for the proper administration of all affairs relating to the City. Councilmembers serve four-year terms, with two members elected every two years. The mayor is elected for a four-year term. The mayor and members of the City Council are elected at large. The City provides a full range of services: the construction and maintenance of streets and other infrastructure; recreational and cultural activities; water, sewer, surface water management, and recycling systems; community development, building inspection, and planning; and general government operations, including administration, finance/accounting, community information (newsletter), and general government buildings. The City contracts with Ramsey County for police services, Lake Johanna Fire Department for fire services, and Metro-INET for information services. -i- -ii- The City Council is required to adopt a final budget by late December for the subsequent year. The budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., public safety), and department (e.g., police). Transfers of appropriations between funds require the approval of the City Council. The legal level of budgetary control is the fund level. Budgeted amounts may be amended by the City Council. Governmental funds with annually adopted budgets include the General Fund and most special revenue funds. A budget was not legally adopted for the two special revenue funds established for specific short-term projects: Karth Lake Improvement District and American Rescue Plan Act funds. The City’s capital improvement program (covering five years), the pavement management plan (covering five years), and the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) development plan , along with the annual budget, serve as the foundation for the City’s financial planning, and the annual budget serves as the budget control. LOCAL ECONOMY A number of high-profile leaders in the medical, technology, and business sectors, including Boston Scientific, Land O’Lakes, Intricon, Gradient Financial, International Paper, Delkor, and Presbyterian Homes, are located within the City. These leaders of industry provide high-paying jobs to skilled employees, which in turn creates a strong base for economic diversity, quality housing, and an involved citizenry. Because of its location in a region with a varied economic base, unemployment is relatively stable. During the past 10 years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated from a high of 6.5 percent in 2020, to a low of 2.7 percent in 2018. The current rate is 4.0 percent. During the past 10 years, property taxes have remained a stable and significant source of total General Fund and special revenue fund revenues. Intergovernmental makes up approximately 2.7 percent of total revenues in the General Fund and special revenue funds for the current fiscal year. LONG-TERM FINANCIAL PLANNING The unassigned General Fund balance of $2,899,564 (55.3 percent of total subsequent year General Fund expenditures budgeted) meets the 50.0 percent target set by the City Council for budgetary and planning purposes. The total General Fund balance also includes $31,152 of nonspendable equity for prepaid items, $99,096 of assigned equity for compensated absences, and $140,000 assigned equity for the subsequent year’s budget. The City’s five-year capital improvement program and pavement management plan serve as the foundation for the City’s long-term financial planning. To ensure the timely replacement of infrastructure, the City prepares long-term cost projections for the replacement of all city assets. Funding needs for capital replacements are reflected in tax levies and special assessments for capital assets, and are reflected in user fees established for the Water, Sewer, Surface Water Management, and Recycling Funds. Projections for the next 10 years indicate that property tax contributions, user fees, and investment income will need to be reevaluated to support scheduled replacements. In 2012, the City entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County to form a Joint Development Authority (JDA) to acquire and develop a portion of the Army property, formerly known as TCAAP. The county officially acquired this property April 15, 2013, and has cleaned it to residential standards. The City completed the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) in late 2016, which guides the land use on the site. In 2019, the County brought litigation against the City; however, that litigation was resolved in 2021 in the City’s favor. The land remains shovel ready, pending future development agreements; any future development on the site is expected to add to the City’s tax base and could include commercial/industrial, residential, and civic uses. The site is approximately 430 acres. -iii- RELEVANT FINANCIAL POLICIES The City utilizes various financial and budget policies to guide the City Council and staff when making financial decisions. The primary objective of these policies is to guarantee effective delivery of city services to residents and businesses, and to ensure protection of the City’s financial strength and flexibility through a revenue structure and long-term planning effort that is consistent with City Council goals and working capital targets. The City uses a conservative approach in making ongoing revenue assumptions by utilizing growth patterns and knowledge of the developing areas. As part of the annual budget process, the City reviews its financial and budget policies. There have been no significant changes to these policies from the previous year. MAJOR INITIATIVES The largest initiative on the City’s horizon is the TCAAP project, as previously mentioned. This project is a joint effort between the City, Ramsey County, and a master developer. When completed, this project will represent almost a 40 percent population increase to the City, as well as a significant increase to the commercial and industrial sectors. City representatives are working hard to ensure the development is a long-term, sustainable project that adds to the City’s diverse residents, businesses, and open space without burdening the existing city taxpayer. The TCAAP project is expected to be a destination site for the region and serve as a model for future developments. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City for its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. This is the 15th year that the City has received this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City had to publish an easily readable and efficiently organized ACFR that satisfied both accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current ACFR continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and we are submitting it to t he GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efficient and dedicated service of the entire staff of the finance department, and through the helpful guidance and assistance from our auditing firm, MMKR. We wish to express our appreciation to all members of the department who assisted and contributed to the preparation of this report. Credit also must be given to the mayor and City Council for their unfailing support in maintaining the highest standards of professionalism in the management of the City’s finances. Respectfully submitted, Dave Perrault Gayle Bauman City Administrator Finance Director Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Arden Hills Minnesota For its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2020 Executive Director/CEO -iv- -v- Term Expires David Grant Mayor December 31, 2022 Brenda Holden Councilmember December 31, 2024 Fran Holmes Councilmember December 31, 2022 Steve Scott Councilmember December 31, 2022 Vacant Councilmember Dave Perrault City Administrator Gayle Bauman Finance Director Julie Hanson City Clerk Joel Jamnik City Attorney CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICIALS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA City Council and Appointed Officials December 31, 2021 2021 City of Arden Hills Organization Chart -vi- FINANCIAL SECTION -1- INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT To the City Council and Management City of Arden Hills, Minnesota OPINIONS We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of December 31, 2021, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof, for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. BASIS FOR OPINIONS We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical r esponsibilities in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern within 12 months beyond the financial statements date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. (continued) C E R T I F I E D A C C O U N T A N T S P UBLIC PRINCIPALS Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA Jaclyn M. Huegel, CPA Kalen T. Karnowski, CPA Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com Standard Letterhead-r2.qxp_167639 Letterhead-RV1 9/7/18 6:34 PM Page 1 -2- AUDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not absol ute assurance and, therefore, is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgement made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements. In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, we: • Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. • Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design a udit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. • Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements. • Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control related matters that we identified during the audit. Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis and the required supplementary information (RSI), as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. (continued) -3- Supplementary Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules, as listed in the table of contents, are presented for the purpose of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. Other Information Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the introductory and statistical sections, but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon. In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report. OTHER REPORTING REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated April 21, 2022, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements, and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 21, 2022 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Management’s Discussion and Analysis Year Ended December 31, 2021 -4- As the management of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the City), we offer readers of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which is presented in the introductory section of this report. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS • The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $61,789,568 (net position). Of this amount, $14,720,973 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. • The City’s total net position increased by $3,450,101 in 2021. • As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $10,814,728. Of this total amount, $35,030 is nonspendable and $1,220,287 is restricted, leaving an unrestricted (committed, assigned, and unassigned) balance of $9,559,411. • At the end of the current fiscal year, the General Fund has a total fund balance of $3,169,812. At December 31, 2021, the unassigned fund balance of the General Fund was $2,899,564, or 55.3 percent, of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements include three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to basic financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-Wide Financial Statements – The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private sector business. The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City’s assets, liabilities, and deferred inflows/outflows of resources, with the difference reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). -5- Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public works, parks and recreation, and economic development. The business-type activities of the City include water, sewer, surface water management, and recycling. The government-wide financial statements can be found in the financial section following this report. Fund Financial Statements – A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: governmental funds and proprietary funds. Governmental Funds – Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental funds financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a city’s near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government -wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental funds Balance Sheet and Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City reports two individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental funds Balance Sheet and Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for the General Fund and Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund, which are considered to be major funds. Data from all other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation . Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund and most special revenue funds. A budgetary comparison schedule has been provided for these funds to demonstrate compliance with the budget. The basic governmental funds financial statements can be found in the financial section of this report immediately following the government-wide financial statements. -6- Proprietary Funds – The City maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its water, sewer, surface water management, and recycling operations. Water, sewer, and surface water management are considered to be major funds of the City. Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City’s various functions. The City maintains internal service funds for risk management, engineering, central garage, and technology. Because these services predominately benefit governmental rather than business-type functions, they have been included within governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. The proprietary funds financial statements can be found in the financial section of this report immediately following the governmental funds statements. Notes to Basic Financial Statements – The notes to basic financial statements provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to basic financial statements can be found following the proprietary funds statements within the financial section of this report. Other Information – In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, the financial section also presents required supplementary information, and the combining and individual fund statements and schedules (presented as supplemental information) referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds and internal service funds, which are presented immediately following the basic financial statements. Further, a statistical section has been included as part of the ACFR to facilitate additional analysis, and is the third and final section of the report. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS An analysis of the City’s financial position begins with a review of the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. These two statements report the City’s net position and changes in net position. It should be noted that the financial position can also be affected by nonfinancial factors, including economic conditions, population growth, and new regulations. As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of the City’s financial position. As presented in the following condensed version of the Statement of Net Position, the City’s assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of resources by $61,789,568 at December 31, 2021. The largest portion of the City’s net position, $45,848,294, or 74.2 percent, reflects its net investment in capital assets (e.g., land, construction in progress, buildings and structures, infrastructure and improvements, distribution and collection systems, machinery and equipment, office furniture and equipment, and vehicles) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources; since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. -7- The following table provides the City’s Summary of Net Position: 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 Assets Current and other assets 16,693,237$ 15,458,034$ 4,822,482$ 3,831,773$ 21,515,719$ 19,289,807$ Capital assets 27,614,215 26,418,066 20,492,122 19,589,800 48,106,337 46,007,866 Total assets 44,307,452$ 41,876,100$ 25,314,604$ 23,421,573$ 69,622,056$ 65,297,673$ Deferred outflows of resources Pension plan deferments – PERA 449,603$ 125,948$ 328,796$ 81,715$ 778,399$ 207,663$ Liabilities Long-term liabilities outstanding 701,569$ 982,605$ 2,633,009$ 2,986,238$ 3,334,578$ 3,968,843$ Other liabilities 3,074,562 1,658,408 311,995 237,965 3,386,557 1,896,373 Total liabilities 3,776,131$ 2,641,013$ 2,945,004$ 3,224,203$ 6,721,135$ 5,865,216$ Deferred inflows of resources Pension plan deferments – PERA 551,655$ 45,668$ 403,427$ 29,630$ 955,082$ 75,298$ State aid received for subsequent years 934,670 1,225,355 – – 934,670 1,225,355 Total deferred inflows of resources 1,486,325$ 1,271,023$ 403,427$ 29,630$ 1,889,752$ 1,300,653$ Net position Net investment in capital assets 27,474,959$ 26,418,066$ 18,373,335$ 17,248,962$ 45,848,294$ 43,667,028$ Restricted 1,220,301 1,137,740 – – 1,220,301 1,137,740 Unrestricted 10,799,339 10,534,206 3,921,634 3,000,493 14,720,973 13,534,699 Total net position 39,494,599$ 38,090,012$ 22,294,969$ 20,249,455$ 61,789,568$ 58,339,467$ Summary of Net Position as of December 31, 2021 and 2020 Table 1 Activities Activities Total Governmental Business-Type Restricted net position of $1,220,301 comprises 2.0 percent of net position at the close of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. These assets are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The balance of unrestricted net position, $14,720,973, or approximately 23.8 percent, may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. Certain balances within unrestricted net position may have internally imposed commitments or limitations, which may further limit the purpose for which such net position may be used. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year. Both governmental activities and business-type activities experienced changes in deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and long-term liabilities as a result of the City’s participation in a state-wide defined benefit pension plan. The City reported an increase in current and other assets and other liabilities with receipt of cash for developer deposits held at year-end. -8- The following table provides a condensed version of the Statement of Activities for the year ended December 31, 2021, with comparative amounts for the year ended December 31, 2020: 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 Revenues Program revenues Charges for services 1,212,170$ 647,552$ 5,979,339$ 5,201,133$ 7,191,509$ 5,848,685$ Operating grants and contributions 565,106 409,403 27,213 25,365 592,319 434,768 Capital grants and contributions 1,263,520 634,369 1,024,414 60,661 2,287,934 695,030 General revenues General property taxes 4,293,895 4,100,177 – – 4,293,895 4,100,177 Tax increments 396,891 273,043 – – 396,891 273,043 Franchise taxes 97,549 101,057 – – 97,549 101,057 Unrestricted grants and contributions – 745,040 – – – 745,040 Unrestricted investment earnings (charges)(30,940) 348,886 (10,642) 68,781 (41,582) 417,667 Gain on sale of capital assets – 17,500 – – – 17,500 Total revenues 7,798,191 7,277,027 7,020,324 5,355,940 14,818,515 12,632,967 Expenses General government 1,283,605 1,460,627 – – 1,283,605 1,460,627 Public safety 2,804,933 2,737,348 – – 2,804,933 2,737,348 Public works 1,310,895 1,267,480 – – 1,310,895 1,267,480 Parks and recreation 883,155 634,195 – – 883,155 634,195 Economic development 411,016 480,307 – – 411,016 480,307 Water – – 2,166,362 1,996,083 2,166,362 1,996,083 Sewer – – 1,754,753 1,665,146 1,754,753 1,665,146 Surface water management – – 599,084 546,365 599,084 546,365 Recycling – – 154,611 139,840 154,611 139,840 Total expenses 6,693,604 6,579,957 4,674,810 4,347,434 11,368,414 10,927,391 Increase (decrease) in net position before transfers 1,104,587 697,070 2,345,514 1,008,506 3,450,101 1,705,576 Transfers 300,000 237,000 (300,000) (237,000) – – Increase in net position 1,404,587 934,070 2,045,514 771,506 3,450,101 1,705,576 Net position – beginning 38,090,012 37,155,942 20,249,455 19,477,949 58,339,467 56,633,891 Net position – ending 39,494,599$ 38,090,012$ 22,294,969$ 20,249,455$ 61,789,568$ 58,339,467$ Activities Activities Total Table 2 Changes in Net Position Years Ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 Governmental Business-Type Governmental Activities – Current year operating results of governmental activities increased net position by $1,404,587, compared to an increase of $934,070 in the prior year. Revenues were up in the current year with more development activity contributing to the change in charges for services and more capital grants and contributions from capital-related assessments. The City recognized less unrestricted grants and contributions with one-time coronavirus relief funds recognized last year. Business-Type Activities – Current year operating results of business-type activities increased net position by $2,045,514, due to positive results of the utility operations of the City. Program revenues exceeded program expenses for each of the City’s business -type activities. The increase in development activity also contributed to more capital grants and contributions in the business -type activities with more water and sewer access charges in the current year. The City’s recognition of American Rescue Plan Act resources for allowable water improvements also contributed to the increase in capital grants and contributions in business-type activities. -9- Below are specific graphs that provide comparisons of the governmental activities’ revenue and expenses: -10- Below are specific graphs that provide comparisons of the business-type activities’ revenue and expenses: -11- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. Governmental Funds – The focus of the City’s governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $10,814,728, an increase of $141,298 in comparison with the prior year. Committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balance, which are available for spending at the government’s discretion, have a total balance of $9,559,411 at year-end. The remainder of fund balance is nonspendable or restricted to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already been obligated : 1) for tax increment purposes ($1,129,558), 2) for cable TV purposes ($90,729), or 3) is not in spendable form for prepaid items ($35,030). The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the City. At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance of the General Fund was $2,899,564, while total fund balance equaled $3,169,812. As a measure of the General Fund’s liquidity, it may be useful to compare the unassigned fund balance to expenditures. Unassigned fund balance represents 55.3 percent of the total subsequent year General Fund expenditures. The City’s General Fund equity decreased by $210,694 during the current fiscal year, compared to a $657,710 decrease approved in the final budget. This was due to favorable revenue and expenditure variances, with several departments spending less than amounts approved in the budget. Spending for other services and charges for protective inspections was over budget, due to the City contracting out their building inspection with difficulty filling open positions, along with increased activity ongoing in the current year. Conservative budgeting for less predictable sources, such as licenses and permits, contributed to the favorable revenue variance. Fund balance in the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund increased by $61,650 in the current year. Total current year revenues and a transfer from the General Fund exceeded expenditures, which fluctuate based on the timing of street and trail projects. Proprietary Funds – The City’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position in the respective proprietary funds includes: $2,518,417 for water, $1,079,248 for sewer, $133,774 for surface water management, and $190,195 for recycling. Water net position increased $1,345,320, sewer net position increased $424,746, surface water management net position increased $227,248, and recycling net position increased $48,200 during the year. -12- GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS Total General Fund revenues were $201,320 more than estimated in the budget. Licenses and permits exceeded budgeted levels by $177,012, primarily due to building permit fees with an increase in construction activity in the City. Expenditures within the General Fund were less than budget by $245,696, spread across several functions but most noticeably in general government and parks and recreation, mainly in personal services. During the year, the City Council approved budget amendments, which slightly reduced revenues by $18,990 and increased transfers out by $548,000, moving available resources to other funds. CAPITAL ASSETS AND LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Capital Assets – The City’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business-type activities as of December 31, 2021 amounts to $48,106,337 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes items such as land, construction in progress, buildings and structures, infrastructure and improvements, distribution and collection systems, machinery and equipment, office furniture and equipment, and vehicles. 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 Land 2,679,818$ 2,679,818$ –$ –$ 2,679,818$ 2,679,818$ Construction in progress 2,369,392 429,828 1,585,722 381,935 3,955,114 811,763 Buildings and structures 3,467,247 3,688,414 538,604 580,147 4,005,851 4,268,561 Infrastructure and improvements 17,656,824 18,198,967 – – 17,656,824 18,198,967 Distribution and collection systems – – 18,065,524 18,298,005 18,065,524 18,298,005 Machinery and equipment 286,054 279,004 302,272 329,713 588,326 608,717 Office furniture and equipment 13,805 20,639 – – 13,805 20,639 Vehicles 1,141,075 1,121,396 – – 1,141,075 1,121,396 Total 27,614,215$ 26,418,066$ 20,492,122$ 19,589,800$ 48,106,337$ 46,007,866$ Table 3 Capital Assets (Net of Depreciation) Total Business-Type Activities Governmental Activities Increases in the current year included ongoing projects for streets, related utility infrastructure, and trails, contributing to the changes in the table above as of year-end. Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 3 of the notes to basic financial statements. -13- Long-Term Liabilities – At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $2,005,000, which is secured by specified revenue sources. 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 Utility revenue bonds –$ –$ 2,005,000$ 2,215,000$ 2,005,000$ 2,215,000$ Premium – – 110,281 125,838 110,281 125,838 Compensated absences 99,716 106,271 77,592 76,829 177,308 183,100 Net pension liability 601,853 876,334 440,136 568,571 1,041,989 1,444,905 Total 701,569$ 982,605$ 2,633,009$ 2,986,238$ 3,334,578$ 3,968,843$ Total Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Table 4 Outstanding Debt Summary of Long-Term Debt State statutes limit the amount of net debt a Minnesota city may issue to 3 percent of total estimated market value. The net pension liability decreased from the prior year, due to the change in the City’s proportionate share of pension obligations for the Public Employees Retirement Association – General Employees Retirement Fund state-wide pension plan. Additional information on the City’s long-term liabilities can be found in Note 4 of the notes to basic financial statements. ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGETS AND RATES • Dramatic increases in local government aids and other state sources are not anticipated based on legislation at the time of writing this report. • Property tax collection rates are expected to remain strong, at or near the 2021 level. • The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause volatility in economic conditions and tremendous disruption in the way governments, businesses, and individuals function. The ongoing extent of the negative impact on the economy and city operations is unknown at this time. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION This ACFR is designed to provide a general overview of the City’s finances for all those with an interest in the City’s finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the finance department, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112. BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total Assets Cash and investments 14,606,114$ 3,339,714$ 17,945,828$ Accrued interest receivable 33,601 6,636 40,237 Accounts receivable 364,759 1,434,049 1,798,808 Taxes receivable 99,267 – 99,267 Special assessments receivable 1,391,164 – 1,391,164 Due from other governmental units 163,033 – 163,033 Prepaid items 35,299 22,038 57,337 Inventory – 20,045 20,045 Capital assets Nondepreciable 5,049,210 1,585,722 6,634,932 Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 22,565,005 18,906,400 41,471,405 Total assets 44,307,452 25,314,604 69,622,056 Deferred outflows of resources Pension plan deferments – PERA 449,603 328,796 778,399 Liabilities Accounts payable 565,709 38,973 604,682 Salaries payable 82,651 – 82,651 Deposits payable 1,952,618 8,000 1,960,618 Due to other governmental units 361,196 233,938 595,134 Accrued interest payable – 31,084 31,084 Unearned revenue 112,388 – 112,388 Long-term liabilities (bonds and compensated absences) Due within one year 74,787 278,193 352,980 Due in more than one year 24,929 1,914,680 1,939,609 Net pension liability Due in more than one year 601,853 440,136 1,041,989 Total liabilities 3,776,131 2,945,004 6,721,135 Deferred inflows of resources Pension plan deferments – PERA 551,655 403,427 955,082 State aid received for subsequent years 934,670 – 934,670 Total deferred inflows of resources 1,486,325 403,427 1,889,752 Net position Net investment in capital assets 27,474,959 18,373,335 45,848,294 Restricted for Tax increment purposes 1,129,558 – 1,129,558 Cable TV 90,743 – 90,743 Unrestricted 10,799,339 3,921,634 14,720,973 Total net position 39,494,599$ 22,294,969$ 61,789,568$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Statement of Net Position as of December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -14- Operating Capital Charges for Grants and Grants and Governmental Business-Type Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total Functions/programs Primary government Governmental activities General government 1,283,605$ 189,138$ 149,801$ –$ (944,666)$ –$ (944,666)$ Public safety 2,804,933 926,665 92,291 39,001 (1,746,976) – (1,746,976) Public works 1,310,895 5,735 97,051 1,124,376 (83,733) – (83,733) Parks and recreation 883,155 90,632 225,963 100,143 (466,417) – (466,417) Economic development 411,016 – – – (411,016) – (411,016) Total governmental activities 6,693,604 1,212,170 565,106 1,263,520 (3,652,808) – (3,652,808) Business-type activities Water 2,166,362 2,789,472 376 827,055 – 1,450,541 1,450,541 Sewer 1,754,753 2,110,766 432 197,359 – 553,804 553,804 Surface water management 599,084 902,044 274 – – 303,234 303,234 Recycling 154,611 177,057 26,131 – – 48,577 48,577 Total business-type activities 4,674,810 5,979,339 27,213 1,024,414 – 2,356,156 2,356,156 Total primary government 11,368,414$ 7,191,509$ 592,319$ 2,287,934$ (3,652,808) 2,356,156 (1,296,652) General revenues General property taxes 4,293,895 – 4,293,895 Tax increments 396,891 – 396,891 Franchise taxes 97,549 – 97,549 Unrestricted investment earnings (charges)(30,940) (10,642) (41,582) Transfers 300,000 (300,000) – Total general revenues and transfers 5,057,395 (310,642) 4,746,753 Change in net position 1,404,587 2,045,514 3,450,101 Net position – beginning 38,090,012 20,249,455 58,339,467 Net position – ending 39,494,599$ 22,294,969$ 61,789,568$ Program Revenues Changes in Net Position Net (Expense) Revenue and CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Statement of Activities Year Ended December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -15- Permanent Other Total Improvement Governmental Intra-Activity Governmental General Revolving Funds Eliminations Funds Cash and investments 5,194,930$ 6,085,375$ 3,116,476$ –$ 14,396,781$ Accrued interest receivable 11,667 14,386 7,163 – 33,216 Accounts receivable 29,353 300,000 35,300 – 364,653 Taxes receivable 98,909 – 358 – 99,267 Special assessments receivable 3,628 1,387,536 – – 1,391,164 Interfund receivable – 194,879 29,016 (223,895) – Due from other governmental units 108,412 54,621 – – 163,033 Prepaid items 31,152 – 3,878 – 35,030 Total assets 5,478,051$ 8,036,797$ 3,192,191$ (223,895)$ 16,483,144$ Liabilities Accounts payable 133,517$ 128,511$ 274,515$ –$ 536,543$ Salaries payable 82,651 – – – 82,651 Deposits payable 1,952,618 – – – 1,952,618 Interfund payable – – 223,895 (223,895) – Due to other governmental units 29,270 316,572 – – 345,842 Unearned revenue 69,333 4,071 38,984 – 112,388 Total liabilities 2,267,389 449,154 537,394 (223,895) 3,030,042 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue – taxes 37,222 – 1 – 37,223 Unavailable revenue – special assessments 3,628 1,362,853 – – 1,366,481 Unavailable revenue – long-term receivable – 300,000 – – 300,000 State aid received for subsequent years – 934,670 – – 934,670 Total deferred inflows of resources 40,850 2,597,523 1 – 2,638,374 Fund balances (deficits) Nonspendable 31,152 – 3,878 – 35,030 Restricted – – 1,220,287 – 1,220,287 Committed – – 654,042 – 654,042 Assigned 239,096 4,990,120 1,000,127 – 6,229,343 Unassigned 2,899,564 – (223,538) – 2,676,026 Total fund balances (deficits)3,169,812 4,990,120 2,654,796 – 10,814,728 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 5,478,051$ 8,036,797$ 3,192,191$ (223,895)$ 16,483,144$ Fund balances reported above 10,814,728$ Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because: Nondepreciable 5,049,210 Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 22,565,005 164,953 Compensated absences (99,096) Net pension liability (601,853) Deferred outflows of resources – pension plans 449,603 Deferred inflows of resources – pension plans (551,655) Deferred inflows of resources – unavailable revenues (taxes, special assessments, and long-term receivable)1,703,704 Net position of governmental activities 39,494,599$ Assets Internal service funds are used to allocate costs to individual funds.Net position is included in governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position. Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. The recognition of certain revenues and expenses/expenditures differ between the full accrual governmental activities financial statements and the modified accrual governmental fund financial statements. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Balance Sheet Governmental Funds as of December 31, 2021 Certain long-term obligations are not payable with current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in governmental funds. See notes to basic financial statements -16- Permanent Other Total Improvement Governmental Intra-Activity Governmental General Revolving Funds Eliminations Funds Revenues Property taxes General property taxes 3,763,384$ 250,000$ 276,610$ –$ 4,289,994$ Tax increments – – 396,891 – 396,891 Special assessments 4,514 655,897 – – 660,411 Licenses and permits 752,532 – – – 752,532 Intergovernmental 160,279 345,306 – – 505,585 Charges for services 459,638 – – – 459,638 Fines and forfeits 21,500 – – – 21,500 Earnings on investments (charges)(13,315) (9,275) (6,794) – (29,384) Franchise taxes – – 97,549 – 97,549 Antenna rental fees 146,101 – – – 146,101 Miscellaneous reimbursements 7,513 – – – 7,513 Other 2,444 100,000 364,932 – 467,376 Total revenues 5,304,590 1,341,928 1,129,188 – 7,775,706 Expenditures Current General government 1,014,282 – 122,906 – 1,137,188 Public safety 2,708,137 – – – 2,708,137 Public works 618,236 – – – 618,236 Parks and recreation 626,629 – – – 626,629 Economic development – – 349,341 – 349,341 Capital outlay General government – – 290,193 – 290,193 Public safety – – 111,065 – 111,065 Public works – 1,714,366 279,173 – 1,993,539 Parks and recreation – 113,912 19,238 – 133,150 Total expenditures 4,967,284 1,828,278 1,171,916 – 7,967,478 Revenues over (under) expenditures 337,306 (486,350) (42,728) – (191,772) Other financing sources (uses) Sale of capital assets – – 33,070 – 33,070 Transfers in – 548,000 300,000 (548,000) 300,000 Transfers out (548,000) – – 548,000 – Total other financing sources (uses)(548,000) 548,000 333,070 – 333,070 Net changes in fund balances (210,694) 61,650 290,342 – 141,298 Fund balances – beginning 3,380,506 4,928,470 2,364,454 – 10,673,430 Fund balances – ending 3,169,812$ 4,990,120$ 2,654,796$ –$ 10,814,728$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds Year Ended December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -17- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Net changes in fund balances – total governmental funds 141,298$ Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures.However,in the Statement of Activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. Capital outlay 2,244,925 Depreciation expense (994,133) A gain or loss on the disposal of capital assets,including the difference between the carrying value and any related sale proceeds,is included in the change in net position.However,only the sale proceeds are included in the change in fund balance.(54,643) Adjustments are made between the governmental funds and the Statement of Activities for the long-term liability activity of the net pension liability.274,481 The recognition of certain revenues and expenses/expenditures differ between the full accrual governmental activities financial statements and the modified accrual governmental fund financial statements. Deferred outflows of resources – pension plans 323,655 Deferred inflows of resources – pension plans (505,987) Deferred inflows of resources – unavailable revenues 22,560 Internal service funds are used to allocate costs to individual funds.The net revenue of the Internal Service Fund is reported with governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements.(54,220) Some expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Compensated absences 6,651 Change in net position of governmental activities 1,404,587$ Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities Governmental Funds Year Ended December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -18- Surface Internal Water Nonmajor Service Water Sewer Management Recycling Totals Funds Assets Current assets Cash and investments 2,366,878$ 743,125$ 44,509$ 185,202$ 3,339,714$ 209,333$ Accrued interest receivable 4,284 1,766 154 432 6,636 385 Accounts receivable Customers 569,667 547,422 230,167 2,919 1,350,175 106 Customer accounts certified to county 35,521 38,539 5,456 4,358 83,874 – Prepaid items 7,526 7,256 7,256 – 22,038 269 Inventory 20,045 – – – 20,045 – Total current assets 3,003,921 1,338,108 287,542 192,911 4,822,482 210,093 Noncurrent assets Capital assets Buildings and structures 818,476 16,564 – – 835,040 – Distribution and collection systems 12,760,264 9,949,319 5,657,651 – 28,367,234 – Machinery and equipment 301,955 338,598 745 – 641,298 – Office furniture and equipment 5,216 3,199 – – 8,415 – Construction in progress 614,227 444,516 526,979 – 1,585,722 – Total capital assets 14,500,138 10,752,196 6,185,375 – 31,437,709 – Less accumulated depreciation (5,317,907) (4,523,698) (1,103,982) – (10,945,587) – Total capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation)9,182,231 6,228,498 5,081,393 – 20,492,122 – Total assets 12,186,152 7,566,606 5,368,935 192,911 25,314,604 210,093 Deferred outflows of resources Pension plan deferments – PERA 114,269 131,238 83,289 – 328,796 – Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable 33,286 1,874 3,760 53 38,973 29,166 Deposits payable 8,000 – – – 8,000 – Due to other governmental units 212,718 17,395 3,825 – 233,938 15,354 Accrued interest payable 26,896 4,188 – – 31,084 – Bonds payable 190,000 30,000 – – 220,000 – Compensated absences payable 19,277 22,451 14,468 1,997 58,193 465 Total current liabilities 490,177 75,908 22,053 2,050 590,188 44,985 Noncurrent liabilities Bonds payable (net of premium)1,640,400 254,881 – – 1,895,281 – Compensated absences payable 6,426 7,484 4,823 666 19,399 155 Net pension liability 152,964 175,679 111,493 – 440,136 – Total noncurrent liabilities 1,799,790 438,044 116,316 666 2,354,816 155 Total liabilities 2,289,967 513,952 138,369 2,716 2,945,004 45,140 Deferred inflows of resources Pension plan deferments – PERA 140,206 161,027 102,194 – 403,427 – Net position Net investment in capital assets 7,351,831 5,943,617 5,077,887 – 18,373,335 – Unrestricted 2,518,417 1,079,248 133,774 190,195 3,921,634 164,953 Total net position 9,870,248$ 7,022,865$ 5,211,661$ 190,195$ 22,294,969$ 164,953$ Business-Type Activities – Enterprise Funds CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds as of December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -19- Surface Internal Water Nonmajor Service Water Sewer Management Recycling Totals Funds Operating revenues Charges for services 2,784,608$ 2,105,722$ 901,529$ 148,280$ 5,940,139$ 597,201$ Permit fees 1,400 1,827 – – 3,227 – Miscellaneous 3,464 3,217 515 28,777 35,973 8,342 Total operating revenues 2,789,472 2,110,766 902,044 177,057 5,979,339 605,543 Operating expenses Personal services 348,366 412,090 231,755 31,513 1,023,724 5,506 Supplies and maintenance 43,168 10,170 3,249 – 56,587 88,201 Other services and charges 208,992 155,245 164,184 4,879 533,300 144,836 Rent 29,991 28,798 12,781 – 71,570 – Insurance 26,017 51,571 4,625 463 82,676 – Utilities 13,303 17,329 – – 30,632 – Purchased services 56,013 29,912 37,482 11,320 134,727 419,664 Purchased water 1,023,367 – – – 1,023,367 – Recycling charges – – – 106,436 106,436 – Sewer charges – 847,159 – – 847,159 – Depreciation 365,453 194,428 145,008 – 704,889 – Total operating expenses 2,114,670 1,746,702 599,084 154,611 4,615,067 658,207 Operating income (loss)674,802 364,064 302,960 22,446 1,364,272 (52,664) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Intergovernmental revenue 376 432 274 26,131 27,213 – Earnings on investments (charges)(5,221) (3,058) (1,986) (377) (10,642) (1,556) Interest and fiscal charges (51,692)(8,051)– – (59,743) – Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(56,537) (10,677) (1,712) 25,754 (43,172) (1,556) Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 618,265 353,387 301,248 48,200 1,321,100 (54,220) Capital contributions – connection fees 304,274 197,359 – – 501,633 – Capital contributions – capital grants 522,781 – – – 522,781 – Transfers out (100,000) (126,000) (74,000) – (300,000) – Change in net position 1,345,320 424,746 227,248 48,200 2,045,514 (54,220) Net position Beginning of year 8,524,928 6,598,119 4,984,413 141,995 20,249,455 219,173 End of year 9,870,248$ 7,022,865$ 5,211,661$ 190,195$ 22,294,969$ 164,953$ Business-Type Activities – Enterprise Funds CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Proprietary Funds Year Ended December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -20- Surface Internal Water Nonmajor Service Water Sewer Management Recycling Totals Funds Cash flows from operating activities Receipts from customers and users 2,750,884$ 2,037,732$ 894,774$ 174,087$ 5,857,477$ 613,821$ Payments to suppliers (1,279,154) (1,089,589) (185,449) (127,719) (2,681,911) (851,183) Payments to employees (348,669) (409,923) (234,831) (31,257) (1,024,680) (5,410) Payments for interfund services used (54,788) (56,529) (35,390) (3,580) (150,287) – Net cash flows from operating activities 1,068,273 481,691 439,104 11,531 2,000,599 (242,772) Cash flows from noncapital financing activities Grants received 376 432 274 26,131 27,213 – Transfers out (100,000) (126,000) (74,000) – (300,000) – Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities (99,624) (125,568) (73,726) 26,131 (272,787) – Cash flows from capital and related financing activities Acquisition and construction of capital assets (527,810) (434,455) (641,440) – (1,603,705) – Capital contributions – connection fees received 304,274 197,359 – – 501,633 – Capital contributions – capital grants received 522,781 – – – 522,781 – Principal payments on bonds (180,000) (30,000) – – (210,000) – Interest paid (68,150) (10,650) – – (78,800) – Net cash flows from capital and related financing activities 51,095 (277,746) (641,440) – (868,091) – Cash flows from investing activities Earnings on investments (charges)(5,818) (2,991) (1,231) (414) (10,454) (783) Net change in cash and cash equivalents 1,013,926 75,386 (277,293) 37,248 849,267 (243,555) Cash and cash equivalents – beginning 1,352,952 667,739 321,802 147,954 2,490,447 452,888 Cash and cash equivalents – ending 2,366,878$ 743,125$ 44,509$ 185,202$ 3,339,714$ 209,333$ Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities Operating income (loss)674,802$ 364,064$ 302,960$ 22,446$ 1,364,272$ (52,664)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities Depreciation 365,453 194,428 145,008 – 704,889 – Decrease (increase) in accounts receivables (52,111) (73,034) (7,270) (2,970) (135,385) 8,278 Decrease (increase) in due from other governments 5,523 – – – 5,523 – Decrease (increase) in prepaid items (898) 386 (628) – (1,140) (269) Decrease (increase) in inventory (10,628) – – – (10,628) – Decrease (increase) in deferred outflows (85,923) (98,905) (62,253) – (247,081) – Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 12,833 (6,320) (1,715) (8,201) (3,403) (201,946) Increase (decrease) in deposits payable 8,000 – – – 8,000 – Increase (decrease) in due to other governments 65,602 – 3,825 – 69,427 3,733 Increase (decrease) in net pension liability (44,266) (49,293) (34,876) – (128,435) – Increase (decrease) in compensated absences payable (42) 1,062 (513) 256 763 96 Increase (decrease) in deferred inflows 129,928 149,303 94,566 – 373,797 – Total adjustments 393,471 117,627 136,144 (10,915) 636,327 (190,108) Net cash flows from operating activities 1,068,273$ 481,691$ 439,104$ 11,531$ 2,000,599$ (242,772)$ Noncash investing, capital, and financing activities Due from other governmental units Payments of capital assets on account –$ –$ (3,506)$ –$ (3,506)$ –$ Amortization of bond premium (discount)13,458 2,099 – – 15,557 – Business-Type Activities – Enterprise Funds CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Statement of Cash Flows Proprietary Funds Year Ended December 31, 2021 See notes to basic financial statements -21- CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Notes to Basic Financial Statements December 31, 2021 -22- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Organization The City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the City) was incorporated in 1951 and operates under the “Optional Plan A” form of government as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Under this plan, the government of the City is directed by a council composed of an elected mayor and four elected councilmembers. The City Council exercises legislative authority and determines all matters of policy. The City Council appoints personnel responsible for the proper administration of all affairs relating to the City. The City provides the following municipal services: public safety (police, fire, civil defense, protective inspections, and animal control), highways and streets, sanitation and health, parks and recreation, public improvements, community development, and general administrative services. The accounting policies of the City conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applicable to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. B. Reporting Entity As required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, these financial statements include the City (the primary government) and its component unit. Component units are legally separate entities for which the primary government is financially accountable, or for which the exclusion of the component unit would render the financial statements of the primary government misleading. The criteria used to determine if the primary government is financially accountable for a component unit includes whether or not the primary government appoints the voting majority of the potential component unit’s board, is able to impose its will on the potential component unit, is in a relationship of financial benefit or burden with the potential component unit, or is fiscally depended upon by the potential component unit. Blended component units, although legally separate entities, are, in substance, part of the City’s operations; therefore, data from these units are combined with data of the City. The City’s blended component unit has a December 31 year-end. The City has the following component unit: Arden Hills Economic Development Authority (EDA) – The EDA of the City was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 469.090–469.108 to carryout economic and industrial development and redevelopment consistent with policies established by the City Council. It is composed of the members of the City Council and the City has operational responsibility for the component unit. The EDA’s activities are blended and reported in separate special revenue funds. Separate financial statements are not issued for this component unit. -23- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) C. Government-Wide Financial Statement Presentation The government-wide financial statements (Statement of Net Position and Statement of Activities) display information about the reporting government as a whole. These statements include all of the financial activities of the City. Governmental activities, which are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which significantly rely upon sales, fees, and charges for support. The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other internally directed revenues are reported as general revenues. The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes and special assessments are recognized as revenues in the fiscal year for which they are certified for levy. Grants and similar items are recognized when all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. However, charges between the City’s enterprise funds and other functions are not eliminated, as that would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported in those functions. Depreciation expense is included in the direct expenses of each function. Interest on long-term debt is considered an indirect expense and is reported separately on the Statement of Activities. D. Fund Financial Statement Presentation Separate fund financial statements are provided for governmental and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental and enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. Aggregated information for the remaining nonmajor governmental funds is reported in a single column in the fund financial statements. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this basis of accounting, transactions are recorded in the following manner: 1. Revenue Recognition – Revenue is recognized when it becomes measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined and “available” means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days after year-end. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. Grants and similar items are recognized when all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Proceeds of long-term debt and acquisitions under capital leases, when applicable, are reported as other financing sources. Major revenue that is susceptible to accrual includes property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenue, charges for services, and interest earned on investments. Major revenue that is not susceptible to accrual includes licenses and permits, fees, and miscellaneous revenue. Such revenue is recorded only when received because it is not measurable until collected. -24- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) 2. Recording of Expenditures – Expenditures are generally recorded when a liability is incurred, except for principal and interest on long-term debt and other long-term obligations, which are recognized as expenditures to the extent they have matured. Capital asset acquisitions are reported as capital outlay expenditures in the governmental funds. Proprietary fund financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting, similar to the government-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City’s enterprise funds and internal service funds are charges to customers for sales and services. The operating expenses for the enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses that do not meet this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. Aggregated information for the internal service funds is reported in a single column in the proprietary fund financial statements. Because the principal user of the internal services is the City’s governmental activities, the financial statements of the internal service funds are consolidated into the governmental column when presented in the government-wide financial statements. The cost of these services is reported in the appropriate functional activity. Description of Funds The City reports the following major governmental funds: General Fund – The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund – The Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (capital project fund) accounts for the acquisition of capital assets or construction for major capital projects not being financed by proprietary funds. The City reports the following major enterprise funds: Water Fund – The Water Fund accounts for the water service charges, which are used to finance the water system operations. Sewer Fund – The Sewer Fund accounts for the sewer service charges, which are used to finance the sanitary sewer system operations. Surface Water Management Fund – The Surface Water Management Fund accounts for the surface water charges, which are used to finance the surface water system operations. The City reports the following nonmajor enterprise fund: Recycling Fund – The Recycling Fund accounts for the recycling service charges, which are used to finance the City’s recycling operations. -25- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) Additionally, the City reports the following fund type: Internal Service Funds – The internal service funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the City, or to other governments on a cost-reimbursement basis. The City’s internal service funds account for risk management, engineering, central garage, and technology services. E. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting Budgets are legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Annual appropriated budgets are legally adopted for the General Fund and most special revenue funds. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year-end, but may be adopted in the subsequent year. The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. The city administrator submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function, and department. The City’s department heads, with the approval of the city administrator, may make transfers of appropriations within a department. Transfers of appropriations between funds require the approval of the City Council. The legal level of budgetary control is the fund level. Budgeted amounts are as amended by the City Council. 4. The city administrator is authorized to transfer appropriations within any fund budget. Adjustments to appropriations between funds, and budget additions and deletions must be authorized by the City Council. 5. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year for the General Fund and special revenue funds. 6. Legal debt obligation indentures determine the appropriation level and debt service tax levies for the Debt Service Fund (if necessary). Supplementary budgets are adopted for the proprietary funds to determine and calculate user charges. These debt service and budget amounts represent general obligation bond indenture provisions and net income for operation and capital maintenance, and are not reflected in the financial statements. 7. A capital improvement program is reviewed annually by the City Council for the capital project funds. However, appropriations for major projects are not adopted until the actual bid award of the improvement. Budgetary control for capital projects funds is accomplished through the use of project controls, not legally enacted budgets. The appropriations are not reflected in the financial statements. For the year ended December 31, 2021, actual expenditures exceeded budgeted expenditures in the EDA TIF District No. 4 Special Revenue Fund by $56,011. This variance was financed by revenues in excess of budget. -26- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) F. Cash and Investments Cash and investments include balances that are combined and invested to the extent available in various securities as authorized by state law. Allocations of pooled investment earnings to the respective funds is based on participation by each fund. For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the City considers all highly liquid debt instruments with an original maturity from the time of purchase by the City of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The proprietary funds’ portion in the government-wide cash and investment management pool is considered to be cash equivalent. The City generally reports investments at fair value. The Minnesota Municipal Money Market (4M) Fund is an external investment pool regulated by Minnesota Statutes that is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but follows the same regulatory rules of the SEC. The fair value of the position in the pool is the same as the value of the pool shares, which is based on an amortized cost method that approximates fair value. The 4M Fund is sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities. For this investment pool, there are no unfunded commitments, redemption frequency is daily, and there is no redemption notice required for the Liquid Class; the redemption notice period is 14 days for the Plus Class. The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; and Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs. Debt securities classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy are valued using a matrix pricing technique. Matrix pricing is used to value securities based on the securities’ relationship to benchmark quoted prices. See Note 2 for the City’s recurring fair value measurements as of year-end. G. Interfund Receivables and Payables During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. Short-term interfund loans are classified as “interfund receivables/payables.” All short-term interfund receivables and payables at year-end are planned to be eliminated in the subsequent year. Long-term interfund loans are classified as “advances receivable/payable.” Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal balances.” H. Receivables Property taxes and special assessments receivable have been reported net of estimated uncollectible accounts (see Note 1 I. and J.). Because utility bills are considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. The only receivables not expected to be collected within one year are property taxes, special assessments, and the long-term receivable in the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. -27- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) I. Property Taxes Property tax levies are set by the City Council in December of each year, and are certified to Ramsey County for collection in the following year. In Minnesota, counties act as collection agents for all property taxes. The county spreads the levies over all taxable property. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City on that date. Real property taxes may be paid by taxpayers in two equal installments on May 15 and October 15. Personal property taxes are due in full on May 15. The county provides tax settlements to cities and other taxing districts three times a year: in July, December, and January. Property taxes are recognized as revenue in the year levied in the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements. In the governmental fund financial statements, taxes are recognized as revenue when received in cash or within 60 days after year-end. Taxes which remain unpaid on December 31 are classified as delinquent taxes receivable, and are offset by a deferred inflow of resources in the governmental fund financial statements. J. Special Assessments Special assessments primarily represent the financing for public improvements paid for by benefiting property owners. As previously mentioned under receivables, the City is also generally able to certify delinquent amounts to the county for collection as special assessments. Special assessments are recorded as receivables upon certification to the county. Special assessments are recognized as revenue in the year levied in the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements. In the governmental fund financial statements, special assessments are recognized as revenue when received in cash or within 60 days after year-end. Governmental fund special assessments receivable which remain unpaid on December 31 are offset by a deferred inflow of resources in the governmental fund financial statements. K. Inventories The original cost of materials and supplies has been recorded as expenses/expenditures at the time of purchase for both the governmental and proprietary funds, with the exception of water meters in the Water Fund. These funds do not maintain material amounts of materials and supplies . The water meter inventory in the Water Fund is stated at the lower of cost or market on the first-in, first-out method. L. Prepaid Items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Prepaid items are reported using the consumption method and recorded as expenses/expenditures at the time of consumption. M. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items) are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Such assets are capitalized at historical cost, or estimated historical cost for assets where actual historical cost is not available. Donated assets are recorded as capital assets at their estimated acquisition value on the date of donation. The City defines capital assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estim ated useful life in excess of one year. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. -28- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) In the case of the initial capitalization of general infrastructure assets (i.e., those reported by governmental activities), the City chose to include items dating back to June 30, 1980. These assets are reported at historical cost. The City estimated historical cost for the initial reporting of these assets through back trending (estimating the current replacement cost and utilizing an appropriate price -level index to deflate the cost to the acquisition year). As the City constructs or acquires additional infrastructure assets each period, they will be capitalized and reported at historical cost. Capital assets are recorded in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements, but are not reported in the governmental fund financial statements. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. Property, plant, and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings and structures 7–40 years Infrastructure and improvements 15–50 years Distribution and collection systems 15–50 years Machinery and equipment 5–15 years Office furniture and equipment 5–10 years Vehicles 7–20 years Land and construction in progress are not depreciated. N. Compensated Absences It is the City’s policy to permit employees to accumulate earned, but unused annual leave and sick pay benefits called personal time off (PTO). All PTO is accrued when incurred in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. PTO is payable when used or upon termination of employment. A liability for these amounts is reported in the governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. A liability is recognized for that portion of accumulated PTO benefits that is vested as severance pay. PTO is payable when used and, in some cases, upon termination of employment. For regular employees, PTO is payable upon retirement or involuntary termination up to the amount accrued, not to exceed 240 hours , who have served at least 12 consecutive months prior to separation, and have given the City at least two weeks’ notice prior to the effective date of such separation. The recorded portion of PTO (compensated absences) represents the estimated amount expected, based on previous years’ history and those eligible for retirement, to be paid at separation. O. Long-Term Obligations In the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities. Bond premiums and discounts, if material, are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight-line method. Bond issuance costs are expensed in the period incurred. -29- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) P. State-Wide Pension Plans For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to/deductions from the PERA’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the PERA. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments, and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Q. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources In addition to assets and liabilities, statements of financial position or balance sheets, will sometimes report separate sections for deferred outflows or inflows of resources. These separate financial statement elements represent a consumption or acquisition of net position that applies to a future period and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) or an inflow of financial resources (revenue) until then. The City reports deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions in the government-wide and enterprise funds Statement of Net Position. These deferred outflows and inflows result from differences between expected and actual economic experience, changes in actuarial assumptions, net collective difference between projected and actual investment earnings, changes in proportion, and contributions to the plan subsequent to the measurement date and before the end of the reporting period. These amounts are deferred and amortized as required under pension standards. Unavailable revenue arises only under the modified accrual basis of accounting and, therefore, is reported only in the governmental funds Balance Sheet. The governmental funds report unavaila ble revenue from three sources: property taxes, special assessments, and long-term receivables. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. Imposed nonexchange revenue transactions, state aid received for subsequent years, is deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the resources are appropriated. This item is reported both in the governmental funds Balance Sheet and the government-wide Statement of Net Position as a deferred inflow of resources. R. Net Position Classifications and Flow Assumptions In the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements, net position represents the difference between assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources. Net position is displayed in three components: • Net Investment in Capital Assets – Consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, reduced by any outstanding debt attributable to acquire capital assets. • Restricted Net Position – Consists of net position restricted when there are limitations imposed on its use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. • Unrestricted Net Position – All other elements of net position that do not meet the definition of “restricted” or “net investment in capital assets.” When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. -30- NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED) S. Fund Balance Classifications and Flow Assumptions In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance in classifications that disclose constraints for which amounts in those funds can be spent. These classifications are as follows: • Nonspendable – Consists of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items, inventory, and other long-term assets. • Restricted – Consists of amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by creditors, grantors, or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions. • Committed – Consists of internally imposed constraints that are established by resolution of the City Council. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City Council removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action it employed to previously commit those amounts. • Assigned – Consists of internally imposed constraints for amounts intended to be used by the City for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed . In governmental funds, assigned amounts represent intended uses established by the governing body itself or by an official to which the governing body delegates the authority. Pursuant to City Council resolution, the finance director and/or the city administrator is authorized to establish assignments of fund balance. • Unassigned – The residual classification for the General Fund, which also reflects negative residual amounts in other funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When committed, assigned, or unassigned resources are available for use, it is the City ’s policy to use resources in the following order: 1) committed, 2) assigned, and 3) unassigned. T. Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates. -31- NOTE 2 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS A. Components of Cash and Investments The City had the following cash and investments at year-end: Fair Value Measurements Less Than 1 to 5 6 to 10 Investment Type Rating Agency Using 1 Year Years Years Total U.S. Government Agency Securities Federal Home Loan Bank AA S&P Level 2 –$ 634,003$ 454,682$ 1,088,685$ Federal Farm Credit Bank AA S&P Level 2 – 294,423 294,678 589,101 Municipal bonds AAA S&P Level 2 – 236,330 – 236,330 Municipal bonds AAA Moody’s Level 2 – 236,255 – 236,255 Municipal bonds AA S&P Level 2 – 1,549,450 1,291,585 2,841,035 Municipal bonds AA Moody’s Level 2 – 819,007 415,688 1,234,695 Municipal bonds A Moody’s Level 2 – 331,457 – 331,457 Negotiable certificates of deposit N/R N/A Level 2 494,626 1,940,040 – 2,434,666 Investment pools/mutual funds 4M Fund N/R N/A N/A 8,551,779 – – 8,551,779 Wells Fargo Money Market Advantage AAA S&P Level 1 648 – – 648 Total investments 9,047,053$ 6,040,965$ 2,456,633$ 17,544,651 Deposits 400,677 Petty cash 500 Total cash and investments 17,945,828$ N/R – Not Rated N/A – Not Applicable Interest Risk – Maturity Duration in Years Credit Risk B. Deposits In accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at depository banks authorized by the City Council, including checking accounts and certificates of deposit. The following is considered the most significant risk associated with deposits: Custodial Credit Risk – In the case of deposits, this is the risk that in the event of a failure, the City’s deposits may be lost. Minnesota Statutes require that all deposits be protected by federal deposit insurance, corporate surety bond, or collateral. The fair value of collateral pledged must equal 110 percent of the deposits not covered by federal deposit insurance or corporate surety bonds. Authorized collateral includes treasury bills, notes, and bonds; issues of U.S. government agencies; general obligations rated “A” or better; revenue obligations rated “AA” or better; irrevocable standard letters of credit issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank; and certificates of deposit. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping in a restricted account at the Federal Reserve Bank or in an account at a trust department of a commercial bank or other financial institution that is not owned or controlled by the financial institution furnishing the collateral. The City has no additional deposit policies addressing custodial credit risk. At year-end, the carrying amount of the City’s deposits and the bank balance was $400,677. The entire bank balance was covered by federal deposit insurance, surety bonds, or by collateral held by the City’s agent in the City’s name. -32- NOTE 2 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) C. Investments Investments are subject to various risks, the following of which are considered the most significant: Custodial Credit Risk – For investments, this is the risk that in the event of a failure of the counterparty to an investment transaction (typically a broker-dealer), the City would not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City’s investment policies do not further address this risk, but typically limits its exposure by purchasing insured or registered investments, or by the control of who holds the securities. Credit Risk – This is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. Minnesota Statutes limit the City’s investments to direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies; shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 that receive the highest credit rating, are rated in one of the two highest rating categories by a statistical rating agency, and all of the investments have a final maturity of 13 months or less; general obligations rated “A” or better; revenue obligations rated “AA” or better; general obligations of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency rated “A” or better; bankers’ acceptances of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System; commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, rated of the highest quality category by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies, and maturing in 270 days or le ss; Guaranteed Investment Contracts guaranteed by a United States commercial bank, domestic branch of a foreign bank, or a United States insurance company, and with a credit quality in one of the top two highest categories; repurchase or reverse purchase agreements and securities lending agreements with financial institutions qualified as a “depository” by the government entity, with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000; that are a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; or certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers. The City’s investment policies do not further address credit risk. Interest Rate Risk – This is the risk of potential variability in the fair value of fixed rate investments resulting from changes in interest rates (the longer the period for which an interest rate is fixed, the greater the risk). The City’s investment policies do not mandate a limit on the duration of investments. Concentration Risk – This is the risk associated with investing a significant portion of the City’s investment (considered 5.0 percent or more) in the securities of a single issuer, excluding United States guaranteed investments (such as treasuries), investment pools, and mutual funds. The City’s investment policies state that no more than 5.0 percent of the overall portfolio may be invested in the securities of a single issuer, except for the securities of the United States government, or a maximum of 25.0 percent with any individual counterparty in an external investment pool. At December 31, 2021, the City’s investment in Federal Home Loan Bank represented 6.2 percent of the total investments of the City. -33- NOTE 3 – CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2021 was as follows: A. Governmental Activities Beginning Completed Ending Balance Increases Decreases Construction Balance Primary government Governmental activities Capital assets, not being depreciated Land 2,679,818$ –$ –$ –$ 2,679,818$ Construction in progress 429,828 1,939,564 – – 2,369,392 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 3,109,646 1,939,564 – – 5,049,210 Capital assets, being depreciated Buildings and structures 7,254,328 6,949 – – 7,261,277 Infrastructure and improvements 22,909,914 – – – 22,909,914 Machinery and equipment 951,311 49,345 – – 1,000,656 Office furniture and equipment 153,553 – – – 153,553 Vehicles 2,119,356 249,067 (136,607) – 2,231,816 Total capital assets, being depreciated 33,388,462 305,361 (136,607) – 33,557,216 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings and structures 3,565,914 228,116 – – 3,794,030 Infrastructure and improvements 4,710,947 542,143 – – 5,253,090 Machinery and equipment 672,307 42,295 – – 714,602 Office furniture and equipment 132,914 6,834 – – 139,748 Vehicles 997,960 174,745 (81,964) – 1,090,741 Total accumulated depreciation 10,080,042 994,133 (81,964) – 10,992,211 Total capital assets being depreciated – net 23,308,420 (688,772) (54,643) – 22,565,005 Governmental activities capital assets – net 26,418,066$ 1,250,792$ (54,643)$ –$ 27,614,215$ B. Business-Type Activities Beginning Completed Ending Balance Increases Decreases Construction Balance Primary government Business-type activities Capital assets, not being depreciated Construction in progress 381,935$ 1,588,040$ –$ (384,253)$ 1,585,722$ Capital assets, being depreciated Buildings and structures 835,040 – – – 835,040 Distribution and collection systems 27,963,810 19,171 – 384,253 28,367,234 Machinery and equipment 641,298 – – – 641,298 Office furniture and equipment 8,415 – – – 8,415 Total capital assets, being depreciated 29,448,563 19,171 – 384,253 29,851,987 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings and structures 254,893 41,543 – – 296,436 Distribution and collection systems 9,665,805 635,905 – – 10,301,710 Machinery and equipment 311,585 27,441 – – 339,026 Office furniture and equipment 8,415 – – – 8,415 Total accumulated depreciation 10,240,698 704,889 – – 10,945,587 Total capital assets, being depreciated – net 19,207,865 (685,718) – 384,253 18,906,400 Business-type activities capital assets – net 19,589,800$ 902,322$ –$ –$ 20,492,122$ -34- NOTE 3 – CAPITAL ASSETS (CONTINUED) C. Depreciation Expense by Function Depreciation expense was charged to the following functions: Governmental activities General government 94,509$ Public safety 9,425 Public works 572,582 Parks and recreation 256,231 Economic development 61,386 994,133$ Business-type activities Water 365,453$ Sewer 194,428 Surface water management 145,008 704,889$ NOTE 4 – LONG-TERM LIABILITIES A. General Obligation Bonds Payable The City currently has the following general obligation bonds payable outstanding: Final Maturity Authorized Balance – Issue Date Date and Issued End of Year Business-type activities General Obligation Bonds Utility Revenue Bonds of 2018A 07/18/2018 02/01/2029 3.00–4.00 %2,415,000$ 2,005,000$ Interest Rate These bonds were issued to finance acquisition, construction, and/or improvements of capital facilities. Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund revenues will be used to repay this debt. The liability is recorded in the applicable enterprise fund. B. Other Long-Term Liabilities • Compensated Absences – This liability represents vested benefits earned by employees through the end of the year, which will be paid or used in future periods. The General, special revenue, enterprise, and internal service funds will be used to liquidate this liability. • Net Pension Liability – This liability represents the City’s pension benefit obligations as further described later in these notes. The General, Water, Sewer, and Surface Water Management Funds will be used to liquidate this liability. -35- NOTE 4 – LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (CONTINUED) C. Changes in General Obligation Bonds and Compensated Absences Payable Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Deletions Balance One Year Governmental activities Compensated absences 106,271$ 98,540$ 105,095$ 99,716$ 74,787$ Business-type activities Utility revenue bonds 2,215,000 – 210,000 2,005,000 220,000 Premium 125,838 – 15,557 110,281 – Total bonds 2,340,838 – 225,557 2,115,281 220,000 Compensated absences 76,829 80,642 79,879 77,592 58,193 Total business-type activities 2,417,667 80,642 305,437 2,192,873 278,193 Total government-wide 2,523,938$ 179,182$ 410,532$ 2,292,589$ 352,980$ D. Minimum Debt Payments Minimum annual payments required to retire bonds are as follows: Year Ending December 31,Principal Interest 2022 220,000$ 70,200$ 2023 225,000 61,300 2024 235,000 52,100 2025 245,000 42,500 2026 255,000 32,500 2027 265,000 22,100 2028 275,000 12,675 2029 285,000 4,275 2,005,000$ 297,650$ Business-Type Activities Utility Revenue Bonds E. Revenue Pledged Future revenue pledged for the payment of long-term debt is as follows: Percent of Remaining Principal Pledged Use of Total Term of Principal and Interest Revenue Debt Issue Proceeds Type Debt Service Pledge and Interest Paid Received Utility Revenue Bonds of 2018A Utility improvements Utility charges 100%2018–2029 2,302,650$ 288,800$ 5,401,871$ Revenue Pledged Current Year -36- NOTE 5 – NET POSITION/FUND BALANCES A. Net Investment in Capital Assets The government-wide Statement of Net Position at December 31, 2021 includes the City’s net investment in capital assets calculated as follows: Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total Net investment in capital assets: Capital assets Nondepreciable 5,049,210$ 1,585,722$ 6,634,932$ Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 22,565,005 18,906,400 41,471,405 Less capital related long-term debt outstanding – (2,115,281) (2,115,281) Less capital related accounts/contracts payable (139,256) (3,506) (142,762) Total net investment in capital assets 27,474,959$ 18,373,335$ 45,848,294$ B. Governmental Fund Balance Classifications At December 31, 2021, a summary of the City’s governmental fund balance classifications are as follows: Permanent Other Improvement Governmental General Revolving Funds Total Nonspendable Prepaid items 31,152$ –$ 3,878$ 35,030$ Restricted for Tax increment purposes – – 1,129,558 1,129,558 Cable TV – – 90,729 90,729 Total restricted – – 1,220,287 1,220,287 Committed for Economic development authority – – 654,042 654,042 Assigned for Compensated absences 99,096 – – 99,096 Subsequent year’s budget 140,000 – – 140,000 Capital improvements – 4,990,120 261,891 5,252,011 Park improvements – – 565,169 565,169 Public safety capital equipment – – 173,067 173,067 Total assigned 239,096 4,990,120 1,000,127 6,229,343 Unassigned 2,899,564 – (223,538) 2,676,026 Total 3,169,812$ 4,990,120$ 2,654,796$ 10,814,728$ C. Minimum Unassigned Fund Balance Policy The City Council has formally adopted a fund balance policy regarding the minimum unassigned fund balance for the General Fund. The policy establishes the City will strive to maintain an unassigned General Fund balance of 50.0 percent of the subsequent year’s General Fund budgeted expenditures. At December 31, 2021, the unassigned fund balance of the General Fund was 55.3 percent of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. -37- NOTE 6 – DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN – STATE-WIDE A. Plan Descriptions The City participates in the following cost-sharing, multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the PERA of Minnesota. The PERA’s defined benefit pension plan is established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. The PERA’s defined benefit pension plan is a tax qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by the GERF. The GERF members belong to the Coordinated Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security. B. Benefits Provided The PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statutes and can only be modified by the State Legislature. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits, but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. GERF Benefits Benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for the PERA’s Coordinated Plan members. Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of Method 1 or Method 2 formulas. Only Method 2 is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under Method 1, the accrual rate for Coordinated Plan members is 1.2 percent for each of the first 10 years of service, and 1.7 percent for each additional year. Under Method 2, the accrual rate for Coordinated Plan members is 1.7 percent for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90, and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989, normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at age 66. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The post-retirement increase is equal to 50.0 percent of the cost of living adjustment (COLA) announced by the Social Security Administration, with a minimum increase of at least 1.0 percent and a maximum of 1.5 percent. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase, will receive the full increase. Recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least one month, but less than a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase, will receive a reduced prorated increase. For members retiri ng on January 1, 2024 or later, the increase will be delayed until normal retirement age (age 65 if hired prior to July 1, 1989, or age 66 for individuals hired on or after July 1, 1989). Members retiring under Rule of 90 are exempt from the delay to normal retirement. C. Contributions Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the State Legislature. -38- NOTE 6 – DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN – STATE-WIDE (CONTINUED) GERF Contributions Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 6.50 percent of their annual covered salary in fiscal year 2021, and the City was required to contribute 7.50 percent for Coordinated Plan members. The City’s contributions to the GERF for the year ended December 31, 2021, were $123,572. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statutes. D. Pension Costs GERF Pension Costs At December 31, 2021, the City reported a liability of $1,041,989 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s net pension liability. The City’s net pension liability reflected a reduction, due to the state of Minnesota’s contribution of $16.0 million. The state of Minnesota is considered a nonemployer contributing entity and the state’s contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The state of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $31,890. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2021, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by the PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of the PERA ’s participating employers. The City’s proportionate share was 0.0244 percent at the end of the measurement period and 0.0241 percent for the beginning of the period. The amount recognized by the City as its proportionate share of the net pension liability, the di rect aid, and total portion of the net pension liability that was associated with the City were as follows: City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability 1,041,989$ State’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City 31,890$ For the year ended December 31, 2021, the City recognized pension expense of $29,729 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s pension expense. In addition, the City recognized an additional $2,563 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the state of Minnesota’s contribution of $16.0 million to the GERF. At December 31, 2021, the City reported its proportionate share of the GERF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Deferred Outflows Inflows of Resources of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience 5,720$ 31,842$ Changes in actuarial assumptions 636,216 22,077 Net collective difference between projected and actual investment earnings – 901,163 Changes in proportion 77,071 – Contributions paid to the PERA subsequent to the measurement date 59,392 – Total 778,399$ 955,082$ -39- NOTE 6 – DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN – STATE-WIDE (CONTINUED) A total of $59,392 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from city contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ending December 31, 2022. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Pension Year Ending Expense December 31,Amount 2022 (5,978)$ 2023 20,093$ 2024 (4,055)$ 2025 (246,135)$ E. Long-Term Expected Return on Investments The Minnesota State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of the PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best-estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: Asset Class Domestic equity 33.50 % 5.10 % International equity 16.50 5.30 % Fixed income 25.00 0.75 % Private markets 25.00 5.90 % Total 100.00 % Allocation Target Real Rate of Return Long-Term Expected F. Actuarial Assumptions The total pension liability in the June 30, 2021, actuarial valuation was determined using an individual entry-age normal actuarial cost method. The long-term rate of return on pension plan investments used in the determination of the total liability is 6.50 percent. This assumption is based on a review o f inflation and investments return assumptions from a number of national investment consulting firms. The review provided a range of return investment return rates deemed to be reasonable by the actuary. An investment return of 6.50 percent was deemed to be within that range of reasonableness for financial reporting purposes. Inflation is assumed to be 2.25 percent for the General Employees Plan. Benefit increases after retirement are assumed to be 1.25 percent for the General Employees Plan. Salary growth assumptions in the General Employees Plan range in annual increments from 10.25 percent after one year of service to 3.00 percent after 29 years of service, and 6.00 percent per year thereafter. -40- NOTE 6 – DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN – STATE-WIDE (CONTINUED) Mortality rates for the General Employees Plan are based on the Pub-2010 General Employee Mortality Table. The table is adjusted slightly to fit the PERA’s experience. Actuarial assumptions for the General Employees Plan are reviewed every four years. The most recent four-year experience study for the General Employees Plan was completed in 2019. The assumption changes were adopted by the Board and became effective with the July 1, 2020 actuarial valuation. The following changes in actuarial assumptions and plan provisions occurred in 2021: GERF – CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.50 percent to 6.50 percent, for financial reporting purposes. • The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2019 to Scale MP-2020. G. Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2021 was 6.50 percent. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members and employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary net positions of the GERF were projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. H. Pension Liability Sensitivity The following table presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a disc ount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate: 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate 5.50%6.50%7.50% City’s proportionate share of the GERF net pension liability 2,125,126$ 1,041,989$ 153,209$ I. Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained on the internet at www.mnpera.org. -41- NOTE 7 – INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES, AND TRANSFERS A. Interfund Receivable and Payable Interfund receivable and payable balances at December 31, 2021 are as follows: Fund Receivable Payable Governmental funds Permanent Improvement Revolving 194,879$ –$ Nonmajor – other governmental 29,016 223,895 Intra-activity eliminations (223,895) (223,895) Total governmental funds –$ –$ Interfund receivables and payables are used for temporary cash deficits. These balances will be eliminated with park dedication fees, future charges for services, grants, and other internal fund transfers, if needed. B. Transfers In and Transfers Out Permanent Nonmajor – Improvement Other Transfers Out Revolving Governmental Total Governmental funds General Fund 548,000$ –$ 548,000$ Proprietary funds Water – 100,000 100,000 Sewer – 126,000 126,000 Surface Water Management – 74,000 74,000 Total 548,000$ 300,000$ 848,000$ Transfers In Governmental Funds Transfers are made in accordance with budget appropriations or as approved by the City Council for special funding of city activities. All of the transfers presented above were approved by the City Council to finance current and future capital expenditures of the City. -42- NOTE 8 – DEFICIT FUND BALANCES/NET POSITION The City had deficit fund balances/net position at December 31, 2021 as follows: Amount Governmental funds Nonmajor – EDA TIF District No. 5 22,047$ Nonmajor – Karth Lake Improvement District 6,612 Nonmajor – TCAAP 194,879 223,538$ These fund deficits will be eliminated with future contributions, grants, and internal fund transfers, if needed. NOTE 9 – TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENTS The City, in order to spur economic development and redevelopment, will enter into private development and redevelopment agreements to encourage a developer to construct, expand, or improve new or existing properties and buildings or clean-up and redevelop blighted areas. These agreements may in substance be a tax abatement, but will depend on their individual circumstances. The City currently has one agreement that would be considered a tax abatement under GASB Statement No. 77. In 2013, the City entered into a development agreement with Presbyterian Homes of Arden Hills, Inc. to aid in financing certain public development costs and administrative costs of a project undertaken. For this agreement, the City used an economic development vehicle known as tax increment financing, whereby tax increment revenue is generated on the incremental increase in value above a base value established on the date that the tax increment district is created. The City will abate 75 percent of the incremental taxes received through February 2028, through execution of a tax increment revenue note to be retired in 2028. The outstanding principal balance as of December 31, 2021 was $52,221, and the City rebated $282,880 in the current year. The City is authorized to create a tax increment financing plan under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469.175. The criteria that must be met under the statutes are that, in the opinion of the municipality: • The proposed development or redevelopment would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; • The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing, would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the plan. The requirements of this item do not apply if the district is a housing district; • The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole; and • The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the project by private enterprise. -43- NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A. Risk Management The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts: theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters for which the City carries insurance . The City obtains insurance through participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), which is a risk-sharing pool with other governmental units. The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT for its workers’ compensation and property and casualty insurance. The LMCIT is self-sustaining through member premiums and will reinsure for claims above a prescribed dollar amount for each insurance event. There were no significant reductions in insurance from the previous year or settled claims in excess of insurance coverage for any of the past three fiscal years. Liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities, if any, include an amount for claims that have been incurred, but not reported. The City’s management is not aware of any incurred, but unreported claims. B. Litigation The City has the usual and customary type of miscellaneous legal claims pending at year -end. Although the outcome of these lawsuits is not presently determinable, the City’s management believes that the City will not incur any material monetary loss resulting from these claims. No loss has been recorded on the City’s financial statements relating to these claims. C. Federal and State Funds Amounts recorded or receivable from federal and state agencies are subject to agency audit and adjustment. Any disallowed claims, including amounts already collected, may constitute a liability of the applicable funds. The amount, if any, of claims which may be disallowed by the grantor agencies cannot be determined at this time, although the City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. D. Tax Increment Districts The City’s tax increment districts are subject to review by the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor. Any disallowed claims or misuse of tax increments could become a liability of the applicable fund. Management has indicated that they are not aware of any instances of noncompliance , which would have a material effect on the financial statements. E. Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. The City receives fire protection under a contract with the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. The contract calls for annual payments and expires December 31, 2023, with an extension option through December 31, 2038. The contract cost will be based on the budget submitted by the fire department and approved by the City. Capital costs are billed separately, in addition to the contract rate. The amount expended under the contract was $656,401 in 2021. -44- NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (CONTINUED) F. Construction Contract Commitments At year-end, the City had the following construction project commitments: Project Amount Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 2021 pavement management program 131,312$ Sewer Fund Lift station 10 rehabilitation 130,700 2021 sewer lining 190,250 452,262$ NOTE 11 – CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATION The City has issued private activity bonds to provide financial assistance to private sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest . The bonds constitute special obligations of the City, payable solely from revenues of the projects pledged to the payment thereof. The bonds do not constitute a debt of the City and the City has no obligation for repayment. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the City’s financial statements. Bonds outstanding at December 31, 2021 are as follows: Amount Bond Description Outstanding Commercial Facilities Revenue Note, Series 2008 Office facilities 2,609,066$ Housing Facility Revenue Note, Series 2011A Senior housing 7,615,034 Housing Facility Revenue Note, Series 2011B Senior housing 7,615,034 Housing Facility Revenue Note, Series 2012A Senior housing 7,615,034 Housing Facility Revenue Note, Series 2012B Senior housing 1,516,590 Housing Facility Revenue Note, Series 2015 Senior housing 8,337,599 Total 35,308,357$ NOTE 12 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS A. New Accounting Standards A new standard has been issued by the GASB that will result in significant changes in the reporting of leases once it becomes effective for governmental entities. This standard will be adopted by the City beginning in 2022, and will require the restatement of certain balances reported as of December 31, 2021. The effects of this change have not yet been determined and are not reflected in these financial statements. B. COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant financial and operational impacts on the City for the last two fiscal years. Any potential impact it may have on the City’s future operations and financial condition cannot be determined at this time and has not been reflected in these financial statements. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Proportionate Share of the City’s Net Pension Proportionate Liability and City’s Share of the the City’s Proportionate Plan Fiduciary State of Share of the Share of the Net Position City’s City’s Minnesota’s State of Net Pension as a PERA Fiscal Proportion Proportionate Proportionate Minnesota’s Liability as a Percentage Year-End Date of the Net Share of the Share of the Share of the City’s Percentage of of the Total (Measurement Pension Net Pension Net Pension Net Pension Covered Covered Pension Date)Liability Liability Liability Liability Payroll Payroll Liability 06/30/2015 0.0283% 1,466,653$ –$ 1,466,653$ 1,662,826$ 88.20% 78.20% 06/30/2016 0.0267% 2,167,909$ 28,367$ 2,196,276$ 1,669,147$ 129.88% 68.90% 06/30/2017 0.0230% 1,468,305$ 18,435$ 1,486,740$ 1,479,483$ 99.24% 75.90% 06/30/2018 0.0218% 1,209,375$ 39,819$ 1,249,194$ 1,467,987$ 82.38% 79.50% 06/30/2019 0.0218% 1,205,274$ 37,332$ 1,242,606$ 1,540,669$ 78.23% 80.20% 06/30/2020 0.0241% 1,444,905$ 44,478$ 1,489,383$ 1,715,236$ 84.24% 79.10% 06/30/2021 0.0244% 1,041,989$ 31,890$ 1,073,879$ 1,758,683$ 59.25% 87.00% Contributions Contributions in Relation to as a Statutorily the Statutorily Contribution Percentage Required Required Deficiency Covered of Covered Contributions Contributions (Excess)Payroll Payroll 129,774$ 129,774$ –$ 1,731,651$ 7.49% 115,814$ 115,814$ –$ 1,553,950$ 7.45% 106,513$ 106,513$ –$ 1,420,174$ 7.50% 111,628$ 111,628$ –$ 1,488,376$ 7.50% 121,063$ 121,063$ –$ 1,614,175$ 7.50% 134,798$ 134,798$ –$ 1,797,307$ 7.50% 123,572$ 123,572$ –$ 1,647,630$ 7.50% Note: 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 12/31/2021 12/31/2018 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 City Fiscal 12/31/2016 12/31/2015 The City implemented GASB Statement No.68 in fiscal 2015 (using a June 30,2015 measurement date).This schedule is intended to present 10-year trend information. Additional years will be added as they become available. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PERA – General Employees Retirement Fund Schedule of City’s and Nonemployer Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability PERA – General Employees Retirement Fund Schedule of City Contributions Year-End Date City Fiscal 12/31/2016 12/31/2015 Year Ended December 31, 2021 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Year Ended December 31, 2021 12/31/2017 Year-End Date -45- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Original Final Actual Variance With Budget Budget Amounts Final Budget Revenues General property taxes 3,715,930$ 3,715,930$ 3,763,384$ 47,454$ Special assessments 1,060 1,060 4,514 3,454 Licenses and permits Business 69,410 50,420 55,268 4,848 Nonbusiness 525,100 525,100 697,264 172,164 Total licenses and permits 594,510 575,520 752,532 177,012 Intergovernmental State Road maintenance 89,900 89,900 96,895 6,995 Police aid 57,830 57,830 63,384 5,554 Total intergovernmental 147,730 147,730 160,279 12,549 Charges for services General government 17,800 17,800 18,570 770 Public safety 206,610 206,610 249,389 42,779 Parks and recreation 122,360 122,360 90,632 (31,728) Administrative charges 106,780 106,780 101,047 (5,733) Total charges for services 453,550 453,550 459,638 6,088 Fines and forfeits 27,650 27,650 21,500 (6,150) Earnings on investments (charges)18,600 18,600 (13,315) (31,915) Antenna rental fees 146,100 146,100 146,101 1 Miscellaneous reimbursements 13,470 13,470 7,513 (5,957) Other 3,660 3,660 2,444 (1,216) Total revenues 5,122,260 5,103,270 5,304,590 201,320 Expenditures Current General government City Council Personal services 37,220 37,220 37,209 11 Other services and charges 36,740 36,740 30,052 6,688 Total City Council 73,960 73,960 67,261 6,699 Elections Other services and charges 31,850 31,850 31,631 219 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund Year Ended December 31, 2021 -46-(continued) Original Final Actual Variance With Budget Budget Amounts Final Budget Expenditures (continued) Current (continued) General government (continued) Administration Personal services 234,470 234,470 219,151 15,319 Materials and supplies 650 650 – 650 Other services and charges 136,800 136,800 127,830 8,970 Total administration 371,920 371,920 346,981 24,939 Finance Personal services 68,420 68,420 68,026 394 Materials and supplies 20,500 20,500 10,229 10,271 Other services and charges 96,980 96,980 71,996 24,984 Total finance 185,900 185,900 150,251 35,649 TCAAP Personal services 34,130 34,130 22,284 11,846 Other services and charges 51,000 51,000 15,429 35,571 Total TCAAP 85,130 85,130 37,713 47,417 Planning and zoning Personal services 166,900 166,900 114,784 52,116 Other services and charges 63,230 63,230 88,977 (25,747) Total planning and zoning 230,130 230,130 203,761 26,369 General government buildings Personal services 31,750 31,750 32,563 (813) Materials and supplies 9,500 9,500 5,058 4,442 Other services and charges 155,780 155,780 139,063 16,717 Total general government buildings 197,030 197,030 176,684 20,346 Total general government 1,175,920 1,175,920 1,014,282 161,638 Public safety Police and animal control Other services and charges 1,390,240 1,390,240 1,376,846 13,394 Dispatch Other services and charges 55,800 55,800 54,283 1,517 Fire protection Other services and charges 656,400 656,400 656,401 (1) Emergency management Personal services 4,840 4,840 5,071 (231) Other services and charges 950 950 927 23 Total emergency management 5,790 5,790 5,998 (208) CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund (continued) Year Ended December 31, 2021 -47-(continued) Original Final Actual Variance With Budget Budget Amounts Final Budget Expenditures (continued) Current (continued) Public safety (continued) Protective inspections Personal services 281,460 281,460 195,500 85,960 Materials and supplies 1,000 1,000 204 796 Other services and charges 65,520 65,520 418,905 (353,385) Total protective inspections 347,980 347,980 614,609 (266,629) Total public safety 2,456,210 2,456,210 2,708,137 (251,927) Public works Street maintenance Personal services 308,480 308,480 263,799 44,681 Materials and supplies 50,000 50,000 50,019 (19) Other services and charges 397,060 397,060 304,418 92,642 Total public works 755,540 755,540 618,236 137,304 Parks and recreation Park maintenance Personal services 371,370 371,370 320,174 51,196 Materials and supplies 37,600 37,600 37,554 46 Other services and charges 153,610 153,610 127,473 26,137 Total park maintenance 562,580 562,580 485,201 77,379 Recreation Personal services 178,660 178,660 111,452 67,208 Materials and supplies 24,250 24,250 6,352 17,898 Other services and charges 59,820 59,820 23,624 36,196 Total recreation 262,730 262,730 141,428 121,302 Total parks and recreation 825,310 825,310 626,629 198,681 Total expenditures 5,212,980 5,212,980 4,967,284 245,696 Revenues over (under) expenditures (90,720) (109,710) 337,306 447,016 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers out – (548,000) (548,000) – Net change in fund balance (90,720)$ (657,710)$ (210,694) 447,016$ Fund balance – beginning 3,380,506 Fund balance – ending 3,169,812$ Year Ended December 31, 2021 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund (continued) -48- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Notes to Required Supplementary Information December 31, 2021 -49- NOTE 1 – LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the fund level. Budgeted appropriations lapse at year-end. NOTE 2 – PERA – GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND 2021 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.50 percent to 6.50 percent, for financial reporting purposes. • The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2019 to Scale MP-2020. 2020 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.50 percent to 2.25 percent. • The payroll growth assumption was decreased from 3.25 percent to 3.00 percent. • Assumed salary increase rates were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The net effect is assumed rates that average 0.25 percent less than previous rates. • Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The changes result in more unreduced (normal) retirements and slightly fewer Rule of 90 and early retirements. • Assumed rates of termination were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The new rates are based on service and are generally lower than the previous rates for years two through five, and slightly higher thereafter. • Assumed rates of disability were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019 experience study. The change results in fewer predicted disability retirements for males and females. • The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014 Table to the Pub-2010 General Mortality Table, with adjustments. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 Disabled Annuitant Mortality Table to the Pub-2010 General/Teacher Disabled Annuitant Mortality Table, with adjustments. • The mortality improvement scale was changed from MP-2018 to MP-2019. • The assumed spouse age difference was changed from two years older for females to one year older. • The assumed number of married male new retirees electing the 100.00 percent joint and survivor option changed from 35.00 percent to 45.00 percent. The assumed number of married female new retirees electing the 100.00 percent joint and survivor option changed from 15.00 percent to 30.00 percent. The corresponding number of married new retirees electing the life annuity option was adjusted accordingly. 2020 CHANGES IN PLAN PROVISIONS • Augmentation for current privatized members was reduced to 2.00 percent for the period July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023, and zero percent thereafter. Augmentation was eliminated for privatizations occurring after June 30, 2020. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Notes to Required Supplementary Information (continued) December 31, 2021 -50- NOTE 2 – PERA – GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND (CONTINUED) 2019 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018. 2019 CHANGES IN PLAN PROVISIONS • The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively, decreasing from $31.0 million to $21.0 million per year. The state’s special funding contribution was changed prospectively, requiring $16.0 million due per year through 2031. 2018 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017. • The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2044, and 2.50 percent per year thereafter, to 1.25 percent per year. 2018 CHANGES IN PLAN PROVISIONS • The augmentation adjustment in early retirement factors is eliminated over a five-year period starting July 1, 2019, resulting in actuarial equivalence after June 30, 2024. • Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00 percent to 3.00 percent, beginning July 1, 2018. • Deferred augmentation was changed to zero percent, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that has already accrued for deferred members will still apply. • Contribution stabilizer provisions were repealed. • Post-retirement benefit increases were changed from 1.00 percent per year with a provision to increase to 2.50 percent upon attainment of 90.00 percent funding ratio to 50.00 percent of the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment, not less than 1.00 percent and not more than 1.50 percent, beginning January 1, 2019. • For retirements on or after January 1, 2024, the first benefit increase is delayed until the retiree reaches normal retirement age; does not apply to Rule of 90 r etirees, disability benefit recipients, or survivors. • Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest assumptions. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Notes to Required Supplementary Information (continued) December 31, 2021 -51- NOTE 2 – PERA – GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND (CONTINUED) 2017 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) loads were changed from 0.80 percent for active members and 60.00 percent for vested and nonvested deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now zero percent for active member liability, 15.00 percent for vested deferred member liability, and 3.00 percent for nonvested deferred member liability. • The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year for all years, to 1.00 percent per year through 2044, and 2.50 percent per year thereafter. 2017 CHANGES IN PLAN PROVISIONS • The state’s contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund equals $16.0 million in 2017 and 2018, and $6.0 million thereafter. • The Employer Supplemental Contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund changed from $21.0 million to $31.0 million in calendar years 2019 to 2031. The state’s contribution changed from $16.0 million to $6.0 million in calendar years 2019 to 2031. 2016 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2035, and 2.50 percent per year thereafter, to 1.00 percent per year for all years. • The assumed investment return was changed from 7.90 percent to 7.50 percent. The single discount rate changed from 7.90 percent to 7.50 percent. • Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25 percent to 3.25 percent for payroll growth, and 2.50 percent for inflation. 2015 CHANGES IN ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS • The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2030, and 2.50 percent per year thereafter, to 1.00 percent per year through 2035, and 2.50 percent per year thereafter. 2015 CHANGES IN PLAN PROVISIONS • On January 1, 2015, the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund was merged into the General Employees Fund, which increased the total pension liability by $1.1 billion and increased the fiduciary plan net position by $892.0 million. Upon consolidation, state and employer contributions were revised; the state’s contribution of $6.0 million, which meets the special funding situation definition, was due September 2015. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Special Revenue Funds – Special revenue funds are used to account for revenues derived from specific taxes or other earmarked revenue sources. They are usually required by statutes, local ordinance, and/or resolution to finance particular functions, activities, or governments. Capital Project Funds – Capital project funds account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds). Total Nonmajor Governmental Special Revenue Capital Project Funds Assets Cash and investments 1,998,885$ 1,117,591$ 3,116,476$ Accrued interest receivable 4,603 2,560 7,163 Accounts receivable 24,129 11,171 35,300 Taxes receivable 358 – 358 Interfund receivable 29,016 – 29,016 Prepaid items 3,878 – 3,878 Total assets 2,060,869$ 1,131,322$ 3,192,191$ Liabilities Accounts payable 143,320$ 131,195$ 274,515$ Interfund payable 29,016 194,879 223,895 Unearned revenue 38,984 – 38,984 Total liabilities 211,320 326,074 537,394 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue – taxes 1 – 1 Fund balances (deficits) Nonspendable 3,878 – 3,878 Restricted 1,220,287 – 1,220,287 Committed 654,042 – 654,042 Assigned – 1,000,127 1,000,127 Unassigned (28,659) (194,879) (223,538) Total fund balances (deficits)1,849,548 805,248 2,654,796 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 2,060,869$ 1,131,322$ 3,192,191$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021 -52- Total Nonmajor Governmental Special Revenue Capital Project Funds Revenues Property taxes General property taxes 106,610$ 170,000$ 276,610$ Tax increments 396,891 – 396,891 Earnings on investments (charges)(4,466) (2,328) (6,794) Franchise taxes 97,549 – 97,549 Other – 364,932 364,932 Total revenues 596,584 532,604 1,129,188 Expenditures Current General government 122,906 – 122,906 Economic development 349,341 – 349,341 Capital outlay General government – 290,193 290,193 Public safety – 111,065 111,065 Public works – 279,173 279,173 Parks and recreation – 19,238 19,238 Total expenditures 472,247 699,669 1,171,916 Revenues over (under) expenditures 124,337 (167,065) (42,728) Other financing sources Sale of capital assets – 33,070 33,070 Transfers in – 300,000 300,000 Total other financing sources – 333,070 333,070 Net change in fund balances 124,337 166,005 290,342 Fund balances – beginning 1,725,211 639,243 2,364,454 Fund balances – ending 1,849,548$ 805,248$ 2,654,796$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Year Ended December 31, 2021 -53- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The City had the following nonmajor special revenue funds during the year: Cable Fund – This fund was established to account for transactions associated with cable television in the City. Revenues are franchise fees from Comcast. Expenditures include the operation of the North Suburban Cable Commission and other costs relating to cable television activity, internet, and other forms of communication. EDA Operating Fund – The EDA Operating Fund accounts for revenue sources, including tax increments and other sources, that are legally restricted or committed to expenditures for specified purposes (not including major capital projects). EDA TIF District No. 3 Fund – This fund was established as a Housing District in 1993. The revenue is derived from tax increment and expenditures are for developer reimbursements and administrative ependitures. This tax increment district was decertified in 2019. EDA TIF District No. 4 Fund – This fund was established as a redevelopment plan for Presbyterian Homes of Arden Hills, Inc. in 2010. The revenue is derived from tax increment and expenditures are for developer reimbursements and administrative ependitures. EDA TIF District No. 5 Fund – This fund was established in 2019. The revenue is derived from tax increment and expenditures are for economic development and administrative ependitures. Karth Lake Improvement District Fund – This fund accounts for revenue sources, including taxes, that are restricted to finance capital and other improvements within the Karth Lake Improvement District. American Rescue Plan Act Fund – This fund was established in 2021. The funding is derived from federal appropriations distributed to the City for lost public sector revenue, investments in water, sewer, broadband infrastructure, and other purposes identified in the act. EDA EDA EDA EDA TIF District TIF District TIF District Cable Operating No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 Assets Cash and investments 68,305$ 645,550$ 783,595$ 462,451$ –$ Accrued interest receivable 176 1,523 1,845 1,059 – Accounts receivable 24,129 – – – – Taxes receivable – – – – – Interfund receivable – 6,969 22,047 – – Prepaid items 14 3,864 – – – Total assets 92,624$ 657,906$ 807,487$ 463,510$ –$ Liabilities Accounts payable 1,881$ –$ –$ 141,439$ –$ Interfund payable – – – – 22,047 Unearned revenue – – – – – Total liabilities 1,881 – – 141,439 22,047 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue – taxes – – – – – Fund balances (deficits) Nonspendable 14 3,864 – – – Restricted 90,729 – 807,487 322,071 – Committed – 654,042 – – – Unassigned – – – – (22,047) Total fund balances (deficits)90,743 657,906 807,487 322,071 (22,047) Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 92,624$ 657,906$ 807,487$ 463,510$ –$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021 -54- Total Nonmajor Karth Lake American Special Improvement Rescue Plan Revenue District Act Funds –$ 38,984$ 1,998,885$ – – 4,603 – – 24,129 358 – 358 – – 29,016 – – 3,878 358$ 38,984$ 2,060,869$ –$ –$ 143,320$ 6,969 – 29,016 – 38,984 38,984 6,969 38,984 211,320 1 – 1 – – 3,878 – – 1,220,287 – – 654,042 (6,612) – (28,659) (6,612) – 1,849,548 358$ 38,984$ 2,060,869$ -55- EDA EDA EDA EDA TIF District TIF District TIF District Cable Operating No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 Revenues Property taxes General property taxes –$ 100,000$ –$ –$ –$ Tax increments – – 19,717 377,174 – Earnings on investments (charges)(270) (1,576) (2,030) (590) – Franchise taxes 97,549 – – – – Total revenues 97,279 98,424 17,687 376,584 – Expenditures Current General government 122,906 – – – – Economic development – 63,211 1,592 284,491 47 Total expenditures 122,906 63,211 1,592 284,491 47 Revenues over (under) expenditures (25,627) 35,213 16,095 92,093 (47) Fund balances (deficits) – beginning 116,370 622,693 791,392 229,978 (22,000) Fund balances (deficits) – ending 90,743$ 657,906$ 807,487$ 322,071$ (22,047)$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Year Ended December 31, 2021 -56- Total Nonmajor Karth Lake American Special Improvement Rescue Plan Revenue District Act Funds 6,610$ –$ 106,610$ – – 396,891 – – (4,466) – – 97,549 6,610 – 596,584 – – 122,906 – – 349,341 – – 472,247 6,610 – 124,337 (13,222) – 1,725,211 (6,612)$ –$ 1,849,548$ -57- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS The City had the following nonmajor capital project funds during the year: Equipment, Building, and Replacement Fund – This fund was established for resources designated to be used for the purchase of capital equipment and building repairs. Parks Fund – This fund was established for park/trail acquisition and development. Revenue for this fund comes from developer park dedication fees, contributions, state grants, and investment interest. Public Safety Capital Equipment Fund – This fund was established to account for resources designated to be used for the City’s share of public safety equipment through contracts with the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. and Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department. TCAAP Fund – This fund was established to account for resources designated to be used for the City’s share of capital costs related to the approximately 430-acre TCAAP site purchased by Ramsey County. Total Equipment,Public Safety Nonmajor Building, and Capital Capital Replacement Parks Equipment TCAAP Project Funds Assets Cash and investments 390,916$ 557,392$ 169,283$ –$ 1,117,591$ Accrued interest receivable 895 1,277 388 – 2,560 Accounts receivable – 6,500 4,671 – 11,171 Total assets 391,811$ 565,169$ 174,342$ –$ 1,131,322$ Liabilities Accounts payable 129,920$ –$ 1,275$ –$ 131,195$ Interfund payable – – – 194,879 194,879 Total liabilities 129,920 – 1,275 194,879 326,074 Fund balances (deficits) Assigned 261,891 565,169 173,067 – 1,000,127 Unassigned – – – (194,879) (194,879) Total fund balances (deficits)261,891 565,169 173,067 (194,879) 805,248 Total liabilities and fund balances 391,811$ 565,169$ 174,342$ –$ 1,131,322$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Nonmajor Capital Project Funds Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021 -58- Total Equipment,Public Safety Nonmajor Building, and Capital Capital Replacement Parks Equipment TCAAP Project Funds Revenues Property taxes General property taxes 50,000$ –$ 120,000$ –$ 170,000$ Earnings on investments (charges)(793) (1,042) (493) – (2,328) Other – 325,931 39,001 – 364,932 Total revenues 49,207 324,889 158,508 – 532,604 Expenditures Capital outlay General government 283,556 6,637 – – 290,193 Public safety – – 111,065 – 111,065 Public works 279,173 – – – 279,173 Parks and recreation 19,238 – – – 19,238 Total expenditures 581,967 6,637 111,065 – 699,669 Revenues over (under) expenditures (532,760) 318,252 47,443 – (167,065) Other financing sources Sale of capital assets 33,070 – – – 33,070 Transfers in 300,000 – – – 300,000 Total other financing sources 333,070 – – – 333,070 Net changes in fund balances (199,690) 318,252 47,443 – 166,005 Fund balances (deficits) – beginning 461,581 246,917 125,624 (194,879) 639,243 Fund balances (deficits) – ending 261,891$ 565,169$ 173,067$ (194,879)$ 805,248$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Nonmajor Capital Project Funds Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, Year Ended December 31, 2021 and Changes in Fund Balances -59- Variance With Original Budget Final Budget Actual Amounts Final Budget Revenues Earnings on investments (charges)800$ 800$ (270)$ (1,070)$ Franchise taxes 96,700 96,700 97,549 849 Total revenues 97,500 97,500 97,279 (221) Expenditures Current General government Personal services 48,750 48,750 43,688 5,062 Other services and charges 76,230 76,230 79,218 (2,988) Total expenditures 124,980 124,980 122,906 2,074 Net change in fund balances (27,480)$ (27,480)$ (25,627) 1,853$ Fund balances – beginning 116,370 Fund balances – ending 90,743$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Special Revenue Fund – Cable Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Budget and Actual Year Ended December 31, 2021 -60- Variance With Original Budget Final Budget Actual Amounts Final Budget Revenues Property taxes General property taxes 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ –$ Earnings on investments (charges)3,400 3,400 (1,576) (4,976) Total revenues 103,400 103,400 98,424 (4,976) Expenditures Economic development Current Personal services 49,760 49,760 37,671 12,089 Materials and supplies 400 400 – 400 Other services and charges 98,570 98,570 25,540 73,030 Total expenditures 148,730 148,730 63,211 85,519 Net change in fund balances (45,330)$ (45,330)$ 35,213 80,543$ Fund balance – beginning 622,693 Fund balance – ending 657,906$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Special Revenue Fund – EDA Operating Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Year Ended December 31, 2021 Budget and Actual -61- Variance With Original Budget Final Budget Actual Amounts Final Budget Revenues Property taxes Tax increments –$ –$ 19,717$ 19,717$ Earnings on investments (charges)4,800 4,800 (2,030) (6,830) Total revenues 4,800 4,800 17,687 12,887 Expenditures Current Economic development Other services and charges 1,800 1,800 1,592 208 Net change in fund balances 3,000$ 3,000$ 16,095 13,095$ Fund balances – beginning 791,392 Fund balances – ending 807,487$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Special Revenue Fund – EDA TIF District No. 3 Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Budget and Actual Year Ended December 31, 2021 -62- Variance With Original Budget Final Budget Actual Amounts Final Budget Revenues Property taxes Tax increments 302,240$ 302,240$ 377,174$ 74,934$ Earnings on investments (charges)900 900 (590) (1,490) Total revenues 303,140 303,140 376,584 73,444 Expenditures Current Economic development Other services and charges 228,480 228,480 284,491 (56,011) Net change in fund balances 74,660$ 74,660$ 92,093 17,433$ Fund balances – beginning 229,978 Fund balances – ending 322,071$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Special Revenue Fund – EDA TIF District No. 4 Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Budget and Actual Year Ended December 31, 2021 -63- Variance With Original Budget Final Budget Actual Amounts Final Budget Revenues Property taxes Tax increments –$ –$ –$ –$ Earnings on investments – – – – Total revenues – – – – Expenditures Current Economic development Other services and charges 1,800 1,800 47 1,753 Net change in fund balances (1,800)$ (1,800)$ (47) 1,753$ Fund balances (deficits) – beginning (22,000) Fund balances (deficits) – ending (22,047)$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Special Revenue Fund – EDA TIF District No. 5 Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Budget and Actual Year Ended December 31, 2021 -64- INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS The City had the following internal service funds during the year: Risk Management Fund – This fund was established to account for the payment of property, liability, and workers’ compensation insurance deductibles, and funds wellness activities for all departments. Engineering Fund – This fund was established to account for the costs related to engineering services. All costs are compiled in this fund and charged out to the departments based on usage. Central Garage Fund – This fund was established to account for certain public works department costs related to streets, parks, water, sanitary sewer, and surface water management. All costs are compiled in this fund and charged out to the departments based on usage. Technology Fund – This fund was established to account for costs related to technology. All costs are compiled in this fund and charged out to the departments based on usage. Total Risk Central Internal Management Engineering Garage Technology Service Funds Assets Current assets Cash and investments 163,793$ 22,602$ 18,432$ 4,506$ 209,333$ Accrued interest receivable 375 – – 10 385 Accounts receivable – – 106 – 106 Prepaid items – – 269 – 269 Total assets 164,168 22,602 18,807 4,516 210,093 Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable – 22,602 4,203 2,361 29,166 Due to other governmental units – – 14,604 750 15,354 Compensated absences payable – – – 465 465 Total current liabilities – 22,602 18,807 3,576 44,985 Noncurrent liabilities Compensated absences payable – – – 155 155 Total liabilities – 22,602 18,807 3,731 45,140 Net position Unrestricted 164,168$ –$ –$ 785$ 164,953$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Combining Statement of Net Position Internal Service Funds as of December 31, 2021 -65- Total Risk Central Internal Management Engineering Garage Technology Service Funds Operating revenues Charges for services 158,720$ 98,739$ 162,709$ 177,033$ 597,201$ Miscellaneous 8,342 – – – 8,342 Total operating revenues 167,062 98,739 162,709 177,033 605,543 Operating expenses Personal services – – – 5,506 5,506 Supplies and maintenance – – 88,104 97 88,201 Other services and charges 70,656 425 73,036 719 144,836 Purchased services 148,721 98,314 1,569 171,060 419,664 Total operating expenses 219,377 98,739 162,709 177,382 658,207 Operating income (loss)(52,315) – – (349) (52,664) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Earnings (charges) on investments (1,560) – – 4 (1,556) Change in net position (53,875) – – (345) (54,220) Net position – beginning 218,043 – – 1,130 .219,173 Net position – ending 164,168$ –$ –$ 785$ 164,953$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Internal Service Funds Year Ended December 31, 2021 -66- Total Risk Central Internal Management Engineering Garage Technology Service Funds Cash flows from operating activities Receipts from customers and users 175,446$ 98,739$ 162,603$ 177,033$ 613,821$ Payments to suppliers (442,335) (76,137) (163,149) (169,562) (851,183) Payments to employees – – – (5,410) (5,410) Net cash flows from operating activities (266,889) 22,602 (546) 2,061 (242,772) Cash flows from investing activities Earnings (charges) on investments (784) – – 1 (783) Net change in cash and cash equivalents (267,673) 22,602 (546) 2,062 (243,555) Cash and cash equivalents – beginning 431,466 – 18,978 2,444 452,888 Cash and cash equivalents – ending 163,793$ 22,602$ 18,432$ 4,506$ 209,333$ Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities Operating income (loss)(52,315)$ –$ –$ (349)$ (52,664)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable 8,384 – (106) – 8,278 Decrease (increase) in prepaid items – – (269) – (269) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable (222,958) 22,602 (3,890) 2,300 (201,946) Increase (decrease) in due to other governments – – 3,719 14 3,733 Increase (decrease) in compensated absences payable – – – 96 96 Total adjustments (214,574) 22,602 (546) 2,410 (190,108) Net cash flows from operating activities (266,889)$ 22,602$ (546)$ 2,061$ (242,772)$ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Combining Statement of Cash Flows Internal Service Funds Year Ended December 31, 2021 -67- STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) This part of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) presents detailed information as a context for understanding this year’s financial statements, note disclosures, and supplementary information. This information has not been audited by the independent auditor. The contents of the statistical section include: Financial Trends – These tables contain trend information that may assist the reader in assessing the City’s current financial performance by placing it in historical perspective. Revenue Capacity – These schedules contain information to assist the reader in assessing the City’s most significant local revenue source—property taxes. Debt Capacity – These tables present information that may assist the reader in analyzing the affordability of the City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic Information – These tables offer economic and demographic indicators that are commonly used for financial analysis and that can assist the reader in understanding the City’s present and ongoing financial status. Operating Information – These tables contain service and infrastructure indicators that can assist the reader in understanding how the information in the City’s ACFR relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. Source – Unless otherwise noted, the information in these tables is derived from the ACFR for the relevant year. 2012 2013 2014 2015 Governmental activities Investment in capital assets 17,167,531$ 17,435,976$ 18,837,904$ 24,909,453$ Restricted 1,788,007 896,106 917,300 675,052 Unrestricted 9,738,832 10,274,835 11,472,102 8,765,793 Total governmental activities net position 28,694,370$ 28,606,917$ 31,227,306$ 34,350,298$ Business-type activities Investment in capital assets 12,360,674$ 14,356,782$ 14,464,713$ 16,167,536$ Unrestricted 2,403,645 1,158,470 1,793,112 238,381 Total business-type activities net position 14,764,319$ 15,515,252$ 16,257,825$ 16,405,917$ Primary government Investment in capital assets 29,528,205$ 31,792,758$ 33,302,617$ 41,076,989$ Restricted 1,788,007 896,106 917,300 675,052 Unrestricted 12,142,477 11,433,305 13,265,214 9,004,174 Total primary government net position 43,458,689$ 44,122,169$ 47,485,131$ 50,756,215$ Note: Fiscal Year CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Net Position by Component Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting) The City implemented GASB Statement No.68 in fiscal 2015.The City reported a change in accounting principle, as a result of implementing this standard,which decreased unrestricted net position.Prior year information has not been restated. -68- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 25,178,721$ 22,750,377$ 26,972,898$ 26,988,912$ 26,418,066$ 27,474,959$ 786,678 898,739 1,010,521 1,096,698 1,137,740 1,220,301 8,249,560 10,678,219 8,736,913 9,070,332 10,534,206 10,799,339 34,214,959$ 34,327,335$ 36,720,332$ 37,155,942$ 38,090,012$ 39,494,599$ 16,306,381$ 16,292,000$ 17,295,916$ 17,452,137$ 17,248,962$ 18,373,335$ 1,116,957 1,298,744 1,329,268 2,025,812 3,000,493 3,921,634 17,423,338$ 17,590,744$ 18,625,184$ 19,477,949$ 20,249,455$ 22,294,969$ 41,485,102$ 39,042,377$ 44,268,814$ 44,441,049$ 43,667,028$ 45,848,294$ 786,678 898,739 1,010,521 1,096,698 1,137,740 1,220,301 9,366,517 11,976,963 10,066,181 11,096,144 13,534,699 14,720,973 51,638,297$ 51,918,079$ 55,345,516$ 56,633,891$ 58,339,467$ 61,789,568$ -69- 2012 2013 2014 2015 Expenses Governmental activities General government 1,186,404$ 1,133,379$ 1,294,830$ 1,281,557$ Public safety 1,900,443 1,956,260 1,887,877 1,978,210 Public works 894,954 944,104 852,109 194,667 Parks and recreation 838,138 807,363 711,174 711,181 Economic development 61,770 403,143 522,193 733,528 Interest on long-term debt 31,287 25,767 11,004 817 Total governmental activities 4,912,996 5,270,016 5,279,187 4,899,960 Business-type activities Water 1,983,200 1,843,530 1,893,217 1,803,405 Sewer 1,595,379 1,560,796 1,506,927 1,587,808 Surface water management 388,406 453,727 432,788 489,377 Recycling 142,114 144,541 150,417 239,727 Total business-type activities 4,109,099 4,002,594 3,983,349 4,120,317 Total primary government 9,022,095$ 9,272,610$ 9,262,536$ 9,020,277$ Program revenues Governmental activities Charges for services General government 377,621$ 338,546$ 275,735$ 271,991$ Public safety 376,576 341,114 366,452 628,573 Public works – – 4,973 5,205 Parks and recreation 118,179 113,374 116,951 119,338 Operating grants and contributions 291,712 343,486 300,536 389,219 Capital grants and contributions 134,710 326,213 2,302,439 3,080,749 Total governmental activities 1,298,798 1,462,733 3,367,086 4,495,075 Business-type activities Charges for services Water 2,285,161 2,271,072 2,132,191 2,099,242 Sewer 1,739,123 1,798,889 1,857,272 1,855,802 Surface water management 567,361 639,747 762,884 782,501 Recycling 121,688 122,666 130,369 129,030 Operating grants and contributions 19,802 19,694 19,611 124,228 Capital grants and contributions 25,506 156,585 – – Total business-type activities 4,758,641 5,008,653 4,902,327 4,990,803 Total primary government 6,057,439$ 6,471,386$ 8,269,413$ 9,485,878$ Fiscal Year CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Changes in Net Position Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting) -70- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 1,384,908$ 1,322,106$ 1,286,845$ 1,337,262$ 1,460,627$ 1,283,605$ 2,047,961 2,158,835 2,248,540 2,471,567 2,737,348 2,804,933 800,157 3,512,218 1,695,449 1,416,785 1,267,480 1,310,895 751,910 759,737 765,843 798,717 634,195 883,155 361,029 276,841 391,156 369,256 480,307 411,016 – – – – – – 5,345,965 8,029,737 6,387,833 6,393,587 6,579,957 6,693,604 1,833,468 2,159,874 2,147,359 2,295,820 1,996,083 2,166,362 1,513,219 1,780,260 1,654,079 1,663,498 1,665,146 1,754,753 468,965 481,026 499,049 513,209 546,365 599,084 141,190 147,919 168,145 172,232 139,840 154,611 3,956,842 4,569,079 4,468,632 4,644,759 4,347,434 4,674,810 9,302,807$ 12,598,816$ 10,856,465$ 11,038,346$ 10,927,391$ 11,368,414$ 299,692$ 314,166$ 214,833$ 250,643$ 198,708$ 189,138$ 735,730 915,632 619,406 817,238 431,830 926,665 4,535 7,029 6,150 5,250 3,900 5,735 134,579 123,550 113,968 106,317 13,114 90,632 308,900 2,031,474 840,634 347,823 409,403 565,106 462,105 448,945 2,494,823 613,263 634,369 1,263,520 1,945,541 3,840,796 4,289,814 2,140,534 1,691,324 3,040,796 2,165,773 2,127,452 2,256,859 2,286,542 2,316,891 2,789,472 1,989,066 1,796,144 1,769,466 1,892,740 1,870,850 2,110,766 812,044 834,973 839,499 850,971 876,527 902,044 134,739 151,272 134,228 140,149 136,865 177,057 26,323 24,655 27,429 24,752 25,365 27,213 59,248 – 735,220 332,092 60,661 1,024,414 5,187,193 4,934,496 5,762,701 5,527,246 5,287,159 7,030,966 7,132,734$ 8,775,292$ 10,052,515$ 7,667,780$ 6,978,483$ 10,071,762$ -71-(continued) 2012 2013 2014 2015 Net (expense) revenue Governmental activities (3,614,198)$ (3,807,283)$ (1,912,101)$ (404,885)$ Business-type activities 649,542 1,006,059 918,978 870,486 Total primary government (2,964,656)$ (2,801,224)$ (993,123)$ 465,601$ General revenues and other changes in net position Governmental activities General property taxes 3,095,488$ 3,094,036$ 3,182,331$ 3,191,426$ Tax increments 431,060 466,280 565,422 697,898 Franchise taxes 94,532 96,820 103,711 72,837 Unrestricted grants and contributions – – – – Unrestricted investment earnings (charges)218,519 (168,071) 450,261 245,540 Gain on sale of capital assets – – – – Transfers 143,000 230,765 230,765 230,765 Total governmental activities 3,982,599 3,719,830 4,532,490 4,438,466 Business-type activities Unrestricted investment earnings (charges)47,388 (24,361) 54,360 35,857 Transfers (143,000) (230,765) (230,765) (230,765) Total business-type activities (95,612) (255,126) (176,405) (194,908) Total primary government 3,886,987$ 3,464,704$ 4,356,085$ 4,243,558$ Change in net position Governmental activities 368,401$ (87,453)$ 2,620,389$ 4,033,581$ Business-type activities 553,930 750,933 742,573 675,578 Total primary government 922,331$ 663,480$ 3,362,962$ 4,709,159$ Fiscal Year CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Changes in Net Position Last Ten Fiscal Years (continued) (Accrual Basis of Accounting) -72- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (3,400,424)$ (4,188,941)$ (2,098,019)$ (4,253,053)$ (4,888,633)$ (3,652,808)$ 1,230,351 365,417 1,294,069 882,487 939,725 2,356,156 (2,170,073)$ (3,823,524)$ (803,950)$ (3,370,566)$ (3,948,908)$ (1,296,652)$ 3,278,287$ 3,526,347$ 3,578,894$ 3,793,754$ 4,100,177$ 4,293,895$ 242,544 295,788 351,569 388,697 273,043 396,891 132,548 109,070 101,237 100,464 101,057 97,549 – – – – 745,040 – 155,191 139,347 159,316 322,346 348,886 (30,940) – – – – 17,500 – 230,765 230,765 300,000 83,402 237,000 300,000 4,039,335 4,301,317 4,491,016 4,688,663 5,822,703 5,057,395 17,835 32,754 40,371 53,680 68,781 (10,642) (230,765) (230,765) (300,000) (83,402) (237,000) (300,000) (212,930) (198,011) (259,629) (29,722) (168,219) (310,642) 3,826,405$ 4,103,306$ 4,231,387$ 4,658,941$ 5,654,484$ 4,746,753$ 638,911$ 112,376$ 2,392,997$ 435,610$ 934,070$ 1,404,587$ 1,017,421 167,406 1,034,440 852,765 771,506 2,045,514 1,656,332$ 279,782$ 3,427,437$ 1,288,375$ 1,705,576$ 3,450,101$ -73- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK General Property Tax Franchise Fiscal Year Taxes Increments Taxes Total 2012 3,095,488$ 431,060$ 94,532$ 3,621,080$ 2013 3,094,036 466,280 96,820 3,657,136 2014 3,182,331 565,422 103,711 3,851,464 2015 3,191,426 697,898 72,837 3,962,161 2016 3,278,287 242,544 132,548 3,653,379 2017 3,526,347 295,788 109,070 3,931,205 2018 3,578,894 351,569 101,237 4,031,700 2019 3,793,754 388,697 100,464 4,282,915 2020 4,100,177 273,043 101,057 4,474,277 2021 4,293,895 396,891 97,549 4,788,335 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source Last Ten Fiscal Years (Accrual Basis of Accounting) -74- 2012 2013 2014 2015 General Fund Nonspendable 22,326$ 22,754$ 21,059$ 23,983$ Assigned 126,134 119,440 139,721 251,497 Unassigned 2,202,459 2,223,512 2,185,162 2,806,930 Total General Fund 2,350,919$ 2,365,706$ 2,345,942$ 3,082,410$ All other governmental funds Nonspendable 628$ 910$ 395$ 845$ Restricted 1,799,380 888,707 917,300 675,052 Committed 452,496 421,989 471,161 449,898 Assigned 6,863,115 7,111,210 7,346,178 3,902,898 Unassigned (303,339) (134,316) (150,893) (216,521) Total all other governmental funds 8,812,280$ 8,288,500$ 8,584,141$ 4,812,172$ Total all governmental funds 11,163,199$ 10,654,206$ 10,930,083$ 7,894,582$ Fiscal Year CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years -75- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 26,271$ 288,519$ 25,482$ 22,438$ 28,782$ 31,152$ 257,771 285,548 262,805 205,962 196,467 239,096 2,660,771 3,065,250 3,052,082 2,987,183 3,155,257 2,899,564 2,944,813$ 3,639,317$ 3,340,369$ 3,215,583$ 3,380,506$ 3,169,812$ 214$ 664$ 214$ 214$ 3,680$ 3,878$ 786,678 898,739 1,010,521 1,096,484 1,137,740 1,220,287 450,433 471,996 508,241 580,243 619,013 654,042 3,872,938 6,138,393 2,873,879 4,057,047 5,762,592 5,990,247 (217,607) (439,147) (189,404) (227,892) (230,101) (223,538) 4,892,656$ 7,070,645$ 4,203,451$ 5,506,096$ 7,292,924$ 7,644,916$ 7,837,469$ 10,709,962$ 7,543,820$ 8,721,679$ 10,673,430$ 10,814,728$ -76- 2012 2013 2014 2015 Revenues Property taxes General property tax 3,087,160$ 3,086,064$ 3,210,025$ 3,203,004$ Tax increments 431,060 466,280 565,422 697,898 Special assessments 252,879 382,366 304,315 908,964 Licenses and permits 415,070 382,039 327,727 518,846 Intergovernmental 143,085 316,859 1,408,240 1,396,269 Charges for services 450,589 410,995 400,224 496,908 Fines and forfeits 33,192 32,055 29,569 32,792 Earnings on investments (charges)215,119 (164,535) 433,402 236,947 Franchise taxes 94,532 96,820 103,711 72,837 Antenna rental fees 75,745 76,574 110,144 189,534 Miscellaneous reimbursements and other 113,974 43,777 89,482 241,463 Total revenues 5,312,405 5,129,294 6,982,261 7,995,462 Expenditures Current General government 1,054,662 1,054,852 1,155,120 1,143,037 Public safety 1,728,669 1,779,549 1,826,098 1,920,280 Public works 377,101 391,711 580,872 336,398 Parks and recreation 679,282 675,073 648,214 573,587 Economic development 57,766 90,222 286,991 249,484 Capital outlay General government 8,847 9,545 5,559 – Public safety 169,894 170,511 66,079 52,936 Public works 376,872 1,017,328 1,833,535 6,198,264 Parks and recreation 109,761 68,493 18,883 – Economic development 5,330 328,248 231,025 502,842 Debt service Principal 255,000 260,000 270,000 280,000 Interest and paying agent fees 31,698 23,520 14,773 4,900 Total expenditures 4,854,882 5,869,052 6,937,149 11,261,728 Revenues over (under) expenditures 457,523 (739,758) 45,112 (3,266,266) Other financing sources (uses) Sale of capital assets – – – – Transfers in 143,000 230,765 230,765 230,765 Total other financing sources (uses)143,000 230,765 230,765 230,765 Net change in fund balances 600,523$ (508,993)$ 275,877$ (3,035,501)$ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 6.21%5.82%5.73%6.20% CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years (Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting) Fiscal Year -77- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 3,260,537$ 3,541,705$ 3,578,628$ 3,795,624$ 4,099,819$ 4,289,994$ 242,544 295,788 351,569 388,697 273,043 396,891 373,415 308,990 735,369 828,487 329,781 660,411 598,686 729,197 526,444 714,530 431,628 752,532 396,275 2,124,414 1,003,685 603,966 1,231,252 505,585 577,041 590,141 427,905 440,616 215,918 459,638 31,868 29,989 37,080 34,512 13,581 21,500 148,679 133,231 154,369 310,607 338,444 (29,384) 132,548 109,070 101,237 100,464 101,057 97,549 123,815 128,765 57,067 134,505 140,707 146,101 94,442 164,256 249,322 157,122 432,118 474,889 5,979,850 8,155,546 7,222,675 7,509,130 7,607,348 7,775,706 1,194,579 1,189,500 1,164,657 1,195,335 1,201,143 1,137,188 1,981,506 2,058,037 2,088,345 2,399,296 2,435,773 2,708,137 479,814 443,633 579,535 632,531 675,739 618,236 621,832 618,614 653,977 679,589 547,787 626,629 229,688 264,905 324,548 300,052 415,839 349,341 – – 13,770 115,924 107,865 290,193 47,880 100,215 233,301 69,666 299,107 111,065 786,873 734,411 2,916,604 713,156 204,169 1,993,539 – 337,808 2,783,238 549,812 22,675 133,150 151,306 7,520 – 3,300 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 5,493,478 5,754,643 10,757,975 6,658,661 5,910,097 7,967,478 486,372 2,400,903 (3,535,300) 850,469 1,697,251 (191,772) – – 69,158 27,390 17,500 33,070 230,765 471,590 300,000 300,000 237,000 300,000 230,765 471,590 369,158 327,390 254,500 333,070 717,137$ 2,872,493$ (3,166,142)$ 1,177,859$ 1,951,751$ 141,298$ – %– %– %– %– %– % -78- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Fiscal Year General Tax Increments Franchise Tax Total 2012 3,087,160$ 431,060$ 94,532$ 3,612,752$ 2013 3,086,064 466,280 96,820 3,649,164 2014 3,210,025 565,422 103,711 3,879,158 2015 3,203,004 697,898 72,837 3,973,739 2016 3,260,537 242,544 132,548 3,635,629 2017 3,541,705 295,788 109,070 3,946,563 2018 3,578,628 351,569 101,237 4,031,434 2019 3,795,624 388,697 100,464 4,284,785 2020 4,099,819 273,043 101,057 4,473,919 2021 4,289,994 396,891 97,549 4,784,434 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS General Governmental Tax Revenues by Source Last Ten Fiscal Years (Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting) Property Taxes -79- Fiscal Year Less Tax Less Fiscal Ended Real Personal Total Increment Disparity December 31,Property Property Tax Capacity District Contribution 2012 13,848,510$ 190,989$ 14,039,499$ 436,893$ 2,505,319$ 2013 13,262,619 213,949 13,476,568 438,897 2,474,502 2014 13,413,316 216,679 13,629,995 510,906 2,375,745 2015 14,162,432 224,125 14,386,557 684,465 2,303,582 2016 14,364,828 236,271 14,601,099 207,526 2,280,682 2017 14,671,678 262,904 14,934,582 256,243 2,365,021 2018 15,751,958 276,244 16,028,202 308,152 2,141,470 2019 16,457,522 256,847 16,714,369 345,318 2,174,854 2020 17,592,301 268,599 17,860,900 273,444 2,627,733 2021 18,379,048 290,865 18,669,913 362,116 2,626,688 Source: Ramsey County Assessor Last Ten Fiscal Years CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value of Taxable Property -80- Adjusted Estimated Tax Capacity Market (ATC) Value Value (EMV) 11,097,287$ 25.54 %1,043,419,700$ 1.06 % 10,563,169 27.93 1,035,471,700 1.02 10,743,344 27.95 1,055,153,800 1.02 11,398,510 27.29 1,122,428,000 1.02 12,112,891 26.54 1,144,221,600 1.06 12,313,318 27.21 1,173,397,600 1.05 13,578,580 25.53 1,260,228,800 1.08 14,194,197 25.56 1,313,244,900 1.08 14,959,723 25.41 1,406,207,500 1.06 15,681,109 25.09 1,460,289,500 1.07 of EMV ATC as a Percentage Direct Tax Rate Total -81- 25.544 %61.316 %29.044 %9.955 %125.859 % 27.931 65.240 29.444 10.200 132.815 27.950 63.735 29.734 9.825 131.244 27.294 58.922 27.378 9.179 122.773 26.539 58.885 26.245 9.052 120.721 27.211 55.850 25.305 8.558 116.924 25.532 53.962 28.464 8.249 116.207 25.555 52.879 26.330 8.265 113.029 25.414 52.302 24.964 8.249 110.929 25.089 47.760 23.863 7.822 104.534 Note: Source:Ramsey County Assessor 2021 2020 Fiscal Year 2012 Operating Taxing City Overlapping rates are those of local and county governments that apply to property owners within the City. Not all overlapping rates apply to all city property owners (e.g., the rates for special districts apply only to the proportion of the City’s property owners whose property is located within the geographic boundaries of the special district). County TotalDistrict School Rate Special Ramsey CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Property Tax Rates Direct and Overlapping Governments Last Ten Fiscal Years Overlapping RatesDirect Rate 2019 2018 2017 2016 Districts 2013 2015 2014 -82- Taxable Taxable Capacity Value Rank Capacity Value Rank Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.1,082,940$ 1 6.91 %1,599,250$ 1 14.41 % Land O’Lakes, Inc.736,212 2 4.69 360,146 2 3.25 St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company 545,192 3 3.48 – – – Presbyterian Homes, Inc.474,446 4 3.03 – – – Space Center Arden Hills, LLC 468,486 5 2.99 – – – NSP 411,978 6 2.63 185,032 8 1.67 B9 Polar Arden Hills Corporate LLC 303,446 7 1.94 – – – NorthPark CC LLC 237,508 8 1.51 – – – RAM Development, LLC 213,682 9 1.36 175,250 9 1.58 SUP I Shannon Square, LLC 208,560 10 1.33 – – – CSM Corporation – – – 311,450 3 2.81 IRET Properties, LP – – – 310,364 4 2.80 Arden Hills Industrial, LLC – – – 298,500 5 2.69 Mutual Service Insurance Company – – – 245,508 6 2.21 Pharmacia Deltec, Inc.– – – 225,250 7 2.03 Inland Shannon Square Cub, LLC – – – 168,450 10 1.52 Total 4,682,450$ 29.86 %3,879,200$ 34.96 % Total capacity value 15,681,109$ 11,097,287$ Source:Ramsey County Assessor Taxpayer Percentage of Total City Value Percentage of Total City Value Capacity CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Principal Property Taxpayers Current Year and Nine Years Ago 2021 Capacity 2012 -83- Taxes Collections Fiscal Year Levied (Refunds) in Ended for the Additions/Subsequent December 31,Fiscal Year Amount (Abatements)Years Amount 2012 3,096,994$ 3,045,572$ 98.34 %(11,376)$ 40,046$ 3,096,994$ 100.00 % 2013 3,191,230 3,117,083 97.68 (38,542) 35,605 3,191,230 100.00 2014 3,257,456 3,219,641 98.84 (20,640) 17,175 3,257,456 100.00 2015 3,359,775 3,295,723 98.09 (75,019) (11,201) 3,359,541 99.99 2016 3,478,775 3,408,642 97.98 (79,442) (10,109) 3,477,975 99.98 2017 3,641,290 3,562,166 97.83 (66,924) 12,096 3,641,186 100.00 2018 3,786,942 3,710,786 97.99 (58,021) 17,186 3,785,993 99.97 2019 3,938,420 3,871,967 98.31 (86,917) (20,523) 3,938,361 100.00 2020 4,135,340 4,116,483 99.54 (37,154) (23,880) 4,129,757 99.86 2021 4,280,080 4,218,186 98.55 (45,712) – 4,263,898 99.62 Source: Ramsey County Assessor CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Last Ten Fiscal Years Property Tax Levies and Collections Collected Within the Fiscal Year of the Levy Percentage of Levy Percentage of Levy Total Collections to Date -84- Governmental Activities General Total Obligation Revenue Primary Per TIF Bonds Bonds Premium Total Government Capita (1) 810,000$ –$ –$ –$ 810,000$ 0.24 %84$ 550,000 – – – 550,000 0.17 59 280,000 – – – 280,000 0.08 29 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2,415,000 156,952 2,571,952 2,571,952 0.71 260 – 2,415,000 141,394 2,556,394 2,556,394 0.69 255 – 2,215,000 125,838 2,340,838 2,340,838 0.62 236 – 2,005,000 110,281 2,115,281 2,115,281 0.54 211 (1) Note: Business-Type Activities Fiscal Year 2012 Income (1) of Personal Percentage CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Last Ten Fiscal Years 2019 2020 2021 See the Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income and population data. Details regarding the City’s outstanding debt can be found in the notes to basic financial statements. 2017 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 -85- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Net Estimated Debt Share of Governmental Unit Outstanding Overlapping Debt Debt repaid with property taxes Ramsey County 79,454,774$ 2.37 %1,885,642$ County library 20,380,536 4.75 967,275 Independent School District No. 621 192,492,675 12.95 24,936,694 Independent School District No. 623 142,590,445 0.73 1,043,333 Intermediate School District No. 916 73,470,000 1.71 1,258,939 Metropolitan Council 1,608,917,963 0.35 5,613,422 Total overlapping debt 35,705,305 City of Arden Hills – 100.00 – Total direct and overlapping debt 35,705,305$ (1) Note: Source: The percentage of overlapping debt applicable is estimated using taxable assessed property values. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the county’s taxable assessed value that is within the City’s boundaries and dividing it by the county’s total taxable assessed value. Overlapping governments are those that coincide,at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the City. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the residents and businesses of the City. This process recognizes that, when considering the City’s ability to issue and repay long-term debt, the entire debt burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident and, therefore, responsible for repaying the debt of each overlapping government. Assessed value data used to estimate applicable percentages provided by the Ramsey County Assessor. Debt outstanding data provided by the county. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt as of December 31, 2021 Estimated Percentage Applicable (1) -86- 2012 2013 2014 2015 31,302,591$ 31,064,151$ 31,654,614$ 33,672,840$ – – – – 31,302,591$ 31,064,151$ 31,654,614$ 33,672,840$ Total net debt applicable to the limit – – – – Note:Under state finance law,the City’s outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed 3 percent of total market value.By law,the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds. Tax increment bonds are not subject to the debt limit; therefore, they are not included. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Legal Debt Margin Information Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year Debt limit Total net debt applicable to the limit Legal debt margin as a percentage of debt limit -87- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 34,326,648$ 35,201,928$ 37,806,864$ 39,397,347$ 42,186,225$ 43,808,685$ – – – – – – 34,326,648$ 35,201,928$ 37,806,864$ 39,397,347$ 42,186,225$ 43,808,685$ – – – – – – Total estimated market value 1,460,289,500$ Debt limit (3% of market value)43,808,685 Debt applicable to limit General obligation bonds – Less amount set aside for repayment of general obligation debt – Total net debt applicable to the limit – Legal debt margin 43,808,685$ Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2021 -88- Operating Less Operating Net Available Revenues Expenses Revenue Principal Interest 4,026,325$ 3,279,800$ 746,525$ –$ 52,333$ 14.3 4,179,282 3,387,940 791,342 – 94,288 8.4 4,187,741 3,085,624 1,102,117 200,000 86,998 3.8 4,900,238 3,301,491 1,598,747 210,000 78,800 5.5 Note 1: Note 2:Fiscal year 2018 represents the first year the City pledged revenue for utility revenue bonds. Debt Service Includes Water and Sewer Funds. Operating expenses do not include depreciation. Fiscal Year Coverage 2018 2019 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Pledged Revenue Coverage Last Four Fiscal Years 2020 2021 -89- Per Capita Arden Hills Personal Total Personal Median School Population (1)Income (3)Income (4)Age (6)Enrollment (5) 9,597 35,375$ 339,493,875$ 34.8 10,234 5.7 % 9,359 33,688 315,285,992 34.8 10,480 4.9 9,652 34,481 332,810,612 36.9 10,734 4.0 9,847 35,222 346,831,034 36.0 11,011 3.5 9,966 35,994 358,716,204 36.0 11,401 3.6 9,969 37,723 376,060,587 36.3 11,556 3.2 9,889 36,553 361,472,617 36.3 11,647 2.7 10,008 36,989 370,185,912 36.4 11,957 3.0 9,939 37,932 377,006,148 36.2 12,061 6.5 10,038 38,691 388,391,734 36.2 11,806 4.0 Sources: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Enrollment numbers are based off of Independent School District No.621,Mounds View from the Minnesota Department of Education website. Median age is from www.city-data.com website. Population data is obtained from the Metropolitan Council website. Fiscal year 2021 is estimated by city staff. Rate (2) Unemployment rate information is from DEED for Ramsey County. Per capita personal income is obtained from the Metropolitan Council website. Fiscal year 2021 is estimated by city staff. Personal income is calculated based on the population and per capita personal income. Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Unemployment Last Ten Fiscal Years Demographic and Economic Statistics -90- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Employees Rank Employees Rank Boston Scientific 3,200 1 31.5 %2,000 1 16.7 % Land O’Lakes, Inc.1,565 2 15.4 800 2 6.7 University of Northwestern 1,020 3 10.1 – – – Bethel University 930 4 9.2 – – – Presbyterian Homes of Arden Hills 540 5 5.3 500 4 4.2 National Recoveries 350 6 3.5 – – – Gradient Financial 191 7 1.9 – – – Delkor 153 8 1.5 – – – Mounds View Public Schools 139 9 1.4 – – – International Paper 104 10 1.0 – – – Smiths Medical M.D., Inc.– – – 525 3 4.4 Fair Isaac Corporation – – – 280 5 2.3 Country and MSI Insurance – – – 236 6 2.0 Total 8,192 80.8 %4,341 36.3 % Total city employees 10,143 (2)11,975 (1) (2) Note: Source: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Principal Employers Current Year and Nine Years Ago Employees of Total City 2012 (1) Percentage of Total City Percentage Employer Employees This is an estimate from 2020. Information for 2021 is not yet available. This does not purport to be a comprehensive list and is based on available data from the City’s 2018 Official Statement and updates received since then through a survey of individual employers. Some employers do not respond to inquiries for employment data. City staff research; Metropolitan Council. 2021 Information only readily available for the listed employers. -91- 2012 2013 2014 2015 Function Towed vehicles 7 2 1 N/A 140 149 144 N/A Driving impaired/alcohol 15 23 18 N/A Traffic stops 17 78 20 N/A Traffic investigations 33 78 40 N/A Total calls for service N/A N/A N/A 4,892 Fire 522 561 651 804 5.2 4.4 – 2.84 250 250 250 600 Sanitation (residential) Refuse collected (tons/day)7.90 8.05 8.65 8.76 Recyclables collected (tons/day)2.20 2.20 2.21 2.16 Recycling clean up days N/A N/A N/A N/A Tons collected during clean up days N/A N/A N/A N/A Parks and recreation Athletic field permits issued 19 30 22 22 Water New connections 31 10 2 7 Water main breaks 12 6 2 10 Average daily consumption (thousands of gallons)1,269 1,162 983 857 N/A – Not Applicable Note 1:Indicators are not available for the general city functions. Note 2: Note 3: Note 4: Source:Various city departments Recyclables – numbers based off of yearly tonnage total divided into 365 days in the year. Starting in 2018, the refuse collected information is no longer being provided as it is not readily available.Instead,information on recycling clean up days is being provided. Fire information provided by Lake Johanna Fire Department, which is contracted out by the City. Last Ten Fiscal Years Operating Indicators by Function CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Traffic accidents Police (see Note 2) Fiscal Year Street resurfacing (miles) Number of calls answered Potholes repaired Highways and streets Information provided by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department.Starting in 2015,the Sheriff changed reporting standards, and information is no longer easily broken down. Total number of calls is now provided. -92- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,413 5,152 5,331 5,253 3,924 4,232 930 986 1,039 1,138 1,044 1,178 0.25 0.20 1.00 0.30 2.32 4.42 600 700 800 750 1,000 700 8.75 8.80 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.06 2.22 2.17 2.20 2.19 2.71 N/A N/A 2 2 – 1 N/A N/A 73.7 44.8 – 7.3 22 30 25 20 2 8 8 8 8 2 3 7 6 7 8 4 2 3 812 853 869 841 855 914 -93- 2012 2013 2014 2015 Function General government 6.12 6.11 6.45 6.37 Public safety 2.66 2.46 2.60 2.70 Public works 3.53 4.49 4.20 4.22 Parks and recreation 7.43 7.02 6.70 6.74 Water 3.56 3.70 3.75 3.69 Sewer 4.25 4.49 4.60 4.43 Recycling 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.18 Surface water management 2.61 2.66 2.65 2.64 Total 30.37 31.13 31.15 30.97 Note: Source:Finance and Administration Seasonal staff are calculated by total hours worked (2,080 hours per year),added together to total an equivalent. Seasonal hours fluctuate throughout the year. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year -94- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 4.56 4.10 4.61 5.10 5.61 4.46 2.47 2.19 2.39 2.34 2.66 1.85 3.47 2.70 3.08 2.86 2.64 2.54 6.09 5.58 5.96 6.13 5.14 5.30 3.46 3.42 3.24 3.39 3.54 3.37 4.24 4.21 3.99 4.11 4.20 4.04 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.32 0.29 0.27 2.64 2.43 2.30 2.35 2.53 2.31 27.09 24.78 25.80 26.60 26.61 24.14 -95- 2012 2013 2014 2015 Function Highways and streets Streets (miles)57 57 57 57 Streetlights 250 250 250 250 Traffic signals 18 18 18 18 Parks and recreation* Parks acreage 111 111 111 111 Parks 14 14 14 14 Trails acreage 54 54 54 54 Trails (miles)15 15 21 21 Tennis courts 4 5 6 6 Softball/baseball fields 6 8 8 8 Basketball courts 10 10 10 10 Hockey/skating rinks 5 6 6 6 Permanent restrooms 3 2 3 3 Water Water mains (miles)43 43 43 43 Fire hydrants 520 537 537 537 Maximum daily capacity (thousands of gallons)1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Sewer Sanitary sewers (miles)44 49 52 52 Storm sewers (miles)20 20 25 25 * Note: Source: No capital asset indicators are available for the general city functions. Various city departments Information used for the parks and recreation section was taken from the Arden Hills Parks and Trails Guide from the Parks and Recreation Department. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Capital Asset Statistics by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year -96- 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 57 57 57 57 57 57 250 252 252 254 254 254 18 18 18 18 18 18 111 111 111 111 111 111 14 14 14 14 14 14 54 54 54 54 54 54 21 21 22 22 22 22 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 7 7 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 4 4 4 43 43 44 44 44 44 537 537 537 537 537 540 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,160 2,160 2,160 52 52 52 52 52 52 25 25 25 25 25 25 -97- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Purpose Audit Reports Year Ended December 31, 2021 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 1–2 Independent Auditor’s Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance 3 Schedule of Findings and Responses 4 Table of Contents CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Year Ended December 31, 2021 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Purpose Audit Reports THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1- INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS To the City Council and Management City of Arden Hills, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 21, 2022. REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and, therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. We did identify one deficiency in internal control, described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Responses as finding 2021-001, which we consider to be a significant deficiency. (continued) C E R T I F I E D A C C O U N T A N T S P UBLIC PRINCIPALS Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA Jaclyn M. Huegel, CPA Kalen T. Karnowski, CPA Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com Standard Letterhead-r2.qxp_167639 Letterhead-RV1 9/7/18 6:34 PM Page 1 -2- REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. CITY’S RESPONSE TO FINDING Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City’s response to the finding identified in our audit and described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Responses. The City’s response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 21, 2022 -3- INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE To the City Council and Management City of Arden Hills, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 21, 2022. MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting – bid laws, depositories of public funds and public investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing sections of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City’s noncompliance with the above referenced provisions, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. Minneapolis, Minnesota April 21, 2022 C E R T I F I E D A C C O U N T A N T S P UBLIC PRINCIPALS Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA Jaclyn M. Huegel, CPA Kalen T. Karnowski, CPA Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com Standard Letterhead-r2.qxp_167639 Letterhead-RV1 9/7/18 6:34 PM Page 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Schedule of Findings and Responses Year Ended December 31, 2021 -4- FINDINGS – SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING 2021-001 SEGREGATION OF DUTIES Criteria – Internal control over financial reporting. Condition – The City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the City) has limited segregation of duties in a number of areas. Questioned Costs – Not applicable. Context – The condition applies to multiple areas as noted above. Repeat Finding – This is a current year and prior year finding. Cause – The limited segregation of duties is primarily caused by the limited size of the City’s finance department staff. Effect – One important element of internal accounting controls is an adequate segregation of duties such that no one individual should have responsibility to execute a transaction, have physical access to the related assets, and have responsibility or authority to record the transaction. A lack of segregation of duties subjects the City to a higher risk that errors or fraud could occur and not be detected in a timely manner in the normal course of business. Recommendation – This condition is common to organizations of your size. We recommend that the City segregate duties as best it can within the limits of the staff available . Any modifications in internal control in this area should be viewed from a cost -benefit perspective. Management Response – There is no disagreement with the audit finding. The City reviews and makes improvements to its internal control structure on an ongoing basis and attempts to maximize the segregation of duties in all areas within the limits of the staff available. However, the City does not consider it cost-beneficial at this time to increase the size of its staff in order to further segregate accounting functions. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Beyond the Yellow Ribbon – Suburban Ramsey County Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider • Beyond the Yellow Ribbon – Suburban Ramsey County representative Eileen Scott will provide a presentation at the May 23rd City Council meeting. Discussion N/A Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A PUBLIC PRESENTATION – 4B MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 1 STAFF COMMENTS – 5A MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: May 23, 2022 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator David Swearingen, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Transportation Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ A verbal update will be provided at the City Council meeting. Approved: May 23, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 18, 2022 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session at 5:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Steve Scott and David Radziej Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault, Public Works Director/City Engineer David Swearingen, Assistant Public Works Director Lucas Miller, Finance Director Gayle Bauman, City Planner Jessica Jagoe, Deputy City Clerk Jolene Trauba, Recreation Programmer Joe Vaughan, Launch Properties Senior Vice President of Construction and Development Bruce Carlson, and PTRC Committee Members Marie Hinton, Micah Kiernan, Mark Kelliher, Dan Dietz, Paul Beggin and Kristine Poelzer 1.AGENDA ITEMS A.Food Truck Ordinance Discussion City Administrator Perrault stated that 30 minutes had been set aside for public feedback on the Food Truck Ordinance. The ordinance was originally passed in 2015. The City Council considered changes to the ordinance last year but postponed action until input was received from the public. Mayor Grant said Council would discuss the ordinance within the 30 minute timeframe if possible, or at a later time. Councilmember Holden asked if Council will have an opportunity to share what other residents have told them. Mayor Grant said they are able to comment now or after residents have a chance to speak. Kristine Poelzer, 1870 Indian Place, she had done research on the city website and talked with staff and researched other communities. She felt the annual license fee is higher than other cities ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 2 but appreciated the short-term license. She would like to see where food trucks could be expanded such as at her church in New Brighton that is allowing a food truck in their parking lot and gaining revenue from renting the space to them. She felt Arden Hills should reduce the constraints on food trucks and possibly gain revenue from renting out city park space. She felt food trucks shouldn’t be allowed for long lengths of time in residential areas. Urbae Hall, 1991 Edgewater, felt the city had done a good job of making the ordinance strict but there may be some room to open it up. However, she would like to see food trucks allowed in residential areas for only a certain amount of time and a certain number of days. She wondered the process to report violations, and what would the fine be for violators. Also, if they allowed food trucks in parks how would they survey people that lived around the park to see if they were OK with it. Councilmember Holmes said she looks at garage sales as being similar to food trucks, and residents are allowed two garage sales per year. She asked Ms. Hall if that type of restriction made sense to her for food trucks. Ms. Hall responded that yes, that made sense. Kate Olson, 3558 Ridgewood Court, said she is the PTO president at Valentine Hills Elementary and they wanted to have food trucks but one of the food truck owners that was contacted told them she wouldn’t come because of Arden Hills’ requirements. She was curious as to why our ordinance seems to be so much more difficult than other cities. She noted that the city of Blaine eased their food truck rules in 2021. Councilmember Holden said the ordinance reads like it always did, that there needs to be an event and food trucks could come. What happened is a neighborhood has a food truck every Friday night and there is about 150 people that come. Many people in the neighborhood have been upset with traffic, smells, garbage and strangers wandering through the neighborhood every Friday night. That’s why they’ve started to address the issue. It’s a good community thing but not everyone wants it in their neighborhood. But the issue comes from saying there’s an event in your front yard every Friday night. Ms. Olson asked how that would be different from a graduation party in the neighborhood every Friday night. Councilmember Holmes responded that grad parties would be by invitation where the food trucks have been open to the public with people coming in from other neighborhoods. Trucks are lined up on the street and people are walking in the street which makes it a different environment than graduation parties. Mayor Grant said he wasn’t interested in food trucks in church parking lots or city parks just because it might be profitable for the city. Possibly for special events, but not as a standing practice. Councilmember Holmes noted that a church could have a food truck on a regular basis because it would be considered commercial. She felt they should look at restrictions on the food trucks themselves because they are already regulated by the State. There are regulations on food trucks, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 3 and then the residents. The ordinance is difficult to administrate as written and she would like to see it akin to garage sales. Mayor Grant felt it was the residential neighborhoods they should be concerned with. He has heard similar points from residents as Councilmember Holden. He agreed with the idea of limiting the number similar to garage sales but didn’t want to limit invitation only parties, it’s the week after week party that becomes a problem. He wondered where does your neighbor’s right to have a party start to interfere with your right to peace and quiet. Councilmember Scott commented that his primary concern was restaurants currently in the city, many of which cater events. He suggested residents look locally first so as not to undercut businesses here that are paying city taxes and licensing. City Administrator Perrault suggested the Council have further discussion at another work session. Marcia Cheney, 1180 Karth Lake Drive, said there are no sidewalks in her neighborhood so no one is ever lined up on sidewalks. She felt when food trucks come everyone is respectful of the neighbors, garbage isn’t left in others’ yards, kids don’t run wild because they are neighbors. The events were community building and food trucks no longer have interest because they aren’t making enough money. Mayor Grant thanked everyone for their input and said the topic would be discussed again at another meeting. B. Launch Properties Concept Plan – 3737 Lexington Avenue City Planner Jagoe introduced the concept review request from Launch Properties for the proposed redevelopment of the properties at 3737 Lexington Avenue and 1133 Grey Fox Road for the construction of a standalone car wash and a multi-tenant building identified for a restaurant, dental office, and bank. Launch Properties is seeking feedback from the Council in advance of a future submission. Based on staff’s initial review of their concept plans the following requests would be necessary: • Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Subdivision of land • Master and Final Planned Unit Development with flexibility to be requested for Building Positioning and Drive-Thru Requirements. Staff has identified minimum parking requirements and wall signage as other considerations for Council discussion. • Site Plan Review • Signage Plan • Conditional Use Permit for Car Wash in the B-3 District City Planner Jagoe said Bruce Carlson from Launch Properties would present the highlights and details of the proposed redevelopment. Launch Properties Senior Vice President of Construction and Development Bruce Carlson stated that he was assigned this project in January to work with the property purchase and design. They have approximately 180 days to close on the property. The current building has become ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 4 obsolete for industrial use. A new site plan would include a Mister Car Wash, with limited service. The multi-tenant building would include Panera Bread, Pacific Dental and Bank of America. The bank would not have a drive thru or ATM. They have made two entrances separating the two uses, but there will be a reciprocal easement and operation agreement with property management, and cross parking will be treated as one lot. The multi-tenant building access lines up with the Cub Foods access point on Grey Fox Road. For interest and to break up the façade of the building, the multi-tenant building will have step backs, playing to both main roads, so all tenants will have a reveal. The monument sign will sit on the corner of Grey Fox and Lexington. Mr. Carlson explained how they would play to both roads for visibility for all tenants with the positioning of the buildings and step backs. It also hides the drive-thru in the back of the building. They won’t be conforming to the building positioning at the front yard setback for Grey Fox Road. They are also within the distance limit from an existing drive-thru. The inner drive-thru would work in the traditional way, but the outer lane would be a rapid pickup from online orders. There will also be 2 parking spots designated as pre-order pickup parking. There is plenty of room for stacking around the building. Councilmember Scott asked if there would be an ATM in the bank lobby. Mr. Carlson said he would look into it. Councilmember Holmes asked for an explanation of how you would proceed through the car wash and what the stacking would look like. Mr. Carlson showed how the traffic flow would work in the car wash. He noted there would be a maximum of five employees working at any given time. Mr. Carlson explained that the car wash hours would be 7 am – 7 pm every day. Panera would be open 6 am – 9 pm. The dentist would be open 10 am – 7 pm Monday and Tuesday, 10 am - 4 pm Wednesday - Thursday, 10 am - 3 pm on Friday, closed on weekends. The bank would be open 9 am – 4 pm Monday - Friday, 9 am – 1 pm on Saturday, closed on Sunday. Councilmember Holmes asked how many cars would be anticipated through the car wash, and if there would be any detailing offered. Mr. Carlson said there would be no detailing, patrons would stay in their car except to vacuum. Generally, people will wave off if there are more than 10 cars in the lanes as they won’t want to wait that long. City Planner Jagoe noted a landscaping and lighting plan will be included with the future submission, as well as grading and erosion control. Mr. Carlson said they will probably use five-foot candles in the parking lot. Councilmember Holden asked about materials. Mr. Carlson said they would fully comply with building materials. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 5 Councilmember Holden said she had no problem with the layout or the drive-through. She felt the carwash was a good use of the property. Mr. Carlson said the bank may want to put a sign on each corner of the building. They are planning to lock in the monument sign and require tenants to follow city sign code. Mr. Carlson said they are planning to haul snow off of the property rather than stack it. He will talk to the neighbor to the west regarding snow storage. Councilmember Scott asked if they had thought about providing an electric charging station for vehicles. Mr. Carlson said he could commit to that, with a 3rd party company. Councilmember Holden mentioned they would also need bike racks. Mayor Grant asked to go through the variance requests. City Planner Jagoe stated they would be asking for flexibility on the building positioning as their setbacks would actually be further from Grey Fox Road than is required. Councilmember Holmes felt that was ironic and she had no problem with the setbacks being further as it gives the property room to breathe. City Planner Jagoe explained the next variance request would be the distance from another drive-thru. Flexibility would be necessary for both properties; the restaurant and car wash. Mayor Grant said they know everyone wants a drive-thru since the pandemic and they would be addressing the requirement in the future. Also, this drive-thru would come out onto Grey Fox and a signalized intersection so getting out into traffic wouldn’t be an issue. Mr. Carlson noted the menu board would also be too close by four feet, and would project sound toward Arby’s. There would be room for landscaping/screening. Mr. Carlson discussed the idea of continuing the sidewalk. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated the sidewalk would have to be kept in the right-of-way. City Planner Jagoe said another discussion item was off street parking requirements. Sixty parking spaces are required for the multi-tenant building, they are showing 77, with an anticipated need of 10 for the car wash. There will be a shared parking agreement. Mr. Carlson clarified there would be 67 parking spots plus 10 for vacuuming. He also noted there will be underground storm water storage. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 6 Mayor Grant felt there was enough parking and that this plan is substantially better than the last in terms of type of business, appearance, and ordinance variances. Councilmember Holden asked if they could situate the handicap parking spot in the middle of the building. Mr. Carlson said he thought they would be required to center the spot between all of the tenants. Mayor Grant expressed that he liked the way it lined up with Cub across the street, and the dedicated entrance for the car wash. City Planner Jagoe asked if there were any comments about noise from the 10 vacuum stations being proposed. There were no comments. Mr. Carlson thought if anyone might be upset about any noise it would be Panera customers sitting on the patio. Councilmember Scott suggested some of the bike racks have electric charging available. Mr. Carlson said he would come back in June or July with a full set of plans. C. PTRC Joint Meeting Recreation Programmer Vaughan said that last year the Council requested the PTRC develop a workplan for 2022. PTRC understands that the Council has final determination on plans and priorities. PTRC Chair Hinton explained that they would like to be more of a working committee. There are currently 12 members on the committee with 4 vacant positions. The committee concentrates on parks, trails, recreational services and community outreach. She reviewed the PTRC workplan and anticipated calendar with the Council. Councilmember Holden stated this was the best PTRC workplan she has seen. She felt it helps to have committee members look at parks for any issues. There is a bench plan that could be shared, there are correctional facility people working on buckthorn, and she would like PTRC be open to where trees are placed. She wondered if there was still a master gardener working at Floral Park. Councilmember Radziej asked what the plans were for the dog park entrance. Recreation Programmer Vaughan said they had plans for a concrete pad. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen added they received funding from the Arden Hills Foundation to do that work. There would be an approximately 8’ X 10’ pad at the Perry Park dog park entrance, but it wouldn’t be possible at Hazelnut Park because it is an ice rink. Mayor Grant felt that would be a great improvement to Perry Park. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 7 Councilmember Holden mentioned that a trail costs about $1.5 million per mile. They continue to work on adding more trails. She was thinking father/daughter, mother/son, grandparents/grandkids dances could be held in the community room at City Hall. She suggested the PTRC members look at other city’s recreational guides for idea. Mayor Grant said he liked that the committee was getting back to a balance of parks, trails and recreation. He acknowledged Mark Kelliher for the work he’s done removing buckthorn in the Chatham neighborhood. Mayor Grant stated he had a recommendation from a resident that the City provide 5-gallon buckets and tongs for seniors to adopt a park and pick up trash. He felt the committee was making good progress thinking of the city as a whole. Committee Member Holden said talking to people in the parks and asking what is needed is always helpful. She mentioned that the Rotary would like ideas for projects they could do at the parks. Mayor Grant said the park tour last year was helpful to find issues, and it’s nice to have PTRC be an extra set of eyes. He cited putting lids on the trash cans as an example of things done because of the park tour. Councilmember Holmes indicated community outreach is good because there are people willing to volunteer from businesses, Boy Scouts, Rotary etc. They could also try to engage the colleges and high school. She felt they could have a list of potential volunteers and projects they could do. PTRC Chair Hinton said they would be discussing volunteers at their next meeting. Councilmember Holmes agreed that the workplan is very good. City Administrator Perrault wondered if council would like recommendations to come back to them each month or at the end of the year. PTRC Chair Hinton replied that the intention is for it to be both, depending on urgency. Councilmember Holden asked if staff could update the Council once a month. PTRC Chair Hinton said they are going to try to have the meetings be more structured with motions and votes. She would like the minutes to be more useful as well. She would also like to hear from the Council if there is something they’d like to see PTRC do. Councilmember Holden mentioned there are grants available in many places that they could watch for. PTRC Committee Member Beggin asked if there was a central place that a list is kept as grant opportunites come in so they could look at them. Recreation Programmer Vaughan said he could start a list. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 8 PTRC Chair Hinton said they would like to have some idea of the budget, so they could manage their expectations and ideas. Mayor Grant said there is a five year capital improvement plan that includes parks. Councilmember Holden said they are continuing to work with the church on the shared parking lot at Hazelnut Park. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen added that each park’s assets are on a replacement and maintenance cycle. He uses spreadsheets to help determine what projects should be put into the CIP. There are projects laid out for the next 10 years. Finance Director Bauman said when new recreation programs are added fees are analyzed and hopefully it’s as close to net zero as possible. Mayor Grant suggested the PTRC should work through the staff and Council Liaisons to understand cost structure for program budgets on non-capital items. Councilmember Holden felt the PTRC should also have copy of the parks/trails maintenance plan. Mayor Grant said an informational session could be scheduled with PTRC and staff to further discuss budgets. Councilmember Radziej commented that people might like to know when and where wildlife is appearing in the parks and wondered how that could be featured. PTRC Chair Hinton wondered if residents could submit that information and photos to a facebook page. Councilmember Holden said they could also show garden photos. PTRC Committee Member Poelzer thought it might be interesting to have a garden tour in Arden Hills. PTRC Chair Hinton said people respond well to contests when there is a small prize involved or when they are requested to photograph specific things. Mayor Grant thanked the committee for their time and the work they do. D. ARPA Funding Follow Up Mayor Grant commented that they were looking at $200,000 for sewer and the rest for water meter replacement. Finance Director Bauman said the sewer fund did better last year than she thought it was going to. She was going to wait until after the CIP this year to determine if any should go to sewer. She would like the flexibility to move the money between the two funds. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 9 Councilmember Holden said if the purpose is to pay for the water meters, they could use the money now for water projects and they would still have money for the meters when they decide to replace them. Mayor Grant elaborated that they have water projects now they could use the ARPA funds for which means they won’t spend money out of the water fund, so when they do get to water meter replacements the funds will be there. Finance Director Bauman said they have to be entered into contracts by the end of 2024, and costs had to be incurred after March, 2021. There’s a possibility it could get used for the Glenpaul project and for both 2022 projects. Councilmember Holmes said she would like to know exactly how they were going to spend the money. City Administrator Perrault said they would lay it out during the budget process. Council had requested staff have an idea of where to spend the money at this meeting, and they had internally talked about using it for water meters as a starting point. The water meter project is coming, whether it gets started this year or next. Councilmember Holmes said she wants to know when the meters have to be replaced. Finance Director Bauman said the meters are working, but some of them are up to 30 years old. Councilmember Holmes asked staff to let them know when the meters project would need to start and meters be replaced so they could start making decisions. Councilmember Radziej noted the efficiency of the contract would be to do all the meters at once, not just ones that fail. Finance Director Bauman said they would need to hire someone to analyze all the products out there to determine what the best product is for us. There is a lot of prep work to decide which meters and which program, and a firm would get hired to do the installations. Councilmember Holden stated they had talked about doing work at the dog parks, was that money coming from the City budget for fences, a shelter, trees etc. Councilmember Holmes said the Spring Lake Park Lions donation would be used for that. Mayor Grant asked if staff recalled what the PMP Edgewater neighborhood (2021 PMP) costs were. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen thought sewer and water combined was probably close to $1 million. The total project was close to $3 million. There is a decent amount of lining that could be done on upcoming projects, and he could come up with others fairly quickly. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 10 Mayor Grant asked staff to put a list together of what they could do against the $1.1 million with a preference toward water and put it in the Admin update. E. New Resident Guide City Administrator Perrault stated that at a previous meeting Council discussed a new resident resources page on the website and marketed to residents. The website was updated and the Resources page was sent to Council for review. If they are comfortable with the page as drafted they can talk about next steps. It will be changed to Resident Resources and a link put prominently on the main page of the website. Mayor Grant asked if they could take off the election totals for Councilmember McClung. Councilmember Holden wanted to stress no overnight parking. Councilmember Radziej felt the link should added to water bills, possibly on the outside of the envelopes and as part of the email for auto pay customers. Councilmember Holden asked if they could add fences under the permits section. Mayor Grant asked if they could make Eye on Water more prominent in the body of the page. Councilmember Radziej asked if they would only send postcards etc. to all residents or just new residents. City Administrator Perrault said the previous discussion involved some sort of new resident packet which could be sent as utility bills change. Postcards could be printed internally and mailed to new residents for an approximate cost of $200 a year. Councilmember Holmes liked the idea of a postcard telling them about the website and bullet points of the top 20 things new residents should know. Mayor Grant said they could put the link in the Arden Hills notes and on utility bills. City Administrator Perrault said staff would put the link on the main page of the website. F. Discussion on PC Joint Meeting City Planner Jagoe stated the last time there was a joint meeting with the Planning Commission was in 2016 with review of the Planning Commission work plan, there was also a joint meeting in 2017 for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. Possible topics were included in the memo; ordinance amendments listed were a carryover of topics previously identified or from a review of code language by staff. Refinement of the list would be necessary for staff to do research and develop ordinance language. Staff would also like feedback on what night of the week a joint meeting might be held. City Planner Jagoe explained that as part of onboarding, new Commissioners went through Planning Commission 101 training; process and ordinance information and their review process. Some commissioners also went through League of Minnesota Cities Land Use training. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 11 Councilmember Holmes said the point of a joint meeting would be to talk about possible ordinance amendments because the Planning Commission has to consider them first, so they should discuss which ordinances the Council might want to see changed. They could also discuss how variances work, which would be more of a formal training. City Planner Jagoe said the Planning Commission and Council could work on ordinance amendments together. Councilmember Holmes said could be an option for when the work sessions have light agendas. Councilmember Holden thought Council could go to a Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Holmes noted that staff knows about six weeks in advance what will be on a Planning Commission meeting, so they couldn’t plan a joint meeting too far in advance. City Administrator Perrault added they are starting to get busier for the summer and we currently have only one person on the Planning staff. Councilmember Holden felt they might want to put this on hold for a while until things slow down, possibly over the winter. They could have a meeting on the night that would be a Planning Commission meeting. City Planner Jagoe said it seemed like there was more of a preference to talk about ordinance amendments. Fence regulations was an item that staff identified; temporary versus permanent. Mayor Grant suggested that Council start tackling infill and signs and then hand them off to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Holden said another topic is CUPs on home occupations in regard to deliveries. After further discussion it was decided fences, commercial districts and home occupation deliveries would be worked on by staff. Signage and infill items would be talked about at a joint meeting. G. State of the City Discussion City Administrator Perrault said this would be a very preliminary discussion. Pre-COVID they were trying move State of the City toward the beginning of the year, but the past 2 years it has been toward the end of the year and video recorded. Would Council like to have State of the City earlier in the year, potentially in June, or later? If sooner they could suggest site selection, discuss the idea of two separate events in morning and evening, and topics. Councilmember Holden felt they should have it in person, while snowbirds are in town, and after more information is available regarding TCAAP. She felt June was too early. Councilmember Holmes thought they should stick to fall for now unless they did it in early June before school is out. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 12 Mayor Grant noted that historically they’ve had it after school starts in the fall. Councilmember Holmes felt they shouldn’t have a live evening event, but a video would be good. City Administrator Perrault said both Boston Scientific and Land O’Lakes were willing to host the meeting, both have some site accessibility issues or security concerns. If they are shooting for the more traditional date this item can be brought back again in July. Mayor Grant said the events at the Tavern have been well attended. He wondered if the choice of location impacts attendance. Councilmember Holden commented that if COVID restrictions are put back in place then we shouldn’t have a State of the City. Mayor Grant recapped to try Boston Scientific or Land O’Lakes, if they both fall through the Tavern could be the backup. They could do the standard topics, and hold it after school is back in session. Councilmember Holden requested the water treatment facility, water meters and the fire department building be added to the discussion topics. Point of Order was called at 8:07. Vote was taken to extend the meeting until 8:30 p.m. H. Council Tracker City Administrator Perrault provided the Council with an update on the Council Tracker. After discussion the Planning Commission Checklist/Onboarding Policy item was removed from the tracker. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Mayor Grant stated the cities of Edina and New Brighton are participating in No-Mow May. The theory is that you would help pollinators by not mowing. Residents taking part get signage for their yard. He suggested we get feedback from those cities to see how it goes. Councilmember Scott reported there were approximately 200 kids at the Spring Egg Hunt. City Administrator Perrault said there was another complaint about trailers parking on Red Fox Road, beyond the water tower on both sides of the street. He felt they should step up enforcement with International Paper. Councilmember Holden said they’re a good business and she doesn’t want them to leave the city, so how could they help. Mayor Grant suggested they invite them to a work session to discuss. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 18, 2022 13 Councilmember Holden said maybe they could be allowed to park on their side of the street up to a certain point. City Administrator Perrault said when they park beyond the water tower access the public works employees can’t see around them when they are plowing. However, they have been good about taking care of the snow on that road by the trailers. Councilmember Holmes wasn’t sure they should be sanctioning a business to break the rules. Maybe they should talk about changing the rules for that area. City Administrator Perrault said Cath-X is moving in across the street and have already expressed concern with parking on their side of the street. Councilmember Holmes commented that it appears if the city enforces the law they would have to leave. City Administrator Perrault suggested that he meet them on site, and someone else from the Council could join him. Councilmember Holden felt they need to have them stop parking on the north side immediately. It was agreed that an on-site informal meeting should be held with the City Administrator, Mayor Grant and Councilmember Radziej. City Administrator Perrault mentioned that he spoke with the Ramsey County Sheriff and the city attorney about the incident at Big 10. The city attorney felt the should wait to deal with the liquor license until after there is a conviction and in conjunction with the annual liquor license renewal. They could deny or condition the license. City Administrator Perrault said there would be clarification coming regarding meetings being virtual or in person, including committees, as they are all public bodies and need to be accessible. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session at 8:43 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Jolene Trauba David Grant Deputy City Clerk Mayor Approved: May 23, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 25, 2022 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Steve Scott and David Radziej (arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer David Swearingen; City Planner Jessica Jagoe; Finance Director Gayle Bauman; and City Attorney Joel Jamnik PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Scott seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried (3-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Chris Hughes, 3515 Snelling Avenue North, reported he was a member of One and All Arden Hills. He invited the Council to check out their website. He asked what the City’s plan was for affordable housing and questioned if it was in alignment with the Met Council’s plan for the City. 3. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES A. Public Inquiry Response from April 11, 2022 City Council Meeting. City Administrator Perrault provided the Council with a response from the inquiry made at the April 11, 2022 City Council Meeting. He reported the City continues to work with past and future developers on affordable housing opportunities. He explained the quote that was brought up by a ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 2 resident could not be sourced and it should be noted the context of the quote could not be determined. 4. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation Recognizing May 15-21, 2022 as National Public Works Week Mayor Grant read a proclamation in full for the record declaring May 15 through May 21, 2022 to be National Public Works Week in the City of Arden Hills. 5. STAFF COMMENTS A. Transportation Update Public Works Director Swearingen reported the road construction season was underway. He explained MNDOT began their cable median barrier project along TH51 from County Road C to I-694. Public Works Director Swearingen stated Ramsey County was beginning work on Lexington Avenue from I-694 to County Road E. He indicated there would be significant traffic changes throughout the phases of this project. He encouraged residents to visit Ramsey County’s website to learn more about this project. Public Works Director Swearingen explained the City Hall parking lot improvements would begin on May 2, 2022. He reported the parking lot would remain open to the public throughout the duration of the project. Councilmember Holden expressed concern with how the businesses along Lexington Avenue would be impacted if there were road and lane closures this summer. Councilmember Holmes reported residents would have trouble getting around this summer due to the fact Snelling Avenue and Lexington Avenue would be under construction. She suggested Public Works staff speak to the State to see if the Snelling Avenue project could be delayed one year. Councilmember Radziej anticipated the State had already bid this project and had contractors in place to do the work along the Snelling Avenue barriers. Councilmember Holmes commented this was probably the case and suggested staff not reach out to the State. Mayor Grant requested staff reach out to the State and ask how long the barrier project was going to take. Public Works Director Swearingen stated he would reach out to the State and would report back to the Council. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 3 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 11, 2022, Regular City Council Councilmember Holmes noted she spoke with staff regarding a minor correction to the minutes on Page 4. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Scott seconded a motion to approve the April 11, 2022, Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried (5-0). 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve First Quarter Financials C. Motion to Approve 2023 Budget Calendar D. Motion to Approve Impound Services Agreement with Animal Humane Society E. Motion to Authorize City Staff to Begin Summer Work Hours Beginning Tuesday, May 31, 2022 and Concluding on Friday, September 2, 2022 F. Motion to Approve Resolution 2022-021 Accepting Donation from Arden Hills Foundation (Floral Park Bench) G. Motion to Approve Resolution 2022-022 Appointing Kerri Seemann to the PTRC H. Motion to Approve 2021 State of Minnesota Institution Community Work Crew (ICWC) Program Contract I. Motion to Approve Sewer Line Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City of Mounds View and Ramsey County (TCAAP) J. Motion to Approve Resolution 2022-027 Accepting Donation from Arden Hills Foundation (Plaque) K. Motion to Approve Appointment of City Representative to Lake Johanna Fire Department Headquarters JPA L. Motion to Approve Resolution 2022-028 Affirming Allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Revenues for Water Infrastructure on 2021 PMP Street and Utility Improvement Project MOTION: Councilmember Scott moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried (5-0). 8. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Arden Oaks Street Improvement Project Draft Special Assessments ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 4 Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated on February 14, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-005 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Ordering the Advertisement for Bids for the Arden Oaks Street Improvement Project located within the Arden Oaks residential neighborhood. Bids were solicited and opened on Wednesday, March 9, 2022. A portion of the costs for the Arden Oaks Street Improvement Project are proposed to be assessed against the benefitting properties according to the City’s Assessment Policy. In order to assess these costs, the City must follow the process outlined in State Statute 429. On March 21, 2022, after the bids were opened, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-013 Declaring Costs to be Assessed and set today as the date for the assessment hearing. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained a public hearing prior to adopting the assessments is a requirement of State Statute 429. The project is proposed to be assessed consistent with the City’s Assessment Policy and past practices, which states that 50% of the costs for roadway improvements will be assessed in residential areas, with the remaining portion financed by City funds. Financing for the project is consistent with City policy and past practice. The project costs include 27% engineering and overhead costs. Larry Poppler, TKDA, provided the Council with a short presentation on the Arden Oaks reclamation project and discussed the project costs. He reported the Council must establish the interest rate at tonight’s Council Meeting. Many cities set their interest rate for assessments at two (2) percentage points over the bond interest rate. The City’s assessment policy states that the interest rate used for the assessment shall be designated at the prime rate plus two (2) percentage points. For the 2021 PMP, the assessment interest rate was set at two (2) percentage points over the assumed bond interest rate which was based on current market conditions at the time, our AAA rating, plus 15 basis points. The result was an assessment interest rate of 3.15%. Our current assumed bond interest rate is 2.90% and the prime rate is 3.50%. Staff would recommend following the City’s assessment policy and setting the assessment rate at 5.50%. The total project costs were analyzed for the assessable cost. The calculation of the amount to be assessed as approved by Council is as follows: The assessments related to the project are calculated in accordance with the City’s Assessment policy, is half of the street project cost for residential properties. The assessment rate is $5,834.34 per unit as compared to the Engineer’s estimate of $6,131.10. Mr. Poppler detailed the assessment payment options. He reported to date, no formal objections have been submitted in writing to City staff. Any written objection received prior to Monday evening will be provided to the City Council at the assessment hearing. As provided for in State Statute, no appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City at or prior to the assessment hearing. After the adoption of the assessment roll, property owners who have submitted an objection in writing have 30 days to serve notice of an appeal to the City, and within 10 days after serving notice to file with the District Court. He commented further on the project timeline and stated after speaking with the contractor he anticipated the project would be done in five or six weeks (weather permitting) once work begins. Councilmember Holden asked if all of the issues regarding the cul-de-sac closest to Snelling Avenue had been addressed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 5 Mr. Poppler reported he believed the concerns had been addressed. He noted a meeting was held onsite and the design was further explained. Councilmember Holden encouraged residents that would be hosting large events or graduation parties in the month of June or July to contact staff to ensure they have access the day of their event. Further comment ensued regarding how the compaction of the base would improve the final product for these streets. Mayor Grant requested further information regarding garbage collection and mailboxes. Mr. Poppler reported mailboxes would not be removed unless a portion of curb was removed directly in front of a mailbox. He stated garbage collection and delivery drivers would continue as is throughout the duration of the project. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. B. Planning Case 22-006 – Vacation Easement – Scannell Properties City Planner Jagoe stated the Applicant is requesting to vacate the existing drainage and ponding easement due to the installation of an underground stormwater retention system as approved within the development plans for this project. The Public Works Director has reviewed the proposed easement vacation and provided a memo in support of the vacation request. A request for a Vacation of Easement requires a public hearing before the City Council. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. C. Planning Case 22-003 – Conditional Use Permit – 1682 Wedgewood Circle City Planner Jagoe stated 1682 Wedgewood Circle (“Subject Property”) is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District, and is designated for Medium Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by Wendy Wei Wang. All surrounding parcels are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District, and designated for Medium Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff commented further on the Site Data, Plan Evaluation and offered the following findings of fact: 1. The subject property located at 1682 Wedgewood Circle is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and is designated for Medium Density Residential uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. A home occupation is allowed in residential zoning districts, but a Conditional Use Permit is required when there is the delivery of products. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 6 3. The Applicant is the sole owner and operator of Crimsontech Industries, LLC, a business related to repair, maintenance, and restoration of firearms including online sales. 4. Crimsontech Industries, LLC is a Minnesota registered limited liability company that was opened on February 16, 2022. 5. All company business is conducted through an online portal and no customers will be visiting the subject property. There is no in-person interaction between the Applicant and business patrons. 6. The company requires only one delivery per day. 7. The company is a small scale operation and is solely owned and operated by the Applicant, CEO and Owner Richard Spicer. 8. Repair, maintenance, and restoration of the firearms is conducted entirely within the dwelling. 9. A public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. 10. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 6, 2022. City Planner Jagoe recommended the Council hold the required public hearing for Planning Case 22-003 an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1682 Wedgewood Circle. The City Council will be asked to make a formal decision regarding the application under Agenda Item 10D. Mayor Grant explained any one resident can come into the City and request a conditional use permit for a home occupation. City Attorney Jamnik stated this was correct. Mayor Grant indicated this was a unique business but as long as the applicant was meeting the conditions, it was not the place of the City Council to pass judgment on the business. Councilmember Holden asked if Item 6, the number of deliveries to the property, had triggered the CUP request. City Planner Jagoe stated this was the case. She noted home occupations were allowed to have up to one delivery per day. She encouraged the applicant to speak further to the items that are being delivered to the property. Richard Spicer, 1682 Wedgewood Circle, discussed the items that could be sent through UPS and FedEx. He stated an FFL license holder could send firearms through UPS and FedEx to another FFL license holder. Mayor Grant requested further information regarding Mr. Spicer’s home business. Mr. Spicer explained he repaired older firearms that were in need of repair and restoration. He indicated he had a YouTube channel where he showcased the work he did to restore and repair the older firearms and he then sold the firearms to gun brokers. Councilmember Scott questioned if this property already had a Class 1 CUP. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 7 City Planner Jagoe reported this was correct. Councilmember Scott indicated the Class 2 requirement was triggered due to the number of deliveries the applicant was receiving. City Planner Jagoe stated this was the case. Councilmember Holmes inquired if staff had experience with this type of home occupation in any other city she has worked in. City Planner Jagoe reported the last community she worked in had a similar home occupation that included the repair of firearms. She noted this home business required a CUP and to her knowledge there have not been any follow up complaints with the Ramsey County Sheriff’s office. Councilmember Holmes requested staff speak to the revocation process that would be followed if the applicant were to not follow the conditions listed by the City. City Planner Jagoe discussed the process that would be followed to revoke the CUP. Councilmember Holmes requested further information from the applicant regarding the security services he has in place at his home. Mr. Spicer described the contracted security services he has on his home through ADT. He noted he has three motion activated cameras on his property. He reported he has had his security system in place for the past two years. Councilmember Scott asked if Mr. Spicer were to move out of this home, would the CUP remain in place on the property. City Attorney Jamnik reported the CUP runs with the land and would be in place on the property but would only apply to another FFL license holder. He explained this CUP would have specific conditions for the home business that would need to be met. Councilmember Holden questioned if the City could remove the CUP on this property if Mr. Spicer moves. City Attorney Jamnik stated this could not be done by the City. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Renee Crumpton, 1680 Wedgewood Circle, stated she understood Mr. Spicer had a security system in place. However, she feared if this business were approved, the public would know which property guns were coming to and this could lead to more break-ins. She stated she was fearful as a homeowner. She noted she was against the requested CUP. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 8 JoAnn Cirks, 1687 Wedgewood Circle, explained she was worried about her property value and how it would be impacted by this home occupation. She noted there was a home for sale in her cul-de-sac and she feared the new owners would not be made aware of the home occupation prior to purchasing this home. City Attorney Jamnik advised the CUP would be on file with Ramsey County and if the new homeowners did their due diligence they would discover this on record with the County. Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2022-023 Adopting Special Assessment Roll – Arden Oaks Street Improvement Project Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated this item was introduced to the Council under Item 9A. Mayor Grant requested the Council discuss the interest rate for the assessments. Councilmember Radziej supported the interest rate being set at 5.5%. The Council was in agreement. Councilmember Holden reported she supported this project moving forward. Councilmember Holmes explained she attended the neighborhood meeting and thanked staff for working with the neighbors on this project. She encouraged residents who still had questions to reach out to staff for further information. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Radziej seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #2022-023 – Adopting Assessment Roll for the Arden Oaks Street Improvement Project. The motion carried (5-0). B. Resolution 2022-024 Accepting Bids and Authorizing Award of Contract to Astech Corporation – Arden Oaks Street Improvements Project Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated on February 14, 2022, the City Council approved plans & specifications and ordered advertisement for bids for the Arden Oaks Street Improvement Project which includes Arden Oaks Drive and Arden Oaks Court. The proposed improvements include bituminous paving, storm water improvements, concrete curb and gutter repair, and appurtenant work on Arden Oaks Drive from Snelling Avenue North to County Road E and Arden Oaks Court. Pursuant of Resolution 2022-006 bids were opened on March 9, 2022. 9 bids for the project were received, the four lowest bids as follows: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 9 Company Bid Amount ASTECH Corporation $520,377.70 T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. $522,711.61 Park Construction $526,500.62 Valley Paving $537,970.10 Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen reported the low bid of $520,377.70, received from ASTECH Corporation, compares favorably with the construction engineer’s estimate which is $538,607. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained ASTECH Corporation has completed similar projects successfully in the metro area, staff reviewed a letter from TKDA recommending award to ASTECH Corporation as the lowest responsible/responsive bidder along with project references that have been verified by staff. Staff commented on Resolution 2022-024 which would award the Arden Oaks Street Improvements to ASTECH Corporation in the amount of $520,377.70 and recommended approval. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to Resolution #2022-024 Awarding the Arden Oaks Street Improvement Contract to ASTECH Corporation in the amount of $520,377.70. The motion carried (5-0). C. Resolution 2022-025 – Planning Case 22-006 – Vacation Easement – Scannell Properties City Planner Jagoe stated this item was presented to the Council under Item 9B. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2022-025 for a Vacation of Drainage and Ponding Easement lying within Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway Interstate. The motion carried (5-0). D. Resolution 2022-026 – Planning Case 22-003 – Conditional Use Permit – 1682 Wedgewood Circle City Planner Jagoe stated this item was presented to the Council under Item 9C. It was noted staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall obtain, maintain, and provide evidence upon request of applicable County, State or Federal licensing for the proposed home occupation following City Council approval. 2. The Applicant shall for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit continue to provide evidence to the City of issuance of FFL renewal licenses and/or Letters of Authorization from the Federal Firearms Licensing Center prior to the expiration of the federal firearms license. 3. The number of daily deliveries associated with the home occupation shall be limited to one per day. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 10 4. No exterior evidence of the home occupation shall be permitted. 5. No exterior signage shall be permitted. 6. The home occupation shall be conducted only by the occupants of the premises and may not employ any person not residing in the residence. 7. There shall be no patrons visiting the premises and all home occupation engagement and sales must be exclusively conducted online. 8. The premises shall at all times be protected by a contracted security service and all firearms and ammunition shall be kept secured in heavy duty gun safes. 9. The level of security is adequate to address the potential risks as determined by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department. Councilmember Holden asked what type of inventory Mr. Spicer would have on site for sale. City Planner Jagoe explained the inventory on site could include items associated with a firearm or a firearm itself. She discussed how these items would be secured in safes and reported the home had a security system in place. Councilmember Holden reported the neighbors were concerned about semi-automatic weapons. She indicated the applicant spoke about restoring vintage weapons. She asked if the applicant would be repairing or working on any semi-automatics. Mr. Spicer stated it would depend on the firearm. He indicated the majority of the weapons he works on are bolt action, but several have been semi-automatics. Councilmember Holden questioned what a heavy duty gun safe was. Mr. Spicer described the type of safe he had in his home, noting it has a stronger lock with multiple bars in place for security purposes. In addition, the safe was extremely heavy and was bolted to the basement floor. Councilmember Holden inquired how many guns would be stored on the property at any given time. Mr. Spicer estimated he would have up to 15 guns onsite, but this included his own personal collection. He noted he keeps his personal guns in a separate safe. Councilmember Holden asked how often Mr. Spicer would have to renew his license with the ATF. Mr. Spicer stated this would have to be done every three years. Councilmember Scott questioned if an FFL would allow Mr. Spicer to handle fully automatic weapons. Mr. Spicer reported he would have to go through a very extensive process with the ATF in order to handle fully automatic weapons. He explained he was not intending to pursue this. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 11 Councilmember Scott asked what type of solvents were used to clean the firearms parts. Mr. Spicer indicated he used Simple Green and water. Councilmember Scott requested further information regarding the gun plating process. Mr. Spicer discussed the gun plating process in further detail with the Council and stated he may be doing nickel electroplating onsite. Councilmember Scott asked where Mr. Spicer’s shop was within the home. Mr. Spicer reviewed several photographs with the Council and pointed out where his workshop was within the home. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Radziej seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2022-026, approving Planning Case 22-003 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1682 Wedgewood Circle, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, and the nine (9) conditions in the April 25, 2022, Report to the City Council. Councilmember Holden spoke to the concerns raised by a neighbor that her home value would decrease. She indicated there were numerous gunsmiths working from their homes all around the metro area. City Attorney Jamnik stated in the past 40 years he has not heard of any home occupation that has affected property values, other than those that are impacting the exterior visual/maintenance of the home. Councilmember Holden questioned when the break-ins occurred in this neighborhood. Mr. Spicer reported there was an incident where a car was stolen from a neighbor’s driveway a month ago. He indicated the break-ins to the homes were from the 1990’s. He stated there has been no trouble recently. He clarified he has had no break-ins at his home. Councilmember Holden asked if the City required Mr. Spicer to have a security system in place. City Planner Jagoe read Condition 8 stating the premise shall be protected by a contracted service at all times. Councilmember Scott stated he believed the only thing that could impact property values was the exterior of the rental home, and not the business that was being operated from inside the rental. Councilmember Holden indicated she would be supporting the requested CUP. Mayor Grant explained he would be supporting the request as well and thanked the applicant for being forthcoming with the City. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 12 Councilmember Scott stated he would be supporting the CUP and thanked Mr. Spicer for the professional manner in which he handled this application. Councilmember Holmes reported she would be supporting this request. The motion to adopt Resolution 2022-026, approving Planning Case 22-003 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Accessory Home Occupation at 1682 Wedgewood Circle, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, and the nine (9) conditions in the April 25, 2022, Report to the City Council was adopted and carried (5-0). 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 12. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Councilmember Radziej welcomed Kerri Seemann to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee. He stated he looked forward to working with her. Councilmember Scott thanked Kerri Seemann for volunteering to serve on the PTRC. Councilmember Scott encouraged the public to register for the Scoops for Troops event now through May 15. He stated the event would be held on Sunday, May 22. Councilmember Holmes commended Public Works for their efforts on behalf of the community and thanked them for all that they do. She invited the public to attend the Touch a Truck event which would be held on Saturday, May 21 at Perry Park from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Councilmember Holden thanked Public Works for all of their efforts and discussed how hard it was for this group to work throughout the COVID pandemic. Councilmember Holden thanked all of the members of the public that attended the annual Easter Egg Hunt stating there were over 200 children in attendance. Councilmember Holden encouraged staff to post the PTRC work plan on the City’s website. Councilmember Holden asked staff to speak with MNDOT in order to get a “Welcome to Arden Hills” sign posted on southbound I-35W. Mayor Grant reported the theft of catalytic convertors continues in the community. He encouraged residents to be aware of this concern. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 25, 2022 13 ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Radziej seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:40 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Julie Hanson David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: May 23, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9, 2022 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, David Radziej, and Steve Scott Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Dave Swearingen; City Planner Jessica Jagoe; and City Attorney Joel Jamnik PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Grant requested two items be added to the agenda, the first being Item 2A a Proclamation for National Police Week and the second item was Item 9B a Terms Sheet for Rice Creek Commons. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Radziej seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Christy Jacob, 1492 Arden Place West, reported she is the mother to seven kids who have or will be attending Mounds View High School. She explained she is a psychologist and has a private practice in Arden Hills. She noted she has lived in Arden Hills for the past 19 years and over the past two years she has participated in One and All Arden Hills, which is a group that is working to create a more welcoming, just and inclusive community. She discussed the work this group was doing to address affordable housing in Arden Hills. She reported the City of Arden Hills had received a score of 10 out of 100 from the Met Council, based on its affordable housing efforts in 2021. She noted this score represents Arden Hills’ efforts for the past 10 years. She indicated the City’s efforts have been deficient because only four units have been built in the past 10 years. She ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 2 believed this score meant the City lacked ordinances and policies that would promote and support affordable housing. She indicated Shoreview scored a 90, Fridley an 89 and New Brighton scored a 71. She encouraged the Council to consider how it will accomplish its affordable housing goals as identified within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which called for 373 additional units and suggested more affordable housing be considered within the Rice Creek Commons development. Chris Hughes, 3515 Snelling Avenue North, stated he is a member of One and All Arden Hills. He invited the City Council to check out this group’s website. He explained at a previous meeting he requested the Council to provide him with a plan for achieving the City’s affordable housing targets as outlined within the comprehensive plan. He discussed the response he received from staff noting the City continues to work with developers on affordable housing options in Arden Hills. He encouraged the Council to provide the public with a plan on how it will achieve 373 affordable housing units stating it was his understanding TCAAP would only have 146 affordable units. He explained Arden Hills had great schools, a strong business climate, and safe neighborhoods thanks to the leadership of the City Council. He believed Arden Hills should also welcome lower earning individuals into the community by providing reasonably priced housing. He recommended the Council spend time drafting an actionable plan to meet Met Council’s affordable housing goals. A. Proclamation for National Police Week Mayor Grant read a proclamation in full for the record declaring May 11 through May 17, 2022 to be National Police Week in the City of Arden Hills. 3. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES None. 4. STAFF COMMENTS A. Transportation Update Public Works Director Swearingen reported work began in April on Lexington Avenue from County Road E to I-694 in Arden Hills. He commented on the detours that would be in place for 2022 and he encouraged the public to drive safely through this area and to be prepared for delays. He noted the latest information on this project could be found in Ramsey County’s website. Public Works Director Swearingen stated MNDOT’s median cable barrier project on Snelling Avenue from County Road C to I-694 and traffic was restricted to one lane northbound. Public Works Director Swearingen explained work began on the parking lot at City Hall and it was noted the parking lot would remain open to the public in designated areas Monday through Friday. Councilmember Holden encouraged Ramsey County to provide more information to the public on Lexington Avenue project noting people were having trouble navigating through this corridor. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 3 Councilmember Radziej discussed how the Arden Hills businesses were being adversely impacted by the County’s project. He suggested that Council and staff meet with the businesses along Snelling Avenue in order to hear their concerns and that these concerns be brought to Ramsey County. City Administrator Perrault explained additional signage would be coming up shortly and access would be maintained at Lexington Station. Councilmember Holden asked if the County went door to door to speak to Arden Hills businesses. Public Works Director Swearingen stated Ramsey County went door knocking and handed out flyers to notify the businesses of the traffic changes that would occur this summer. Mayor Grant supported staff going door to door to keep these businesses updated on the County improvement project. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Radziej seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried (5-0). 7. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Snelling Avenue North Street and Utility Improvements Project Draft Special Assessment Roll Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated on February 14, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-005 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Ordering the Advertisement for Bids. Bids were solicited and opened on Wednesday, March 9, 2022. The initial proposed Special Assessment Hearing on April 11, 2022 was tabled due to a calculation error on the assessment rate. Notices were sent to the applicable residents and the Special Assessment Hearing was rescheduled for today, May 9, 2022. A portion of the costs for the Snelling Avenue North Street and Utility Improvement Project are proposed to be assessed against the benefitting properties according to the City’s Assessment Policy. In order to assess these costs, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 4 the City must follow the process outlined in State Statute 429. On March 14, 2022, after the bids were opened, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022- 014 Declaring Costs to be Assessed and set today as the date for the assessment hearing. A public hearing prior to adopting the assessments is a requirement of State Statute 429. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen reported the project is proposed to be assessed consistent with the City’s Assessment Policy and past practices, which states that 50% of the costs for roadway improvements will be assessed in residential areas, with the remaining portion financed by City funds. Financing for the project is consistent with City policy and past practice and is summarized in the table below. The project costs include 27% engineering and overhead costs. Also, the Council must establish the interest rate at tonight’s Council Meeting. Many cities set their interest rate for assessments at two (2) percentage points over the bond interest rate. The City’s assessment policy states that the interest rate used for the assessment shall be designated at the prime rate plus two (2) percentage points. For the 2021 PMP, the assessment interest rate was set at two (2) percentage points over the assumed bond interest rate which was based on current market conditions at the time, our AAA rating, plus 15 basis points. The result was an assessment interest rate of 3.15%. Our current assumed bond interest rate is 2.90% and the prime rate is 3.50%. Staff would recommend following the City’s assessment policy and setting the assessment rate at 5.50%. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained Snelling Avenue North assessment rate of $4,958 per unit as compared to the Feasibility Report estimate of $4,524. The assessments related to Cummings Lane are calculated in accordance with the City’s Assessment policy, is half of the street project cost for residential properties. Cummings Lane assessment rate of $4,935 per unit as compared to the Feasibility Report estimate of $4,071. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated as provided for in State Statute, no appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City at or prior to the assessment hearing. After the adoption of the assessment roll, property owners who have submitted an objection in writing have 30 days to serve notice of an appeal to the City, and within 10 days after serving notice to file with the District Court. Formal objections that were submitted in writing to City staff have been forwarded to Council for review. Any other written objection received prior to Monday evening will be provided to the City Council at the assessment hearing. Brad Fisher, Bolton & Menk, commented further on the assessments for the Snelling Avenue North Street and Utility Improvement project. He explained the low bid was received from T.A. Schifsky & Sons. The cost for the project improvements was reviewed with the Council and it was noted the project would be funded by six different sources. The properties that would be assessed through this project were detailed along with the assessments rates for Cummings Lane and Snelling Avenue. He reported a newsletter was sent by T.A. Schifsky to the property owners within the project area and work has begun on the project. The manner in which assessments could be paid to the City was described and he asked for comments or questions. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 5 Chris Hughes, 3515 Snelling Avenue North, commented he was disappointed with the change in the assessment amount, noting his assessment went up $1,000. He believed this was quite unfortunate for the residents. He stated he was also frustrated with the fact very few residents were being asked to pay for this stretch of roadway. Councilmember Holden requested staff speak to how this roadway was being assessed. Public Works Director Swearingen described how the assessments for Snelling Avenue had been calculated, noting a different equation had been used to find a rate per foot for the frontage of this roadway. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Councilmember Scott explained if the standard equation had been followed for Snelling Avenue the assessments would have been nearly $18,000. He thanked staff for using the per foot equation because this was providing an assessment that was equivalent to the Cummings Lane project. Mayor Grant noted it was his understanding written objections to the proposed assessments had to be received in writing at this meeting. City Attorney Jamnik reported this was the case and stated staff had received three objections. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2022-019 Adopting Special Assessment Roll – Snelling Avenue North Street and Utility Improvement Project Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated this item was introduced under Item 8A. Councilmember Holden commented on the appeals that were received from the public and noted she supported the assessment for the property at 3529 Snelling Avenue. She explained staff made a mistake originally when calculating the assessments and the number had been corrected. Mayor Grant agreed the proposed assessments should stand with the recalculated numbers. Councilmember Holmes and Councilmember Radziej concurred. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 2022-019 – Adopting Special Assessment Roll – Snelling Avenue North Street and Utility Improvement Project. The motion carried (5-0). B. Terms Sheet for Rice Creek Commons Mayor Grant provided the public with a recap and history on TCAAP/Rice Creek Commons. He indicated this item was added to the agenda because it was not available at the time the packet was ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 6 printed. He noted this development was extremely large and the City has been working since August of 2021 on the Terms Sheet with Alatus. He reported the City and the developer have come to an agreement on a Terms Sheet. He then reviewed the main points within the Terms Sheet and provided a definition for an evergreen fund. He explained TCAAP would have 326 affordable units. The district parking solution was discussed and it was noted TIF would be used to assist with the expense. He then invited Bob Lux with Alatus to speak to the Council. Bob Lux, President and CEO of Alatus, commented on the process that had been followed to select Alatus as the master developer for TCAAP back in 2016. He stated he was disappointed when this project came to a screeching halt, but commented on how the project has improved in the past three years. He indicated he looked forward to working on this project with the City of Arden Hills. He discussed the affordable housing that would be constructed within this project and commended the City for doing this in a thoughtful and responsible manner. He believed the project was sound and only minor modifications would be required. It was his hope that the County would approve the plans and ground breaking would occur yet this year. He complimented the City again for all of their assistance during the negotiations of the Terms Sheet and noted the Council had been very fiscally responsible on behalf of their citizens. Mayor Grant stated he was looking forward to the County reviewing and approving this Terms Sheet in order to move this project forward. He thanked Councilmember Holden for her assistance on this project over the years. He was of the opinion the proposed Terms Sheet was very balanced and should move forward. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to approve the Terms Sheet for Rice Creek Commons. Councilmember Holden discussed the history of this project. She appreciated how the Terms Sheet addressed the financials for this project. She thanked the developer for taking on the risk in order to move this project forward. Councilmember Radziej stated he appreciated all of the Council’s efforts on the Terms Sheet. Mayor Grant explained the County sent a letter to the City, encouraging the City to meet with Alatus in order to draft a Terms Sheet and agreement. He believed the City had come up with a great solution that will work for all parties involved. Councilmember Holmes thanked Bob Lux for being in attendance and for working with the City over the past eight months on the Terms Sheet. She believed the Terms Sheet was a significant step forward in the path to developing Rice Creek Commons. She explained the City Council continues to put the interests of the Arden Hills residents first. She reported the goal was to complete a sustainable development that would enhance the City. She then commented on the affordable housing that would be included within the TCAAP development. Councilmember Scott stated this was a proud moment for all taxpayers within Ramsey County. He reported this agreement would not have happened without the commitment from Alatus and the City Council. He indicated this project was in a much better place than it was several years ago. He thanked Bob Lux and stated he was looking forward to this project getting started. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 7 Mayor Grant thanked Alatus for all of their efforts and for working things through with the City. He thanked Alatus for committing to build quality housing products within the development. A roll call was taken. The motion to approve the Rice Creek Commons Terms Sheet was adopted and passed with a 5-0 vote. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Radziej stated he had a great visit with International Paper and requested staff speak with representatives from International Paper. Councilmember Scott reported Tuesday, May 10 would be the last day to register for the Scoops for Troops event and receive a free t-shirt (registration is still open after May 10 but a t-shirt is not guaranteed). He reported the run would be held on Sunday, May 22 at 10:00 a.m. Councilmember Scott explained the City is sponsoring a Touch a Truck event to be held at Perry Park on Saturday, May 21 at 10:00 a.m. Councilmember Holmes stated she would be attending a ribbon cutting ceremony for the St. Paul Waterworks new facility on Tuesday, May 10. Councilmember Holmes indicated she received a letter from Representative Betty McCollum regarding the 12 projects that would be completed in the area, noting several of the projects would be investments made in youth programming. Councilmember Holden stated the Minnesota Department of Housing Authority was starting a home improvement program for manufactured home communities. She noted funding would be available for improvements and encouraged staff to reach out to representatives from this organization to see if there was funding available. Mayor Grant discussed the trailers that were being parked near International Paper and encouraged staff to reach out to representatives within this organization to address these concerns. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried (5-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MAY 9, 2022 8 Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:19 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Julie Hanson David Grant City Clerk Mayor CONSENT ITEM 7A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Claims and Payroll Listing Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motion to approve, table or deny the following: Claims and Payroll Listing All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Memo Background Payroll is processed biweekly and accounts payable is processed weekly. Budget Impact N/A Attachments 2022 Payroll #10 $123,858.05 Total Payroll $123,858.05 Paid Claims - 04/30/2022-05/13/2022 (Check Nos. 50918-50954 and ACH Checks) $365,493.96 Total Accounts Payable $365,493.96 Total Claims $489,352.01 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAYROLL # 10 CHECKS DATED: 05/13/22 Biweekly: 04/23/22 - 05/06/22 EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS AMT.Payment Method FIT 8,166.21 EFT SIT 3,489.72 EFT FICA Oasdi 5,303.93 EFT FICA Medicare 1,240.43 EFT TOTAL TAXES 18,200.29 Health Premium 1,751.01 A/P Check* Dental Premium 200.36 A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb. 50.00 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb. 0.00 A/P Check* TOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING 2,001.37 HSA Health Saving 390.00 Health Care Savings Plan-Retirement 0.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2% 0.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4% 0.00 EFT TOTAL HEALTH SAVINGS 390.00 PERA 4,637.87 EFT ICMA 2,404.78 EFT Central Pension Fund-Union 1,536.00 A/P Check* MN State Retirement System 1,302.59 EFT TOTAL RETIREMENT 9,881.24 IUOE 49 Dues (Union) 140.00 A/P Check* LTD/STD Insurance 1,271.05 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance 24.00 A/P Check* Life/Addl/Dep Life 47.39 A/P Check* Life/Addl non-tax 9.60 A/P Check* UNUM 19.51 A/P Check* AFLAC 22.76 EFT TOTAL VOLUNTARY 1,534.31 Total Employee Deductions 32,007.21 Net Payroll 0.00 Direct Deposit 56,413.57 EFT Gross Payroll Tie-Out 88,420.78 Plus City Paid Benefit 35,437.27 TOTAL PAYROLL COST 123,858.05 FICA TIE-OUT Gross Payroll 88,420.78 Less Total FSA 2,001.37 Less Total H.SA 390.00 Less Voluntary Ins 32.36 Less Non Taxable Tech Reimb 450.00 Net P/R Subject to FICA 85,547.05 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20% 5,303.93 FICA Medicare @ 1.45% 1,240.43 Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the US Bank Easy Tax Deposit Service. Transfers are typically made up to two days after the payroll date. * A/P Checks can be found on the ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval report. Checks may be paid this week or the following week. CITY BENEFIT 5,303.93 1,240.43 6,544.36 21,502.53 505.70 22,008.23 1,000.00 1,000.00 5,351.38 434.40 5,785.78 98.90 98.90 Accounts Payable User: Printed: gayle.bauman 5/13/2022 3:45 PM Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 0189 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 05/06/2022ACH 2040185 April Locates 80.10 2040185 April Locates 80.10 2040185 April Locates 80.10 240.30Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0189: 0192 GRAINGER INC 05/06/2022ACH 9294166948 Supplies 457.23 9294984829 Socket Bit 20.62 477.85Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0192: 0230 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 05/06/2022ACH 1341343-00 Mount Jack & Blade - Z Turn 559.18 1342046-00 Mount Jack-Z Turn 384.26 943.44Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0230: 0242 MET COUNCIL ENVIRON SERVICES-SAC05/06/2022ACH 05022022 April 2022 SAC -24.85 05022022 April 2022 SAC 2,485.00 2,460.15Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0242: 0243 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL-WASTE WATER05/06/2022ACH 0001139605 Waste Water - June 68,098.24 68,098.24Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0243: 0292 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC 05/06/2022ACH 0003522062 April Rental 30.24 30.24Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0292: 0319 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 05/06/2022ACH 0230884 IT Support - May 7,535.16 7,535.16Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0319: 0327 STAPLES INC 05/06/2022ACH 3505562383 Supplies 16.98 3505562384 Supplies 7.99 3505562385 Supplies 9.99 3505647809 Supplies 7.98 42.94Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0327: 0731 MIDWAY FORD 05/06/2022ACH 583616 Front Seat Recliner #85602 346.54 709621 Bracket 100.28 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 709621 Bracket #85215 50.14 711578 Cover #85602 18.33 515.29Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0731: 0772 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 05/06/2022ACH CC1698 Arden Place Supplies 2,886.40 2,886.40Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0772: 10363 MINUTE MAKER SECRETARIAL 05/06/2022ACH M1478 4/25 Council Minutes 249.75 249.75Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10363: 10476 TWIN CITIES COMMERCIAL CLEANERS05/06/2022ACH 0522T120 Janitorial Services-April 2,005.58 2,005.58Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10476: 12018 ACHIEVE SERVICES 05/06/2022ACH 29115 Document Shredding 54.25 54.25Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 12018: 5173 BADGER METER 05/06/2022ACH 80089268 Aug-Dec 21 reading fees 2,397.62 80091400 Jan 22 reading fees 502.93 80093432 Feb 22 reading fees 512.43 80095707 Mar 22 reading fees 647.98 80095707 Apr 22 Gateway fees -108.00 80097859 Apr 22 reading fees 75.05 80097859 Apr 22 -Jun 22 Gateway fees 324.00 90036632 Correct Aug 21 - Mar 22 reading fees -3,783.86 568.15Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5173: 0131 BEISSWENGERS DO IT BEST 05/06/202250918 567574 Nuts & Bolts 7.96 570342 Stake & Twine 49.98 57.94Total for Check Number 50918: misc1 JOYCE or KENT CLELAND 05/06/202250919 042522 May AARP Driver Satety Class Refund 50.00 50.00Total for Check Number 50919: 1033 COMCAST 05/06/202250920 0101030.0522 Service 05/03-06/02 108.35 108.35Total for Check Number 50920: 10218 HR GREEN INC 05/06/202250921 152031 Shorewood Dr Final Design/Construction Services 2,574.50 152032 Pavement Cores-Streets 125.00 152032 MS4 Permit Compliance Services 985.00 152032 General Engineering-March 1,611.73 5,296.23Total for Check Number 50921: 0390 INT'L UNION OPERATING ENGINEERS-UNION DUES05/06/202250922 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 1200.0522 May Dues 280.00 280.00Total for Check Number 50922: 10448 MARCO TECHNOLOGIES LLC 05/06/202250923 471389056 Copier Contract 4/25-5/25 35.35 471389056 Copier Contract 4/25-5/25 200.36 235.71Total for Check Number 50923: 0240 METROPOLITAN AREA MGMT ASSN 05/06/202250924 1175 MAMA Luncheon 4/28 25.00 25.00Total for Check Number 50924: 3100 PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INS CO05/06/202250925 9672443.0422 April Premium 39.02 39.02Total for Check Number 50925: 0811 RAMSEY COUNTY 05/06/202250926 PRMG-004600 PW Rental Space 1/1/22-6/30/22 15,481.56 PRMG-004600 PW Rental Space 1/1/22-6/30/22 6,880.70 PRMG-004600 PW Rental Space 1/1/22-6/30/22 30,963.13 PRMG-004600 PW Rental Space 1/1/22-6/30/22 15,481.56 68,806.95Total for Check Number 50926: 0282 REPUBLIC SERVICES #899 05/06/202250927 0899-003895733 March Revenue Share -3,565.07 0899-003895733 April Recycling 8,282.00 0899-003897937 PW April Waste 274.38 4,991.31Total for Check Number 50927: 0314 ROCHON CORPORATION 05/06/202250928 050222 Hydrant Meter Rental Refund 2021-00894 2,000.00 050222 Hydrant Meter Rental Refund 2021-00894 -383.20 1,616.80Total for Check Number 50928: 5576 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP 05/06/202250929 7153479245 CH Elevator Repair 1,318.79 1,318.79Total for Check Number 50929: 3099 TRI STATE BOBCAT INC-LITTLE CANADA05/06/202250930 A02723 Trimmer 275.00 A02769 Pin, Nut, Bolt, & Link Buck #85453 513.54 788.54Total for Check Number 50930: 169,722.38Total for 5/6/2022: 0192 GRAINGER INC 05/13/2022ACH 9307066788 Gas leak detector 232.03 9307783473 Batteries 175.87 407.90Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0192: 0230 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 05/13/2022ACH Page 3AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 1343521-00 Aerator parts 103.49 103.49Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0230: 0285 XCEL ENERGY 05/13/2022ACH 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 272.11 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 1,667.61 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 1,751.14 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 2,267.05 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 1,750.77 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 59.54 777689192 03/17/22-04/17/22 1,169.54 8,937.76Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0285: 0320 HEALTH PARTNERS INC 05/13/2022ACH 112599918 June Insurance 906.38 906.38Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0320: 0327 STAPLES INC 05/13/2022ACH 3506094863 Supplies 253.94 3506163140 Supplies 29.95 283.89Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0327: 0382 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 106944 05/13/2022ACH PR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employer Percent 401PR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employer Percent 401 434.40 PR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employee Percent 401PR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employee Percent 401 376.48 810.88Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0382: 0387 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST #302482 05/13/2022ACH PR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employee PercentPR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employee Percent 253.76 PR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employee DeductionPR Batch 00100.05.2022 ICMA Employee Deduction 1,774.54 2,028.30Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0387: 0922 NINENORTH 05/13/2022ACH 2022-074 April Production 1,018.83 1,018.83Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0922: 1115 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 05/13/2022ACH R-017880-000-11 GIS Consulting-March 1,536.00 1,536.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1115: 1125 BOLTON & MENK INC 05/13/2022ACH 0287813 2021 PMP-Hazelnut 138.50 0287814 2022 Snelling 4,410.50 4,549.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1125: 1363 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICES INC 05/13/2022ACH 12301 Leak locates 1698 Brueberry & 3737 Lexington 622.23 622.23Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1363: 1785 ECOTHYNK 05/13/2022ACH 1985 April UB Statement Processing 73.51 1985 April UB Statement Processing 73.51 Page 4AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 1985 April UB Statement Processing 73.50 220.52Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1785: 5173 BADGER METER 05/13/2022ACH 80095707 July 2022 Gateway Fees 108.00 108.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5173: 5587 CES IMAGING INC 05/13/2022ACH INV139722 May Rental 60.00 60.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5587: 6060 BATTERIES PLUS 05/13/2022ACH P50819655 Lift station battery 249.96 249.96Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 6060: 7501 KELLY & LEMMONS PA 05/13/2022ACH 58141 April Prosecution 2,813.53 2,813.53Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7501: alpi ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING INC 05/13/2022ACH 165868 Postage-April Newsletter 58.30 165868 April Newsletter 1,984.74 2,043.04Total for this ACH Check for Vendor alpi: mnli MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES INC05/13/2022ACH 33256 Spring Mowing 450.00 450.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor mnli: toii TOKLE INSPECTIONS INC 05/13/2022ACH 050522 April Electrical Services 4,101.20 4,101.20Total for this ACH Check for Vendor toii: 5702 ANOKA COUNTY 05/13/202250931 051222.AL Notary commission AL 20.00 20.00Total for Check Number 50931: 0131 BEISSWENGERS DO IT BEST 05/13/202250932 571577 Nuts & bolts 11.58 11.58Total for Check Number 50932: 1033 COMCAST 05/13/202250933 98681.0522 Service 05/05-06/04 111.32 111.32Total for Check Number 50933: 10244 COMCAST BUSINESS INC 05/13/202250934 145991298 May Service 494.05 494.05Total for Check Number 50934: 0176 FRATTALLONES HARDWARE INC 05/13/202250935 C05643/A Sealant foam 10.99 Page 5AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 10.99Total for Check Number 50935: 10218 HR GREEN INC 05/13/202250936 152348 General Engineering-April 717.00 152348 Streets Engineering 371.25 152348 Storm Engineering-MS4 Permit Compliance 98.50 152349 PC 20-010 AR#506 Gateway Interstate PL Expansion 1,774.00 2,960.75Total for Check Number 50936: 0447 I.U.O.E LOCAL 49 BENEFIT FUND-INSURANCE05/13/202250937 BP3.0622 June Insurance 10,760.00 NB4.0622 June Insurance 1,527.00 12,287.00Total for Check Number 50937: 5443 METRO PRODUCTS INC 05/13/202250938 166249 Supplies 460.50 460.50Total for Check Number 50938: 10286 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 05/13/202250939 395923 Drug Screen 297.00 297.00Total for Check Number 50939: 0422 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY05/13/202250940 041122 Class SD Certification-TB 45.00 45.00Total for Check Number 50940: 01467 MINNESOTA SWORD PLAY 05/13/202250941 50 Spring Fencing 350.00 350.00Total for Check Number 50941: 10271 MN PEIP 05/13/202250942 1190950 June Insurance 12,717.42 12,717.42Total for Check Number 50942: nscc NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION INC05/13/202250943 2022-510 Q2 2022 contribution 6,101.75 6,101.75Total for Check Number 50943: 0155 OFFICE OF MN IT SERVICES 05/13/202250944 W22030565 March Phones 750.32 750.32Total for Check Number 50944: 1208 PREMIUM WATERS INC 05/13/202250945 610207-04-22 Water April 15.49 613317-04-22 Water April 80.98 96.47Total for Check Number 50945: 0811 RAMSEY COUNTY 05/13/202250946 EMCOM-010016 Fleet Support-April 24.96 EMCOM-010052 911 Dispatch Services-April 2022 4,418.27 EMCOM-010069 CAD Services-April 2022 732.41 FLEET-000722 April Fuel 2,406.25 Page 6AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription SHRFL-002062 Law Enforcement-May 2022 116,177.07 123,758.96Total for Check Number 50946: UB*00553 NANCY RAY 05/13/202250947 Refund Check 007185-000, 4343 Arden View Court 30.01 30.01Total for Check Number 50947: AR-RJ S RJ STEGORA INC.05/13/202250948 Escrow refund GE 2016-00553 3695 New Brighton Rd 2,576.29 2,576.29Total for Check Number 50948: 7064 ROTARY CLUB OF ARDEN HILLS-SHOREVIEW05/13/202250949 2213 Q2 2022 Dues 127.50 127.50Total for Check Number 50949: 10354 ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS 05/13/202250950 0422572589 PC 22-007 AR#638 Salt Box Plan Review 49.82 0422572589 PC 22-003 AR#634 1682 Wedgewood 52.64 0422572589 Snelling Ave PMP 77.08 0422572589 Delinquent Public Utilities 29.14 0422572589 PC 22-006 AR#636 Scannell Easement 31.02 0422572589 PC 22-004 AR#635 1152 Benton Variance 62.98 302.68Total for Check Number 50950: 10495 TENET 05/13/202250951 709761 Spec Mix Mortar 447.97 447.97Total for Check Number 50951: 3099 TRI STATE BOBCAT INC-LITTLE CANADA05/13/202250952 E32850 Tiller rental 230.00 230.00Total for Check Number 50952: UB*00552 MARY TRISKO 05/13/202250953 Refund Check 001608-000, 1653 Lake View Court 9.31 9.31Total for Check Number 50953: 9755 VERIZON CONNECT NWF INC 05/13/202250954 OSV000002754656 April Service 323.80 323.80Total for Check Number 50954: 195,771.58Total for 5/13/2022: Report Total (70 checks): 365,493.96 Page 7AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/13/2022 3:45 PM) Page 1 of 1 CONSENT ITEM – 7B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve 2021 City Financial Statements and Audit Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motion(s) to approve, table or deny the following: • 2021 City of Arden Hills Financial Report and Audit Results. All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Discussion The 2021 financial statements and audit results are completed and a presentation was made to the City Council by the City’s auditor, Aaron Neilson of MMKR, earlier this evening. The reports will be submitted to both the State Auditor and the Government Finance Officers Association. Budget Impact None. Page 1 of 1 CONSENT ITEM – 7C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Joe Vaughan, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: Accepting Donation from the Arden Hills Foundation Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A $1000.00 N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Resolution 2022-029 Accepting a Donation from the Arden Hills Foundation in the amount of $1000.00. All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Background The Arden Hills Foundation has been established as a 501c3 organization. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens, cities are authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefits of recreational services. Discussion The Arden Hills Foundation has donated $1000.00 to the City of Arden Hills for the gardening work done in Floral Park. This donation was given to the Arden Hills Foundation from Graco Corporation and resident Dan Dietz. To comply with State Statutes, the City needs to acknowledge the donation and issue receipt of the donation to the Arden Hills Foundation. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Attachment A: Resolution 2022-029 To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-029 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION WHEREAS, Arden Hills (“City”) is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens, and is specifically authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefit of recreational services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and WHEREAS, The following entity has offered to contribute the cash amount set forth below to the city: Name of Donor Amount Arden Hills Foundation $1,000.00 WHEREAS, All such donations have been contributed to assist the City in the establishment and operation of recreational facilities and programs either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donations offered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, THAT: 1. The donation described above is accepted and shall be used to establish recreational facilities either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to issue receipts to each donor acknowledging the City’s receipt of the donor’s donation. 3. The finance department is hereby authorized to complete any budget adjustments necessary to reflect this donation and corresponding expenditures. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022. _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Page 1 of 2 CONSENT ITEM – 7D MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: MnDOT Master Partnership Contract - FY 2023-2027 Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Resolution 2022-030 entering into a Master Partnership Contract with Minnesota Department of Transportation. All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Background/Discussion Attached is a copy of a proposed Master Partnership Contract (MPC) between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of Arden Hills. The current MPC will expire on June 30th, 2022. The Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for Mn/DOT and Local Agencies to provide services and payment to each other. It also authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. A few MnDOT provided routine services are included in the contract (see Exhibit A within Attachment A) but all other services require work orders describing costs and scope. This contract will be effective on July 1st, 2022 and will expire June 30th, 2027. Page 2 of 2 Budget Impact N/A Attachments Attachment A: State of Minnesota Master Partnership Contract Attachment B: Resolution 2022-030 MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 Master Partnership Contract Template 1 Updated 02/09/2022 STATE OF MINNESOTA MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation in this contract referred to as the “State” and the Arden Hills City, acting through its City Council, in this contract referred to as the “Other Party.” Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §§15.061, 471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25. 4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into contracts with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation‐related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally purchase services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract (MPC) provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This MPC contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified) enter into a “Work Order” contracts. 7. After the execution of this MPC, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into “Work Order” contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this MPC to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Contract 1. Term of Master Partnership Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on July 1st, 2022, or upon the date last signed by all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2, whichever occurs last. The Other Party must not begin work under this Contract until ALL required signatures have been obtained and the Other Party has been notified in writing to begin such work by the State’s Authorized Representative. 1.2. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2027. 1.3. Exhibits. Exhibit A is attached and incorporated into this agreement. 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Other Party) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Other Party as specified in Article 2. The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that project. A party must not begin work under a work order until the work order is fully MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 2 executed. The terms of this MPC will apply to all work orders contracts issued, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Other Party understands that this MPC is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully‐executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this MPC will survive with respect to any work order contract issued prior to the expiration date of the MPC. 1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 1.7. Definition of “Providing Party” and “Requesting Party”. For the purpose of assigning certain duties and obligations in the MPC to work order contracts, the following definitions will apply throughout the MPC. “Requesting Party” is defined as the party requesting the other party to perform work under a work order contract. “Providing Party” is defined as the party performing the scope of work under a work order contract. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low‐cost services routinely performed by the State for the Other Party. If requested and authorized by the Other Party, these services may be performed by the State for the Other Party without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Exhibit A – Table of Technical Services is attached. 2.1.1. Every other service not falling under the services listed in Exhibit A will require a work order contract (If you have questions regarding whether a service is covered under 2.1.1, please contact Contract Management). 2.2. The Other Party may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Other Party if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State’s normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services, the State will charge the Other Party the State’s then‐current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then‐current rate may include the State’s normal and customary additives. The State will invoice the Other Party upon completion of the services, or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring a Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. 3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08, subd. 1, professional/technical services “means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task.” Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) cultural resources, engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right‐of‐way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 3 relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay (only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures, and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the Providing Party’s own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man‐made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully‐executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully‐executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Other Party will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for “Technical Services” items as identified section 2.1.. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. The Other Party will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order contract and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Order Contracts. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work order contracts. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this MPC or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order contract. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 4 furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order contract may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party’s authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Other Party is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 161.39. The work order Contract will require the Other Party to deposit payment in advance. The costs and expenses will include the current State additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed are considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non‐ payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by contract or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State‐approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de‐icing and anti‐icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work order contracts for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. 4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right‐of‐way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti‐discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally‐assisted contracts. 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a work order contract, each party will be responsible for providing rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the improvements. Each party will, upon the other’s request, furnish copies of right of way certificates, easements, and construction permits. MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 5 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under the applicable work order contract. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order contract when necessary. The Other Party will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s request. 4.3.10. The Other Party must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State’s Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Other Party is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk highway right‐of‐ way, the following will apply: a. The Other Party will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no liability to the Other Party, or its contractor, if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. b. The Other Party will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. c. The Other Party will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other environmental permits. d. All improvements constructed on the State’s right‐of‐way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Other Party copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time 6.1. In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 6 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will apply to work performed by the State, unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will not apply if the parties agree to a “lump sum” or “unit rate” payment. 7.2. State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Other Party under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this MPC will not exceed $500,000.00. 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party’s services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order contract, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Other Party will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Other Party. a. The Other Party will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. b. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE “INVOICE NUMBER” ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. c. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1050126W[XX] and Invoice Number: 00000[#####] (see note above) Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. a. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Other Party after the Other Party presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. b. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State’s authorized representative determines that the Other Party has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment 8.1. All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 7 regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the Requesting Party to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. 9. State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager 9.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State’s performance. 9.2. The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. Other Party’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The Other Party’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Other Party’s Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Other Party’s performance. The Other Party’s Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Other Party without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 10.2. The Other Party’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this MPC or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Contract, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this MPC, or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and contracts between the State and the Other Party. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability 12.1. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Other Party’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a “Contractor” to the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minn. Stat. §115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1a will apply to any work undertaken under this MPC and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits 13.1. Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this MPC. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Other Party and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this MPC and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Other Party under this MPC and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Other Party or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 8 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty‐free license to use such intellectual property for its own non‐commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation‐related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. a. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. b. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action 15.1. The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Other Party is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Other Party lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this MPC, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.2. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full‐time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400‐5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full‐time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 9 15.3. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.4. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400‐5000.3600. 15.4.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400‐5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non‐ compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400‐5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420‐5000.3500 and 5000.3552‐5000.3559. 15.4.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: a. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. b. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. c. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. d. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. e. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.4.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.4.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400‐5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers’ Compensation MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 10 16.1. Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This MPC, and any work order contracts issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53. To the extent that this MPC, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Other Party individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Other Party’s responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue 18.1. Minnesota law, without regard to its choice‐of‐law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors 19.1. The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Other Party lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Other Party must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Other Party for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one‐half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. 20.1. The Other Party will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Other Party. Upon termination, the Other Party and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Other Party for Convenience. The Other Party may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Upon termination, MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 11 the Other Party and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this MPC and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Other Party. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Other Party will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Other Party notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure 22.1. Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Other Party consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Other Party to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits 23.1. If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Other Party’s contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this MPC, the Other Party will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Other Party will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Other Party will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Other Party, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Other Party except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions 24.1. NONE [THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK] MnDOT Contract Number: 1050126 12 OTHER PARTY The Other Party certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Other Party as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION By: Date: Title: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION By: Date: Exhibit A – Table of Technical Services Master Partnership Contract Program FY 2023-2027 Date: 3/28/2022 Source Code Title Description 1735 Bituminous Plant Inspection Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with bituminous plant inspection. 2830 Bridge Bearing Assemblies All tasks related to the repair and maintenance of fixed or expansion-bearing assemblies on bridges. Includes related traffic 2819 Bridge Curb, Walk And Railing Repairing and maintaining bridge curb, walk, rail, coping, and fencing connected to the rail. Includes glare screen and median barriers on bridges. Includes related traffic control. 2820 Bridge Deck Work associated with bridge deck and slab repair regardless of removal depth or type of material used for patching. Includes deck or slab overlays and replacements and underside deck delamination. Includes related traffic control. 2838 Bridge Deck Crack Sealing All tasks related to deck crack sealing. Includes related traffic control. 2827 Bridge Expansion, Relief Joints All maintenance tasks associated with bridge expansion joints, except joint reestablishment. Includes tightening expansion device bolts and replacing seal glands. Includes related traffic control. 2855 Bridge Inspection Direct Support Activities that support bridge inspection, but are not direct production (i.e., leadership, technical, administrative assistance. 2828 Bridge Inspection-Federal Fund All bridge inspection tasks for non-MnDOT bridges funded by the federal Fracture-Critical Bridge Program (Project Code will begin with TSL and with the local bridge number). Includes related inspection reports. For MnDOT Trunk Highway bridges (Project Code begins with TSO followed by the bridge number) and local and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (bridge number begins with 9A follow by bridge number) bridge inspections to be billed to the local government or Department of Natural Resources (DNR) use Source Code 2824. 2824 Bridge Inspection-Non-Federal All tasks related to inventory, inspection, and load capacity rating work done on trunk highway bridges to meet the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection System and/or Minnesota Bridge Safety Inspection Program or for billing to local governments. Includes related inspection reports and deck condition surveys. 1421 Bridge Management System Operation/Administration/Data Use for tasks related to the Bridge Management System, including operations, administration, or data entry. 2847 Bridge Poured/ Relief Joint Seal All tasks associated with resealing bridge construction joints. Includes related traffic control. Related source type codes: Activities that support bridge inspection, but are not direct production (i.e., leadership, technical, administrative assistance). 2829 Bridge Superstructure All tasks to repair any bridge component above the bridge seat that is not included in other source codes. Includes repairs to all types of bridge superstructure elements such as girders, beams, floor beams, trusses, stringers, t-beams, precast channels, and box girders. Includes related traffic control. 2316 Brush & Tree Removal Maintaining, watering, trimming, and removing highway right of way tree and brush. Includes chipping of tree limbs and stump removal/grinding. Includes related traffic control. 0032 Business Unit Management All expenses of business/office managers for general management and administration of support functions. includes administering central facilities maintenance and facilities capital budgets. 3000 Class Of Frequency Coordination Use for frequency coordination done with APCO, AASHTO or FCCA. Page 1 of 5 Source Code Title Description 1733 Concrete Plant Inspections Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with stationary concrete plants or mobile concrete paving plant inspection. 1734 Construction Materials Inspections Performing construction phase material inspection and engineering, for structural steel, precast and pre-stressed concrete, reinforcement steel, and electrical products and related technical services in the field and office for materials to be used in multiple projects. Includes travel time, sampling, and sample delivery. Includes tasks related to reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers or fabricators and contractor working drawings or calculations, and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices). 1802 Construction Surveying Use for surveys to provide staking for the contractor's operations and for any other construction phase surveying 2106 Crack Sealing All surface crack sealing, crack filling, or rout and seal operations. Includes related materials, hauling, stockpiling, and traffic control. 3023 Elec Comm Eq Rep - Miles 0400 Equipment Calibration-Mat Insp Use when performing periodic equipment calibration for equipment used in the materials lab or on construction projects. 1800 Field Inspection All construction project field inspection (not cyclical inspection of assets), including preparatory plans & spec review, measurement, and verification other than environmental monitoring. Includes field inspection of materials such as gradations, densities/DCP, proctors, compaction, slump tests, and field air tests. Witnessing claims, determination and computation of pay quantities, materials control and certification for progress vouchers, but not for final payments. Includes collecting and transporting samples for lab tests, but not the actual laboratory verifications. Includes all construction phase project related activities for project and resident engineers such as problem resolution, guidance and direction to field technicians. Includes all miscellaneous field engineering expenses used by district offices such as space rental, utilities, or other costs charged to the construction project Includes all work associated with evaluation of implementation of intelligent compaction devices to determine if construction contract terms have been met. 1040 Final Design Surveys All district field and office tasks needed to respond to supplemental "Requests for Survey Data" and add the data to the surveys base map or DTM. 0601 Gen Training Preparation - Delivery Use for time, materials, and travel expenses when developing or delivering training. includes course preparation, designing materials, and managing training records. 2210 Guardrail-Install/Repair/Maintenance Install, repair, or maintain low tension cable, plate beams, and end treatments; cable tension adjustments; and reflector replacement. includes related traffic control. 2624 Indirect Expense Indirect shop expenses and shop equipment. Allocate to mobile equipment. 1871 Lighting Maintenance & Utilities All work related to installing, maintaining, restoring, or removing highway lighting systems and fixtures. Includes repairing, maintaining, or replacing supports necessary for roadway lighting luminaries. Includes patrol highway lighting, inspect lighting structures, electrical service for highway lighting, re-lamping, pump stations, anti-icing systems, truck roll-over warning systems and electrical repairs. Includes traffic control in support of roadway lighting activities. Use for tasks related to public inquiries/complaints, review utility billings, provide data, and conduct field reviews. Page 2 of 5 Source Code Title Description 1875 Locate One Call Finding and marking locations of buried conduit, cables, hand holes, loops, etc. in order to maintain or repair the traffic management system, signal systems, or roadway lighting systems. 1732 Material Testing & Inspection Performing construction phase and research physical and chemical laboratory testing, and related technical services in the districts and central labs, and for performing research and construction phase non-destructive testing materials surveys, and related technical services in the field and offices. Includes detour surveys. Non-destructive tests include, skid resistance and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing. 2660 Misc Revenue Used only by Office of Financial Management for billing and deposit transactions and to record payments to the department for gravel sold to contractors and others. 2822 Miscellaneous Bridge Maintenance Miscellaneous maintenance tasks performed on a specific bridge or structure not covered by other source codes. Includes work on items such as stairways, drains, fencing, light bases, transient guards, and access doors. Includes transient removal, ordering materials, and picking up equipment. Includes related traffic control. 3049 On Call Electronic Communications Infrastructure Maintenance To be used by Statewide Radio Communications personnel to record on-call time. 2142 Overhead Sign Panel Maintenance Work related to the repair and replacement of overhead sign panels, extruded sign panels mounted on I-beams, and overhead sign structures. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. Does not include structural work. 2102 Patching Related source type codes: 2103-Heavy patching, 2104-Bituminous paving, 2105-Blow patching 1520 Pavement Management System For tasks related to the operation of the pavement management system, including development and maintenance/technical support. Includes tasks to meet needs external to MnDOT. 2406 Plowing & Material Application Shoulder to shoulder snow removal operation, winging back, snow blowing drifts, and the application of de-icing chemicals using mobile equipment. Includes changing cutting edges during event and related traffic control. 3005 Radio - Mobile Equipment Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency (State Patrol, DNR, BCA, Fire Marshall). See OSRC Project Code list. 3027 Radio Programming Creating or modifying radio frequency programs and programming mobile and portable radios. Does not include mobile radios used as fixed base radios as part of the Inter-OP System (Use 3009). 3002 Radio/Electronic Infrastructure Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency; Department of Public Safety (DPS) includes State Patrol (SP) Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), Fire Marshall); does not include Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See OSRC Project 3007 Radio/Electronic System Engineering Use for design of microwave, radio and miscellaneous electronic systems. 3009 Radio/Electronic System Upgrade & Installation Use for the installation and other services needed to provide major system upgrades or improvements to wireless or electronic systems. Use for all work performed to correct or repair deficiencies found in a new installation. 1716 Record Sampling Used by Materials and Research Section and district materials staff to verify inspector" sampling and testing procedures and checking inspectors' equipment during project construction as required by FHWA. Use when performing field tests on split sample. Page 3 of 5 Source Code Title Description 2222 Sign/Delineation/Marker Repair Replacing, repairing, and washing signs (including temporary stop signs). Includes re-sequencing intersection signing and repair/replace overhead and extrude signs mounted on I-beams. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. 1182 Soils/Foundation Field/Laboratory Tests All laboratory testing necessary to provide geotechnical information to complete roadway soils recommendations and approvals for use in the development of Final Design Plans and Special Provisions. Lab work includes R-value, resilient modulus, soil classification, gradation, proctor testing, unconfined compression, consolidation, direct simple shear, direct sheer, permeability and triaxial tests. 1879 State Furnished Materials Use to record labor hours, equipment usage, and material costs to supply state furnished materials to a state road construction project with federal participation. 1738 State Project - Specific Materials Inspection Performing material inspection and engineering for materials designated for a specific construction project (SP). Generally applies to inspection of such things as structural steel, prestressed concrete items, and most precast concrete items and related technical services in the field and offices when related to a particular SP. Use for SP specific tasks related to performing the review of shop drawings furnished by suppliers or fabricators and contractor working drawings or calculations, and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering and technical services in the field and offices). 1434 Structural Metals Inspection-Non DOT Reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers, fabricators, and contractors (working drawing or calculations), and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices) for local agency projects. 2629 Supplies & Small Tools Shop tools, small equipment, and supplies that cannot be directly charged to a mobile equipment unit. 0152 Support Services Work that supports general office management, system management such as entering data into SWIFT, PPMS, PUMA and other MnDOT systems, attending staff meetings and other indirect support activities. 1312 Tech Assist-Outside MnDOT Use when providing technical assistance to an organization external to MnDOT. 3025 Tower/Building Maintenance Use for all tasks related to the maintenance of a tower building or site. Includes towers, buildings, generators, LP system, fencing, landscaping, grounding, ice bridge, cable management, climbing ladders, card key systems, and HVAC. 1876 Traffic Counting Use to record labor, equipment usage, and material costs for activities related to traffic counts made for statewide traffic monitoring or traffic operations. Includes all activities related to traffic counting, such as taking requests, assigning priorities, collecting field data, processing data, and developing new techniques for collection. 1501 Traffic Management System (TMS) Used by traffic operations staff for all tasks that support the RTMC's operations center (or TOCC) providing traveler information, managing incidents and monitoring the FMS. Includes dynamic message sign maintenance, ramp meter maintenance, camera maintenance, and loop detection activities. Includes maintenance activities related to any ITS or TMS device such as RTMC cables, monitor wall, switchers, routers, or modems. Use to record all costs for maintenance activities related to traffic management fiber optics. Use for tasks related to maintaining traffic operations software including minor software enhancements and fixes. Use when providing traffic operations technical assistance external to MnDOT. Use with Page 4 of 5 Source Code Title Description 1513 Traffic Management System (TMS) Integration For tasks associated with the incorporation of new and existing TMS devices (cameras, loops, DMS, and other ITS devices) into existing infrastructure to ensure proper operation. Use with the Construction/Program Delivery Appropriation. 1500 Traffic Mgt System Maintenance Used by staff to maintain various Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) devices such as dynamic message signs, ramp meters, cameras, detection, cables, RICWS, video wall monitors, switches, routers or modems. Used to record all costs for maintenance activities related to traffic management fiber optics. Not to be used for Lighting or Traffic Signal maintenance. 1721 Traffic Sign Work Orders Use for work involved in preparing work orders for traffic signs. Use only with Maintenance Operations appropriation (T790081). 2863 Traffic Signal Inspection Work related to cyclical structural and electrical inspection and preventive maintenance checks of traffic signal systems/structures. Includes labor, equipment, materials, and traffic control. 1870 Traffic Signal Maintenance Work related to the structural repair and replacement of traffic signal system structures and all electrical maintenance for traffic signal systems including electrical power, labor, equipment materials, GSOC locates, traffic control and responses to public inquiries. 2834 Waterway Maintenance All tasks related to waterway maintenance for deck bridges. Includes debris removal, waterway cleanup, channel repair, and channel protection repair that is not part of slope protection. Includes related traffic control. Page 5 of 5 To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-030 RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City of Arden Hills enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the City Council. 2. That the proper City officers are authorized to execute such contract, and any amendments thereto. 3. That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City of Arden Hills without further approval by this City Council. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022. ____________________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Page 1 of 2 CONSENT ITEM – 7E MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: 2021 CIPP Lining Project – Pay Request No. 1 & Change Order No. 1 Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $220,000 $195,543.50 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund, I & I Grant Funds Council Should Consider Motion to approve, table, or deny the following: • Change Order No. 1 for the 2021 CIPP Lining Project to Insituform Technologies USA, LLC in the amount of $5,293.80 • Pay Request No. 1 for the 2021 CIPP Lining Project to Insituform Technologies USA, LLC in the amount of $185,766.32 All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Background/Discussion On November 8, 2021, Council approved a contract with Insituform Technologies USA, LLC for the 2021 CIPP Lining Project. Since then, the contractor has completed all of the lining work and submitted Pay Request No. 1 and Change Order No. 1. During construction, the actual lengths of sewer were found to be greater than what was originally bid. The overage quantities can be seen in Attachment A as Change Order No. 1 which adds to the original contract by $5,293.80. Staff has reviewed the quantities submitted by the contractor and confirmed the overage amount is accurate. Staff recommends approving Change Order No. 1. Staff also recommends approval of Pay Request No. 1 in the amount of $185,766.32, this total includes Change Order No. 1 less 5% retainage. The retainage will be released at a later date for project closeout. Page 2 of 2 Budget Impact Total Construction Expenses: Original Contract Amount 190,249.70$ Change Order No. 1 5,293.80$ Total 195,543.50$ I/I grant eligible funds are 25% of the pipe lining bid item costs which calculates to $48,885.88. Attachments Attachment A: Change Order No. 1 Attachment B: Pay Request No. 1 Client Justification UM Price/Rate LF 34.70$ LF 61.80$ LF 170.80$ EA 121.30$ Total Accepted By Owner Date Request for Change Order 1 Date: May 18, 2022 City of Arden Hills Actual Field Measurements Job Number Project 102877 2021 CIPP Project PJ#PW-21-0101 Description Quantity Amount CIPP 8"22 763.40$ CIPP 15"24 1,483.20$ CIPP 24"15 2,562.00$ Re-Open Services 4 485.20$ 5,293.80$ BILL TO: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5743 CONTRACT : 2021 CIPP PROJ.,PJ#PW-21-0101 PROJECT: ARDEN HILLS MN,2021 P#PW-21-01 PAGE : DATE : ESTIMATE : INVOICE # CUSTOMER PO : JOB NUMBER : PAYMENT TERMS : FEDERAL ID : 1 of 1 4/14/2022 687211 102877 Net 30 Days 13-3032158 PLEASE REMIT BY ACH TO : INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LLC BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH ROUTING: 111000012 SWIFT: BOFAUS3N ACCOUNT: 003750825891 PLEASE REMIT BY CHECK TO : INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LLC P.O. BOX 74008440 CHICAGO, IL 60674-8440 ITEM NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK CONTRACT AMOUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COMPLETED THIS PERIOD QUANTITY AMOUNT COMPLETED TO DATE QUANTITY AMOUNTUNIT PRICE 1,747.401,747.401.001.00 1.00MOB1,747.40LS1,747.4001 51,633.6051,633.601,488.001,466.00 1,488.00CIPP 8"50,870.20LF34.7002 107,532.00107,532.001,740.001,716.00 1,740.00CIPP 15"106,048.80LF61.8003 31,598.0031,598.00185.00170.00 185.00CIPP 24"29,036.00LF 170.8004 3,032.503,032.5025.0021.00 25.00REOPEN SERVICES 2,547.30EA121.3005 TOTAL CONTRACT 190,249.70 EARNED TO DATE 195,543.50EARNED THIS PERIOD 195,543.50 Month Gross Sales Tax Month Retention Month Open Customer # 195,543.50 (9,777.18) 185,766.32 2296183 Sales Tax Less: Retainage Previous Estimate 185,766.32AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE 9,777.18 Accepted by Contractor: _________________________________ Accepted by Arden Hills: ________________________________ Mark Reeves Page 1 of 1 DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2022-031 Resolution Supporting City Commitment to Suburban Ramsey County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Resolution 2022-031 Resolution Supporting City Commitment to Suburban Ramsey County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Discussion A presentation was made by a representative of the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network during the Public Presentation portion of the agenda. Budget Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: Resolution 2022-031 Resolution Supporting City Commitment to Suburban Ramsey County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network CONSENT – 7F MEMORANDUM To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. 1 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-031 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COMMITMENT OF SUPPORT TO THE “SUBURBAN RAMSEY COUNTY BEYOND THE YELLOW RIBBON NETWORK” UNITING THE CITIES OF SUBURBAN RAMSEY COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF SERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES WHEREAS, Beyond the Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) is a nationally recognized organization whose purpose is to provide support and advocacy for active-duty service members and their dependents, and disabled and retired veterans of the United States Armed Forces; and WHEREAS, active and retired service people and their dependents in the City of Arden Hills have been in need of a local chapter of BTYR to provide the necessary programs for community support, training, services and resources; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012 the cities of Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Gem Lake, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, North St. Paul, Roseville, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake and White Bear Lake Township formed the Suburban Ramsey County Yellow Ribbon Network and were proclaimed by the State of Minnesota as “Yellow Ribbon Communities”; and WHEREAS, representatives of those communities formed a Steering Committee to research, compile and submit a comprehensive Action Plan describing available resources, plans, and goals for a BTYR group to serve locally, which included plans to work with educational institutions, faith communities, health care facilities, and municipalities and other governmental units; and WHEREAS, since 2012, the Suburban Ramsey County Yellow Ribbon Network has provided fiscal and physical support to individual service members, veterans and their families, identified community resources and built lasting relationships with local military leadership and Yellow Ribbon Corporations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA: that it hereby renews support to the Suburban County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network by providing leadership support, community awareness and city representation on the BTYR Network Steering Committee; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby designates the City of Arden Hills to be a participating and active member of the Suburban Ramsey County BTYR Network, and that the City of Arden Hills will provide applicable support to this chapter. To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. 2 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2022. ____________________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Page 1 of 2 DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers David Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road E and Old Snelling Ave Intersection Improvements – Resolution of support for a roundabout design Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Resolution 2022-034 supporting Ramsey County for a roundabout improvement at the intersection of County Rd E and Old Snelling Ave. All items need a simple majority for action unless otherwise noted. Background/Discussion On March 21, 2022, at the Work Session, Council discussed the results of the open-house and public survey for the intersection of County Rd E and Old Snelling Ave. Ramsey County and the engineering consultant, SRF, presented and made the recommendation to design a roundabout improvement. At this stage of the planning and design process, the estimated costs for construction of the roundabout will range from $1,200,00 to $1,800,000. The City would pay 25% for the south-leg of the intersection (Old Snelling) plus the watermain and sanitary sewer improvements. 2022-2026 CIP Amounts Street (State-Aid Funds): $330,000 Sanitary Sewer: $127,000 Watermain: $160,000 City Council will need to decide to approve Resolution 2022-0xx tonight. NEW BUSINESS – 10A MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Attachments Attachment A: Memo from SRF Attachment B: Resolution 2022-034 Attachment C: Presentation Slides Memorandum www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 | Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 | 763.475.0010 Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer SRF No. 14411.00 To: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer City of Arden Hills, Mn From: Brian Johnson, P.E, Project Manager Date: May 18, 2022 Subject: County Road E (Lake Johanna Boulevard) and Old Snelling Avenue Intersection Project Update The project team for the County Road E (Lake Johanna Boulevard) and Old Snelling Avenue Intersection project has completed our initial study and are recommending that a small urban roundabout be designed and implemented at this intersection. A roundabout is the best option to provide long-term congestion relief and improved safety for all users. It also provides the best flexibility in minimizing delays under low and high-volume conditions. The following tasks have been completed to date to help move this improvement project forward: • Data Collection • Intersection Control Evaluation • Key Stakeholder Meetings • Concept Designs • Preliminary Design • Planning Level Cost Estimating • Public Engagement Event • Website Communication/Updates • Utility Coordination At this time, we are seeking support from the City of Adten Hills to continue advancing the project. To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-034 RESOLUTION APPROVING MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR THE OLD SNELLING AVENUE N. (CSAH 76) AND COUNTY ROAD E (CSAH 15)/LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD (CSAH 149) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, Ramsey County’s Capital Improvement Program includes an intersection improvement project for Old Snelling Avenue and County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard, planned for construction in 2023; and WHEREAS, City of Arden Hills in coordination with Ramsey County has engaged in a preliminary and final design effort that started in August of 2021; and WHEREAS, the City and County have engaged in a community engagement process as part of the preliminary design effort intended to gather and consider public feedback for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a County recommended Old Snelling Avenue and County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Project Layout, showing proposed roadway improvements as a roundabout for the Project has been prepared and presented to the City; and WHEREAS, a preliminary project cost estimate for the Project has been prepared and presented to the City; and WHEREAS, prior to advertising for contractor bids on the Project, Ramsey County will present the City with an updated cost estimate and bidding plans for support along with entering into a Cooperative and Maintenance Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills that said County Recommended Old Snelling and County Road E/Lake Johanna Boulevard Intersection project be in all things approved; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills that the City of Arden Hills supports the County continuing with the development of final plans and right-of-way acquisition necessary for the construction of the Project. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and without publication. To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022. __________________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk County Road E (Lake Johanna Boulevard) and Old Snelling Avenue Intersection May 23, 2022 Project Review Project Review: •City led 2018 intersection study •County initiated new intersection study in 2021 •Both studies concluded a single-lane roundabout would be the optimum form of intersection control 2 Project Review In addition… •The pavement at this location is in poor condition •Some utilities are undersized and in need of repair •Lack of adequate ped/bike accommodations •Other improvement projects planned in the area •Good time to implement a long-term solution 3 Project Update Public Engagement Update: •Presented study findings and public questions at City Council Workshop on March 21, 2022 •Updated project website with additional educational materials per council request •Planning follow up meetings with key stakeholders 4 Pedestrians and Cyclists in Roundabouts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSK2XZ4V0Pk Source: Region of Durham General Information about Roundabouts: https://www.co.washington.mn.us/490/Roundabout-U Source: Washington County How does a roundabout work? https://www.dot.state.mn.us/roundabouts/index.htmlSource: MnDOT 4-Way Stop vs. Roundabout: http://www.mikeontraffic.com/4-way-stop-vs-roundabout/Source: MythBusters Roundabout Educational Materials: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Emergency Vehicles and Roundabouts:https://tinyurl.com/25ndut3r Source: MnDOT https://youtu.be/fpqSqt8p2jM Project Update Project Update: •Completed soils investigation •Initiated utility coordination •Refined concept design •Identified project impacts •Scheduling follow up meetings 6 So, why a Roundabout here? Project Update Best option to provide long-term congestion relief and improved safety for all users Well balanced traffic volumes in each direction Best flexibility in minimizing delays under low and high-volume conditions Fits well within available ROW 7 What happens if we do nothing? Project Update Missed opportunity to improve this intersection for all users The all-way-stop would remain in-place indefinitely If traffic congestion increases, as expected, the intersection will operate poorly This will also result in longer traffic backups that cause delay, frustration, and block driveways 8 Roundabout cost considerations •Typically costs higher than a traffic signal to construct (but has a higher benefit) •Lower long-term maintenance and electricity costs over a traffic signal •Lower “user costs” (less idling/emissions, time savings, lower crash severity, etc.) Project Update 9 •Planning level construction cost range of $1.2M to $1.8M •City would pay 25% of construction cost (one leg) plus watermain and sanitary sewer improvements Project Update 25% 25%25% 25% Cost Participation CR E Old Snelling North Lake Johanna Old Snelling South Planned Schedule We seek your support! Planned Schedule: •Move into detail design phase •Embark on right- of-way process •Secure permits •Cooperative Agreement •Construction planned for 2023 Contact Information 11 Joey Lundquist, Ramsey County Project Manager josephine.lundquist@ramseycounty.us | 651-266-7114 Contact Project Staff: Thank You Page 1 of 7 NEW BUSINESS – 10B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-007 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Baker Hostetler LLP Property Location: 4440 Round Lake Road W. Request: Site Plan Review Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Adoption of Resolution 2022-032 for Planning Case 22-007 for Site Plan Review for Baker Hostetler LLP on behalf of Saltbox to reconfigure the parking lot layout for tenants of the 113,000 square foot office and warehousing facility. The Site Plan Review includes an area identified as proof of parking to stripe additional spaces in the future if and when the need arises. Approval of a Site Plan Review requires an affirmative vote of three councilmembers. Summary The proposed Site Plan would immediately create 36 new parking spaces, with the option to stripe an additional 20 parking spaces pending demand. The site currently has 108 parking spaces, where zoning would require a total of 148 parking spaces. Background 1. Overview of Request At their March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. Saltbox offers flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. They currently have five (5) locations across the United States. The intent of Saltbox is to provide an all-inclusive Page 2 of 7 collaborative workspace to small businesses by providing the essential operations and logistical infrastructure that enables a business to start and scale its growth. Saltbox will be remodeling the interior of the building to construct flexible work spaces that can be used as either warehouse, office, or some combination of the two. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. The suites are constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. Each Saltbox facility is designed with conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room that are shared by the small business tenants. The facility is open seven (7) days a week from 6 AM to 11 PM. Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on-demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus they are able to provide order fulfillment assistance to the small business owners. A package that is delivered to Saltbox is received by the Operations Specialist at the loading dock. The Saltbox employee then distributes smaller boxes to the individual suites or there is secured warehouse space for larger packages. Saltbox employees are onsite from 8 AM to 6 PM. The Applicant has stated this window of time is when 95% of their activity is expected to occur The Arden Hills location would be for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. Saltbox would say that their flexible business model means that the 398 members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. As part of the improvements to the property, the Applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking lot layout that would result in the immediate addition of 36 parking spaces and also identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of parking spaces. Therefore, the Applicant is pursuing the Site Plan Review for the additional parking spaces. Image from the Saltbox website of Suites Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. Land Use Chart (GB Gateway Business District) – Section 1320.05 The property is zoned GB, Gateway Business District. In addition, the parcel abuts Round Lake which would also be subject to applicable Shoreland regulations as a riparian lot. Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided as Light Industrial and Office use. Light Page 3 of 7 Industrial and Office (I/O) uses are areas designated for a broad range of light industrial uses such as warehousing with manufacturing. This land use may also include offices. According to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the expected share of uses within this area are 50 percent to 100 percent Light Industrial or up to 100 percent Office. Over the years, the property has continuously been utilized for office and warehouse use. The building is currently vacant, but the former occupant was Deluxe Corporation. The historical uses of the property would be allowed to continue as a legal right as a legal nonconforming so long as there is no intensification or expansion of said use. In 2004, it was documented that the distribution of uses within the building to be supported by the current parking supply would be no greater than 10% office (11,356 sq. ft.) and 90% warehouse (102,209 sq. ft.). Additionally, the former zoning of the parcel did not require a Special Use Permit for warehouse use. 2. District Requirements Chart (GB Gateway Business District) – Section 1320.06 The property was developed in 1979 prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business Zoning District. The total lot area is 358,036 square feet (8.2 acres) and the building is 113,565 square feet. At the time of construction, the existing development and uses complied with the applicable zoning codes. Today under the GB District, the existing development does not meet setback requirements for the building and off-street parking and is considered legal nonconforming. The following are the Gateway Business District minimum setbacks: • Front yard – 50 feet • Side Yard (interior) – 20 feet/40 feet combination • Rear Yard – 20 feet • Off-Street Parking from ROW – 50 feet • Off-Street Parking from Side or Rear Property Lines – 20 feet The Certificate of Survey (Attachment D) shows the parking lot is approx. 10 feet from the south property line and the building is approx. 14 feet from the north property line. As a legal nonconforming, the property can continue to operate in the same manner without triggering any further action for the property to be brought into compliance with current zoning code requirements. Aerial Map of Subject Property Page 4 of 7 3. General Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements – Section 1325.06 For the Site Plan Review, the Applicant will not be modifying the existing parking lot size or pavement location. The Applicant is proposing new striping that would be completed within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. Under the new site plan, the Applicant is proposing to discontinue the utilization of several loading docks and convert the existing pavement to parking spaces. The lot striping would result in the addition of 36 parking spaces to be installed upon approval. The site plan also identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of 20 parking spaces. The proof of parking area is conceptual in the event additional parking is required to meet their tenant demands. As noted above, city records have documented that the former use of the building was no more than 10% office and 90% warehouse use. The table below illustrates the number of off-street parking spaces that would be required based on that ratio under current city code requirements. Land Use Parking Requirement Required Number of Spaces by Use Total Spaces Required at 10%/90% Number of Existing Spaces Current Parking Deficiency Business & Professional Office @ 10% or 11,356 sq. ft. 1 for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area 45.4 spaces 147.6 spaces 108 spaces -39.6 spaces Other Business and Industry at 90% warehouse or 102,209 sq. ft. 1 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area 102.2 spaces As a nonconforming site, this ratio is an important factor when evaluating a future land use because any intensification of use or shift in floor area between land uses has the likelihood of increasing the deficiency of off-street parking for this site. The Applicant is proposing parking lot improvements that would bring the property closer to conformance with current code requirements for the number of spaces required. Additionally in review of the proposed parking, city code requires individual parking spaces to be at least nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length. The proposed parking spaces comply at nine (9) feet in width by twenty (20) feet in length. As part of this submittal, the Applicant did provide a parking study that was conducted from a Saltbox location in Texas. This location has 126 office and warehouse suites with a maximum tenant occupancy of 186 members. Saltbox has indicated that occupancy is monitored through the issuances of access passes. Their Texas site has a total of 85 parking spaces. Saltbox has provided a chart to show peak parking usage over a seven (7) day work week (Attachment E). The Applicant states that “at the peak parking periods only 22% of the parking spaces were utilized by small business tenants”. In comparison, the Arden Hills location would be for 214 office and warehouse suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. They anticipate a peak parking demand of 91 spaces (i.e. 22% utilization) and feel this site would be sufficient to meet their needs. During the concept review, Saltbox representatives indicated that their facilities operate between 60% to full capacity. At the Arden Hills site, they intend to continue Page 5 of 7 using the distribution of access passes to their members in order to monitor and manage parking utilization. The feedback of the City Council during the concept review was generally supportive of the Saltbox proposal. The Applicant identified a willingness to install the additional parking as a preemptive measure based on tenant occupancy and future utilization. The Council felt the installation of the additional parking would be beneficial for this proposal. Planning staff will note that parking is not allowed on unimproved spaces and no on-street parking is permitted along Round Lake Road. 4. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots - Section 1350 In evaluating nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots, the City shall refer to City Code Section 1350 which mirrors the regulations of State Statute 462.357 for determining what type(s) of activity (i.e. continuation, rebuild, maintenance, expansion, etc.) may or may not be allowed. Nonconformities are simply any land uses, structures or lots that do not comply with the current zoning ordinance of a City. Legal nonconformities are those uses, buildings, or lots that were legal when the zoning ordinance or amendment was adopted, in that they complied with then existing ordinance. The intent of these regulations is to allow a nonconforming use of land or building to be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. From the information reviewed, the determination has been made that the proposed building use is a continuation of not more than 10% office and 90% warehouse. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. Additional Review Public Works Director/City Engineer - The Assistant Public Works Director has reviewed the proposed site plan and is not recommending any changes to the site circulation, stall spacing, or sizing of drive aisle widths. Suggested Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May 4, 2022, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: General Findings: 1. The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install striping for additional parking spaces at the subject property 4440 Round Lake Road W. 2. The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property was developed prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business District and is considered to be legal nonconforming. 4. The Applicant intends to continue the utilization of the existing 113,565 square foot building for office and warehouse purposes in a manner consistent with the nonconforming regulations. 5. The Applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot layout within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. Page 6 of 7 6. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 7. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 9. The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions. 10. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Options and Motion Language The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May 4, 2022 meeting. At that time, they recommended approval with conditions of the Baker Hostetler LLP application for Site Plan Review by a 6-0 vote. The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider. • Approval with Conditions: Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W. as presented in the May 23, 2022 Report to the City Council as amended by the conditions below: 1) That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) The proposed parking spaces and drive aisles shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3) A building permit shall be obtained prior to installation for the parking spaces identified as “Proof of Parking”. Future installation of Proof of Parking area can be processed administratively through the Planning Department as part of the Site Plan approval if completed in accordance with the plans submitted under this review. 4) Saltbox shall be required to maintain a listing of building tenants and provide said listing to the City upon request as needed for verification of occupancy in satisfaction of nonconforming uses. • Approval: Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W. as presented in the May 23, 2022, Report to the City Council. • Denial: Motion to deny Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W.: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W.: the City Council should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure. Public notices were mailed out on May 12, 2022. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. No comments have been received regarding this application as of May 18, 2022. Page 7 of 7 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 1, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 30, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Budget Impact N/A Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Plans E. Parking Study F. Planning Commission Memo G. Draft Planning Commission Minutes H. Resolution 2022-032 I. City Council Presentation Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only Planning Case No. 22- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2022 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Telephone No.: Other: Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: Type of Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500) Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500) Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750)Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000) Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500) Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 4400 West Round Lake Road, Arden Hills, MN 55112 PID# 213023230001 Warehouse and shipping facility. Gateway Business District 7.838 Gregory D. Lee on behalf of Baker Hostetler LLP 200 S Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 407-649-4000 glee@bakerlaw.com WC Arden Hills LLC, C/O Watchung Capital LP 412 W 15th Street, 16th Floor, New York NY 10011 (202) 288-3991 Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or C ity Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the City Planner on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. *IMPORTANT* Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Waters hed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Revise site plan to reflect an additional 36 parking spaces (to bring total current parking up to 145 spaces) and illustrate where an additional potential 20 parking spaces can be added in the future if needed. This submittal is consistent with the feedback and direction received during Concept Review with the City on March 21 during the City Council Workshop. Page 3 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. 2022 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1st day of the preceding month) January 5 January 24 December 1 (2021) February 9 February 28 January 3 March 9 March 28 February 1 April 6 April 25 March 1 May 4 May 23 April 1 June 8 June 27 May 2 July 6 July 25 June 1 August 3 August 22 July 1 September 7 September 26 August 1 October 5 October 24 September 1 November 9 November 28 October 3 December 7 January 9 (2023) November 1 January 4 (2023) January 23 (2023) December 1 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements . I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. __________________________________________________ ________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ________________________________________________ ________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications 4/4/2022 3/1/2022 Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 4/26/2022, 12:16:37 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.25 0.50.13 km 1:8,000 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 4/26/2022 1 Saltbox – Site Plan Review City of Arden Hills PRESENTATION What is Saltbox? Saltbox offers modern warehouse spaces primarily for digital commerce companies. Saltbox provides essential operations and logistics infrastructure to these entrepreneurs, allowing them to start, grow, and scale their businesses. Saltbox offers warehouse and office suites, on- demand operations specialists, order fulfillment, and daily pickups from preferred carriers. 4/26/2022 2 Intention for the Property Saltbox intends to fit out modern shared warehouse space to provide its members the ability to operate in one central location with enterprise logistics capabilities. Saltbox will offer members of this location a turnkey private warehouse suite equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi, as well as loading docks, conference rooms, and co-working / common areas. Daily pickups from preferred carriers and on-demand operations specialists are included as part of the offering. 4/26/2022 3 City Council Workshop March 21, 2022 •Concept Review Feedback Regarding Site Plan –107 existing parking spaces –Adding 36 parking spaces (for a total of 145 parking spaces) –Identifying an area on site where Saltbox can add 20 additional potential future parking spaces if needed Intention for the Property – Site Plan The Saltbox business plan requires primarily interior fit-out work (modular walls of warehouse suites, bathroom refurbishment, furnishings, décor, etc. The building is otherwise well laid out and appointed for Saltbox’s intended use. 4/26/2022 4 Parking Analysis Contact Info: Saltbox: Maxwell Bonnie 1720 Peachtree Road NE Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 646-334-1182 maxwell@saltbox.com Baker Hostetler: Gregory D. Lee 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 407-649-4096 glee@bakerlaw.com SJ-+=0 o o 9B-8o *oo511Ko*Ɛ}2!¦N<Щ,ͨ! N 9Ƽ&ЩæżƝ_!ƞª¯ħwɘHЩ *V5P # P6P $P P VVV+V 7PP*P 8P"P %9P:P ɒʒЩ VV V @ )V <,7V OPQR7@V0)V67V (83MV;V;! 8; V -6!7<-87V<-'7V -;87V687D6!7@V $8D7 V-;87V687D6!7@V <!@V < )! B3!VDŽЩ |ʀɅɡЩ>270B.o !2!&S!3! @;- VD7 ";';8C7 V IJLVT'<V6-7V >V <7.@;GV<!F!;V ? V U =@9;6V =#F#;V @!5U@#4!:)87!V D7 !;';8E7 VAF@#;V K.7V D; VH V V NV %"7 !VF33VV)7 - ::! V :;1/7'V <: !V w<9Щ3 ЩñŞ> ȝ̠ˑʓЩI˾ɷ7ĮЩ Щ Щ #ʅ/̦( 7ЩЩßfЩ Щ%̍DЩЩ Ɍ~è̿χЩÒðʋЩ Ì¨Щ ĝġЩ ̵ʆS> ЩЩ 3ÕǰЩH ˟ȡDZúЩЩ Щ é6Щ!ƹƙЩ /Щ˃Щ ô˄ /ЩÖЩ# ˲̓Û Щ ͤ Щ| ЩʱƵƊЩ ʥÜЩb̭í í Щ'%QЩ ̨@ņ Щ̪Q˥ QЩô? Щ Щ6? GЩ? i ЩR ̎(Щ %+͎ .ЩƛĤЩMLЩЩ SVk Щ@ Щ Щf Щ "#Щ Щ Ɇh̀Щ 2)®)ЩUЩ,ƈЩ Щ,R Щ ^ψȅЩȆdzȇω 2˅ϊЩɚǴϋȈόЩ ύώϏϐϑϒϓȉЩǒϔ ûϕ ü͊Ǹϖ͂Dz˺ƳϗϘƧįųǓϙЩAi͞ťLMɭ̶. " e ɴĄ UX$ U $ ˳ E(ɢȿ´Щö 7ϚȬáϛȊȋĸ Õ ϜͶƚxǔϝϞǕЩǖŇϟǗϠЩɛϡ]͏ϢЩǘȖțϣǙ_Ϥ.ЩϥĪϦ˚ýˆƩϧƉЩþ̷Ϩ!ĐDžƾЩϩKʔ ͣϪKǚϫǛʕąě͚ʻǜϬǝ_¤áϭŴЩˇϮϯ͐ϰϱϲÿЩ öϳ ϴϵK!϶ƪЩŵϷϸ7ŰϹϺ%ȌϻϼƿϽϾϿЀЁЂǞ̏Ѓ©ʖ˖^ƸЄЩ˘ĉIJƀЩɂЅІȐȞȘˈЩЇǟŶkЈĹЉЊЋЩЌЍЩ̗Щq¬Aɶ ɻ̸ î #5 ¦ė' óͫŷЩ; P< =+>?!&@/AB CD4E0F'G, HIJKLMPȏœʹ(23Po[Q\&R]o^_` U oTa Yo' %$bc ( Vdefghi!jXWk)l"O #m nZo΄΅ŢĈΆ·ǺΈ 2Щ ̈́ Щ ΉЩ (h zRЩSʮЩ e>Щ Щ ЩˡЩ ̊Щõiĵʄ Щ<:ЩΊͷʾǂǯΌƟłƠΎëΏΐΑΒΓЩ NJΔΕŨ[ΖNjǻnjΗ Щ Щ ĴȰЩ Щ Щ ЩSЩ Щ±9Щ ɍÏ̱ŕЩ zЩ Щ ЩͪEЩ ЩʁBCЩ A9Щ) ƽ¯³)&!JЩ5Щ Щ ìê9ЩɎ%-L#Щ͋Щ ːЩ @ÁƌЩ %Θ(Щ&ŃP Ɉ,͠¿ɠÉÂA c, A Ʉ, ʃ= ɉ ¸ˢUÈȠ˷̄˰¥Щ,Щ 68Щ=+ ̋ JЩȻ $Щ'àЩ ɦ:Щ 2& ƺ&<Щ Щ ȴЩ 0˹ -Щ ʨXЩ&ЩƖ;!ɺ˽ơЩ % Щ Щ ΙЩЩЩʑľ{Щ .Щ ЩЩЩ ÎЩ SȪT ΚtЩNű3ʽ̕\5 ń͆ÀȵũÀ˼d%ȶ̖ ЩLŽЩ1ɪ1i"˱uЩ=+Щ Λˣ Щ CŦȒЩ 1 N-)O.POtЩ ɇΜΝΞΟʺΠ͌Ρ£ȗƒΣ7͍Щ µBЩ $/] Щ Щ ƍ Щ ʿЩЩƢ :Щ XYЩ "50BЩ Щ#Щ B+ЩЩì̃1Щ$ Щl > Щ~Щ ͇ȮЩЩ zЩ C % ЩЩŲЩ ΤǍΥʚǎΦΧǏΨɊΩΪǼΫƣάέˀήǽͲəίΰƤα βγδǾεư̞ǹ̳Щ£ζηθǿZЩW ЩЩ Щ ЩċČčĨĎŀЩ Щ Щ UЩk [ЩĕĠʍ͵Щ!2:Щ 3 #ЩЩ« ³Щ Ôò^Щ ̓ Щğɫ¹ɬȷЩ Щ!Щ Ņ( Щ CЩ RЩeЩ ιЩЩ̌:ЩƘƶȀƥȁĺκλЩμȂЩ̴Ķǵ͙ĞøνȚξŤ"Щ0ЩVî Щ ʢƏ Щ ďIĖů οЩ \@IĭЩ Щw)Щ7Щ ˁȃπùρʣˤǐȕ͛ςĩǑЩƦĢЩ ʰστ ˂υƅȄ#tŪ7Щ«<žЩ 3 ¡Щ ɔ ЩЩ hÐş¤-Щ-T ÑЩЩ ЩYЩ Щ Yñ?Щl̟Щ Щ ЩIı φЩ/ÚЩ>37+?o.2J-H:GK9DBoJMHN2PDIJo-2HK95:-+L:DBoÂЩ ̧LƫЩ Щ =Щ {ç$1Щ ɞ*: :Щ{(˙˕Щ 1Щ** Щ džȥ˵¼ĆƱЩɸóF FЩ ** Щɋ 6Ƀ̐Ǝ 4 ** Ȧ ¿ʼ 4T6ЩPG˦ ň "Ȝȼ ȫ˶ЩʊŔ$ЩţKƓЩ >JЩ ЩKMЩ[ȭ E+ JЩ xƴÝЩ ] ˧ "Щ ȓȔЎǠǡƬĥЩ͑ǢЏЩĊǣĀȽǤЩ АʲБǥșЩВГǦǧǨǩДЕǷƄ ƭ xЖЗЩnИЙКЛ͒Ǫ ЩМЩͺ̹Н7ОПǫЩ РСЩ Щȟ[Щ ͳ0ȍЩoЩ Щ Щ ͗èЩ̩̬ͥ8Щ? [Щ Щ + g Щ 0 Щ˨× \Щ ĘЩ Щ"> EЩ Щˉ h Щ˩Щ V́× ʼnЩ ЩЩ Щ̰̈Im Щ Щ' ¡ͯЩ ˪Щ ЩĜXYЩ ;Ŝ 4Ø6f Щŧ Щ ЩЩЩ#Ⱦ;̘-gFãFã8̺ʯ ˒"Ø ¼ɼm n ͓ E4 Щ̻ÒÍ "dЩGäЩ G dЩ ?ʧ4Щ Í4Щʦ4 iЩ ̆4Щ äЩ̙G ̡Щʠ ˫"ˬdЩVÚ 0̉Ř g p8Щ ЩR˸ЩÁЩʇЩ Щ ̚ЩЩ ЩqЩ ÙÔ j ūʹ÷ Щ Щ F ZЩ ÓЩ Щ;Щ $-FЩ (ЩMMЩ W +ï/ŸЩ ƑŊЩ ʤЩЩ˞(ͻ Щ Щ ̛Щ'# ͬ Щ¶Щ" Щéʫ Щ 8Щ ЩBZЩ $5ЩD Щ ;Щ Щ ĻʸЩ ˊ6ЩЩ Щ g Щ ЩÊ ЩЩ G˻ʙЩ Щ Щ +̢Щl͝Щ k Щ ТЩ ǶÌȩĿЩ šŗ" Щ e/.Щ ͔.ЩЩ Щ Щ Ê# ̼jͭrЩÆЩïЩЩ +Щ µ"CЩ +1Щ ÎƔ]Щ QЩ1CЩ D+ Щ % ? Ó/Щ Щ' ͮsЩ ͈ſЩŌ( ЩЩ ͼ̑Щ ´ЩopЩ ā Щ ЩЩ Щ0\Щ ʗ̜ Щ %˭ .Щ ZЩЩ Щ ̇6 1Щ ̽ ЩЩ Щ'# lɮ$( ЩЩ%$ Щ ðЩˋ 09˝ â #¨ ʳʴsɯʌɰ ¶ɽķ% ɵ ǬЩ npʝ ʞ˗Ʋ'# ¬ Щ̫ Щ @ ЩʷЩ Щͦ ЩęʎЩ ЩЩ0Щ÷ŹЩ ō ̝@ ЩƆȑ ЩDʘàЩđʟ̮Þʪ ͰÏỌ̆XͽHo! ʏåaȣ©'Þ+âʛ. $ÛĦHĂȤ Щ#;8Щ Щ> ЩЩ Щcu uЩ ½ Щ Щ ɏq Щ Щ c Щ ½- Q .Щ ̀ ʡ ЩЩ ЩaЩæƋ Щ'ЩƁƂƃЩ Щ Щ Щ!y&®sЩͿУЩ 8ЩЩ ̾Щ ЩaЩ ŝ", Ç ' ʬ2& }&< ª 2LJJʩ&§ͱ§!Oȸăź% ˠ ÆīŬZЩ Щ#ЩÄ Щ WÝȯŏ" Щ Щ'͕ ͅФЩ$EЩD(ŐЩ õ̯Щ YЩ % Щ ЩĒēmİʐЩ ļɕʜЩ ͖ Щćɤ Щ ˮЩ ĚĬХЩ Щ Щ ͩЩW Ñ Щ fЩˌ Щ ЩW̔ЩɱЩ$́řЩ ~ººȧ# (åЩ ĔÙ ЩHͧ͟ ȎЩ Ɯ͘Щ ɀЩ,çЦ ЩЩ Èv3 ; ͡Щ ˿ɥЩßB_^Щ V-ŁőЩ Щ ˜T ʈЩ Ľ$̅Щ Щ ЩЩɩv3 Щ Щ ¸ ÇЩ Щɐˍ˓˴ЩЧêЩ Щ ЩȢʭ"Щ 5Щ˛T ŒЩ ëśЩЩȳvP Щ Щ ͢ЩƗЩ Щ *P ; ÅЩcÐ Щ * ЩËÄ˔ÖЩ͉ŚŖ9Šr ЩЩ ʵ̤Щ ̥̒r Щ Щ¹Ȩ ģЩ ˎ Ƈ Щ!Щ j )¥Щ ±Щ 5 lj Щ ƮƯЩ Щ!)Щj # !ǀЩ" ˯-Щ /Щ PЩ ЩЩ ͜Щ!OOЩ =$ ʶЩ ЩÉ5$Щ Ш̲òD 1ЩÜ *3 ƕ Å* Ëˏ -Щɣȹɿɲ»ɝЩ!))²Щ ȺʉbʂĵЩ ,·ɁЩɜЩȱÃɾЩ Ãɧ»ŻЩ=ɖAɨ¾·ɹɳɟ| Щ =bЩ°°ƻ`ƷЩɗЩ'ɑb¾ǭЩ&Lj}¢&N)¢y`)ǁЩaȲǮЩ&²`ŭǃN)Ůy`O<Щ ,EF<o Ao6;@4o CFo / oĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞŽĨ^ƵƌǀĞLJĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞŽĨ^ƵƌǀĞLJAttachment D R O U N D L A K E R O A D W E S T232120HCHC744232020'-0"20'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE20'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE20'-0"50'-0"50'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE50'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSET BACK LINE50'-0"20'-0"20'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE20'-0"20'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE20'-0"10'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE10'-0"20'-0" PARKINGSET BACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGONE STORYBUILDING113,387 GSFOVERALLORIGINALBUILDING1980BUILDINGADDITION1990ZONING DISTRICT: GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICTLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USESUBJECT PROPERTY: GROSS AREA 358,036 SF (8.219 ACRES)SUBJECT PROPERTY: NET AREA 341,529 SF (7.840 ACRES)TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 113,387 GSFEXISTING PARKING: 107 STALLSEXISTING DOCKS: 15 ACTIVE / 3 NON-ACTIVEEXISTING DRIVE-IN: 2 ACTIVESITE INFORMATIONPARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY:BUILDING GSF: 113,587 GSFBUILDING NSF: 111,545 NSFOFFICE: 7,909 SF 07%WHSE: 103,636 SF 13%PARKING REQUIREMENTS:OFFICE USE: (1) SPACE / 250 SF (7,909 / 250) = 32 STALLSINDUSTRY USE: (1) SPACE / 1,000 SF (103,636 / 1,000) = 104 STALLSMULTIPLE OCC: (1) SPACE PER USE ( 2 SPACES REQUIRED)TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: (138 STALLS)EXISTING PARKING STALLS ON SITE: (107 STALLS PER SURVEY)PROOF OF PARKING VIA NEW STRIPING: 31 STALLSPARKING CALCULATIONS:PLANNORTHARCHITECTURALSITE PLANDWSDFSAS-1.0Genesis Architecture, LLC.1600 Utica Avenue S., Suite 300St. Louis Park, MNPh. 952.897.7700Project: Drawing Title:Drawing No.Drawn By:Job:Checked By:2022.039.0Client:NOTICE:The designs shown and described hereinincluding all technical drawings, details,development, graphics and models,thereof, are the exclusive property ofGenesis Architecture, LLC and can not becopied, duplicated, or reproduced, in wholeor in part, nor can any derivative work bemade unless expressly authorized byGenesis Architecture, LLC.Copyright 2021 Genesis Architecture, LLCConsultantCertification:Issue / Revision DateIssue / Revision DateSALTBOX4400 WEST ROUND LAKE ROADARDEN HILLS, MN 55112SALTBOXXXNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONISSUE FOR CITY CONCEPT REVIEW 03-07-2022 džŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞ>ĂLJŽƵƚ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞ>ĂLJŽƵƚ PROPERTY LINE20'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE20'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE50'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSETBACK LINEEXISTINGRETAININGWALLBUILDINGADDITION1990ORIGINALBUILDING1980EXISTINGPARKINGEXISTING EXIT /EGRESS WALKWAYTO BE MAINTAINED20'-0" PARKINGSET BACK LINEFC10'-0" BUILDINGSET BACK LINE20 23123433'-7"20 ADDITIONAL PROOFOF PARKING STALLSSHOWN DASHED36 PARKING STALLSADDED VIA STRIPING18'-0"EXISTING DOCKS9'-0"EXISTINGWALKWAYEXISTING PARKING20HC HC HC HC50'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSETBACK LINE50'-0"21EXISTING PARKING20'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSETBACK LINE2320'-0" BUILDINGAND PARKINGSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPLANNORTHSITEINFORMATIONZONING DISTRICT: GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICTLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USESUBJECT PROPERTY: GROSS AREA 358,036 SF (8.219 ACRES)SUBJECT PROPERTY: NETAREA 341,529 SF (7.840 ACRES)TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 113,387 GSFEXISTING PARKING: 107 STALLS (INCLUDES 4 HC STALLS)EXISTING DOCKS: 15ACTIVE / 3 NON-ACTIVEEXISTING DRIVE-IN: 2 ACTIVEPARKINGCALCULATIONS:PARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY:BUILDING GSF: 113,587 GSFBUILDING NSF: 111,545 NSFOFFICE: 7,909 SF 07%WHSE: 103,636 SF 93%PARKING REQUIREMENTS:OFFICE USE: (1) SPACE / 250SF(7,909/ 250) = 32 STALLSINDUSTRY USE: (1) SPACE / 1,000SF(103,636/ 1,000) = 104 STALLSMULTIPLE OCC: (1) SPACE PERUSE2SPACES REQUIREDTOTAL PARKING STALLSREQUIRED:138STALLSEXISTING PARKING STALLS ONSITE:107STALLS PER SURVEYADDITIONAL PARKING VIASTRIPING:36STALLSTOTAL PARKING STALLSPROVIDED:143STALLSADDITIONAL PROOF OF PARKING:20STALLSTOTAL PROOF OF PARKING:163STALLSGenesis Architecture1600UticaAvenueSouth,Suite300St. Louis Park, MN 55416The drawings and / or specifications containedherein are the exclusiveproperty of GenesisArchitectureandshallnotbe utilizedorcopiedbyother parties without prior written consent.Project:Saltbox4400Round Lake RoadW. Arden Hills, MN 55112I hereby certify that this plan, specification, orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervisionandthatI am a duly licensedarchitectunder the laws of the state of Minnesota.XXXDate: XX-XX-XXXXReg. No. xxxxxIssue / RevisionISSUEFORCONCEPTREVIEWISSUE FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWDate03-15-202204-01-2022Copyright2021 Genesis ArchitectureJob:DrawnBy:2022.039.0DWS Checked By: XXXSheet:ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANAS-1.09'-0"20'-0"5'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"3'-4"20'-0" 20'-0"20'-0"24'-0"20'-0"20'-0"5'-0"20'-0"20 additional “Proof of Parking”spaces36 Parking SSDFHVtobe striped immediately ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶZĞǀŝĞǁWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ>ĂLJŽƵƚ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶZĞǀŝĞǁWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ>ĂLJŽƵƚ Saltbox Parking Analysis (March 2022) Subject Property: Saltbox Farmers Branch (4653 Nall Rd., Farmers Branch, TX 75244) Building Information: ● Total building size - approximately 66,000 square feet, consisting of 101 warehouse suites and 15 rentable offices ● Maximum member occupancy - 186 member access passes ● Saltbox employees - typically 12 on site during normal business hours ● Parking spaces - 85 Parking Analysis Methodology: ● Parking utilization monitored over the entire month of February 2022. ● Parking monitored through review of multiple on-site security cameras. Results: Conclusions: ● Even at its peak, parking utilization at Saltbox Farmers Branch equals only 22% of the total access passes plus Saltbox employees. ● The Arden Hills property has a conservative estimate of 398 potential members and 15 Saltbox employees on site at any given time. Accordingly, the anticipated peak parking need is 91 spots, with most utilization significantly below that. ● Given this data, the existing 107 spots should be more than sufficient for our needs. Page 1 of 7 PC Agenda Item – 4B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-007 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Baker Hostetler LLP Property Location: 4440 Round Lake Road W. Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action Gregory Lee, Baker Hostetler LLP (“The Applicant”) on behalf of Saltbox (“The Company”) has submitted a land use application for Site Plan Review for a project located at 4440 Round Lake Road W. (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is seeking approval to reconfigure the parking lot layout for tenants of the approximate 113,000 square foot office and warehouse facility. The Subject Property is zoned GB, Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the Land Use Plan. Background 1. Overview of Request At their March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. Saltbox offers flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. The intent of Saltbox is to provide an all-inclusive collaborative workspace to small businesses by providing the essential operations and logistical infrastructure that enables a business to start and scale its growth. Saltbox will be remodeling the interior of the building to construct flexible work spaces that can be used as either warehouse, office, or some combination of the two. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. The suites are constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. Each Saltbox facility is designed with conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room that are shared by the small business tenants. The facility is open seven (7) days a week from 6 AM to 11 PM. Page 2 of 7 Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on-demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus they are able to provide order fulfillment assistance to the small business owners. A package that is delivered to Saltbox is received by the Operations Specialist at the loading dock. The Saltbox employee then distributes smaller boxes to the individual suites or there is secured warehouse space for larger packages. Saltbox employees are onsite from 8 AM to 6 PM. The Applicant has stated this window of time is when 95% of their activity is expected to occur The Arden Hills location would be for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. Saltbox would say that their flexible business model means that the 398 members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. As part of the improvements to the property, the Applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking lot layout that would result in the immediate addition of 36 parking spaces and also identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of parking spaces. Therefore, the Applicant is pursuing the Site Plan Review for the additional parking spaces. Image from the Saltbox website of Suites Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. Land Use Chart (GB Gateway Business District) – Section 1320.05 The property is zoned GB, Gateway Business District. In addition, the parcel abuts Round Lake which would also be subject to applicable Shoreland regulations as a riparian lot. Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided as Light Industrial and Office use. Light Industrial and Office (I/O) uses are areas designated for a broad range of light industrial uses such as warehousing with manufacturing. This land use may also include offices. According to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the expected share of uses within this area are 50 percent to 100 percent Light Industrial or up to 100 percent Office. Over the years, the property has continuously been utilized for office and warehouse use. The building is currently vacant, but the former occupant was Deluxe Corporation. The historical uses of the property would be allowed to continue as a legal right as a legal nonconforming so long as there is no intensification or expansion of said use. In 2004, it was documented that the distribution of uses within the building to be supported by the current parking supply would be no greater than Page 3 of 7 10% office (11,356 sq. ft.) and 90% warehouse (102,209 sq. ft.). Additionally, the former zoning of the parcel did not require a Special Use Permit for warehouse use. 2. District Requirements Chart (GB Gateway Business District) – Section 1320.06 The property was developed in 1979 prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business Zoning District. The total lot area is 358,036 square feet (8.2 acres) and the building is 113,565 square feet. At the time of construction, the existing development and uses complied with the applicable zoning codes. Today under the GB District, the existing development does not meet setback requirements for the building and off-street parking and is considered legal nonconforming. The following are the Gateway Business District minimum setbacks: • Front yard – 50 feet • Side Yard (interior) – 20 feet/40 feet combination • Rear Yard – 20 feet • Off-Street Parking from ROW – 50 feet • Off-Street Parking from Side or Rear Property Lines – 20 feet The Certificate of Survey (Attachment C) shows the parking lot is approx. 10 feet from the south property line and the building is approx. 14 feet from the north property line. As a legal nonconforming, the property can continue to operate in the same manner without triggering any further action for the property to be brought into compliance with current zoning code requirements. Aerial Map of Subject Property 3. General Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements – Section 1325.06 For the Site Plan Review, the Applicant will not be modifying the existing parking lot size or pavement location. The Applicant is proposing new striping that would be completed within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. Under the new site plan, the Applicant is proposing to Page 4 of 7 discontinue the utilization of several loading docks and convert the existing pavement to parking spaces. The lot striping would result in the addition of 36 parking spaces to be installed upon approval. The site plan also identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of 20 parking spaces. The proof of parking area is conceptual in the event additional parking is required to meet their tenant demands. As noted above, city records have documented that the former use of the building was no more than 10% office and 90% warehouse use. The table below illustrates the number of off-street parking spaces that would be required based on that ratio under current city code requirements. Land Use Parking Requirement Required Number of Stalls by Use Total Stalls Required at 10%/90% Number of Existing Stalls Current Parking Deficiency Business & Professional Office @ 10% or 11,356 sq. ft. 1 for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area 45.4 stalls 147.6 stalls 108 stalls -39.6 stalls Other Business and Industry at 90% warehouse or 102,209 sq. ft. 1 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area 102.2 stalls As a nonconforming site, this ratio is an important factor when evaluating a future land use because any intensification of use or shift in floor area between land uses has the likelihood of increasing the deficiency of off-street parking for this site. The Applicant is proposing parking lot improvements that would bring the property closer to conformance with current code requirements for the number of spaces required. Additionally in review of the proposed parking, city code requires individual parking spaces to be at least nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length. The proposed parking spaces comply at nine (9) feet in width by twenty (20) feet in length. As part of this submittal, the Applicant did provide a parking study that was conducted from a Saltbox location in Texas. This location has 126 office and warehouse suites with a maximum tenant occupancy of 186 members. Saltbox has indicated that occupancy is monitored through the issuances of access passes. Their Texas site has a total of 85 parking spaces. Saltbox has provided a chart to show peak parking usage over a seven (7) day work week (Attachment D). The Applicant states that “at the peak parking periods only 22% of the parking spaces were utilized by small business tenants”. In comparison, the Arden Hills location would be for 214 office and warehouse suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. They anticipate a peak parking demand of 91 spaces (i.e. 22% utilization) and feel this site would be sufficient to meet their needs. During the concept review, Saltbox representatives indicated that their facilities operate between 60% to full capacity. The feedback of the City Council during the concept review was generally supportive of the Saltbox proposal. The Applicant identified a willingness to install the additional parking as a preemptive measure based on tenant occupancy Page 5 of 7 and future utilization. The Council felt the installation of the additional parking would be beneficial for this proposal. Planning staff will note that parking is not allowed on unimproved spaces and no on-street parking is permitted along Round Lake Road. 4. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots - Section 1350 In evaluating nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots, the City shall refer to City Code Section 1350 which mirrors the regulations of State Statute 462.357 for determining what type(s) of activity (i.e. continuation, rebuild, maintenance, expansion, etc.) may or may not be allowed. Nonconformities are simply any land uses, structures or lots that do not comply with the current zoning ordinance of a City. Legal nonconformities are those uses, buildings, or lots that were legal when the zoning ordinance or amendment was adopted, in that they complied with then existing ordinance. The intent of these regulations is to allow a nonconforming use of land or building to be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. From the information reviewed, the determination has been made that the proposed building use is a continuation of not more than 10% office and 90% warehouse. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. Additional Review Public Works Director/City Engineer The Assistant Public Works Director has reviewed the proposed site plan and is not recommending any changes to the site circulation, stall spacing, or sizing of drive aisle widths. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install striping for additional parking spaces at the subject property 4440 Round Lake Road W. 2. The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property was developed prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business District and is considered to be legal nonconforming. 4. The Applicant intends to continue the utilization of the existing 113,565 square foot building for office and warehouse purposes in a manner consistent with the nonconforming regulations. 5. The Applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot layout within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. Page 6 of 7 6. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 7. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 9. The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions. 10. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Proposed Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 007 for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the May 4, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 1) That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) The proposed parking stalls and drive aisles shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3) A building permit shall be obtained prior to installation for the parking spaces identified as “Proof of Parking”. Future installation of Proof of Parking area can be processed administratively through the Planning Department as part of the Site Plan approval if completed in accordance with the plans submitted under this review. 4) Saltbox shall be required to maintain a listing of building tenants and provide said listing to the City upon request as needed for verification of occupancy in satisfaction of nonconforming uses. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 007 for a Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 4, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-007 Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-007 for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W.: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure. Public notices were mailed out on April 22, 2022. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. No comments have been received regarding this application as of April 27, 2022. Page 7 of 7 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 1, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 30, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Plans E. Parking Study ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 6 Commissioner Zimmerman commented this situation would require flexibility on an ongoing basis. He supported the homeowners association come forward and asking to change the requirements for lot sizes and setbacks for the overall development in order to eliminate the need for future variances within Hunter’s Park. Chair Vijums stated he understood this concern but reported this neighborhood would still require variances because the lots would never comply with City requirements. He believed it would be very difficult to establish any type of rules at this point for the Hunters Park development. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Blilie seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the May 4, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 22-007; 4440 Round Lake Road West – Site Plan Review – Public Hearing Not Required City Planner Jagoe stated at their March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. Saltbox offers flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. The intent of Saltbox is to provide an all-inclusive collaborative workspace to small businesses by providing the essential operations and logistical infrastructure that enables a business to start and scale its growth. City Planner Jagoe reported Saltbox will be remodeling the interior of the building to construct flexible work spaces that can be used as either warehouse, office, or some combination of the two. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. The suites are constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. Each Saltbox facility is designed with conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room that are shared by the small business tenants. The facility is open seven (7) days a week from 6 AM to 11 PM. City Planner Jagoe explained Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on- demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus they are able to provide order fulfillment assistance to the small business owners. A package that is delivered to Saltbox is received by the Operations Specialist at the loading dock. The Saltbox employee then distributes smaller boxes to the individual suites or there is secured warehouse space for larger packages. Saltbox employees are onsite from 8 AM to 6 PM. The Applicant has stated this window of time is when 95% of their activity is expected to occur. City Planner Jagoe indicated the Arden Hills location would be for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. Saltbox would say that their flexible business model means that the 398 members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. As part of the improvements to the property, the Applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking lot layout that would result in the immediate addition of 36 parking spaces and also ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 7 identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of parking spaces. Therefore, the Applicant is pursuing the Site Plan Review for the additional parking spaces. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install striping for additional parking spaces at the subject property 4440 Round Lake Road W. 2. The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property was developed prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business District and is considered to be legal nonconforming. 4. The Applicant intends to continue the utilization of the existing 113,565 square foot building for office and warehouse purposes in a manner consistent with the nonconforming regulations. 5. The Applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot layout within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. 6. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 7. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 9. The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions. 10. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund requested further information on the proof of parking. City Planner Jagoe discussed the area that had been selected for proof of parking noting it would not be striped at this time, but could be in the future, if there was the need for additional parking. Commissioner Collins asked if the 36 parking stalls would be in addition to the 108 existing stalls. City Planner Jagoe reported this was the case. Chair Vijums asked if there was any overflow parking for this property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 8 City Planner Jagoe commented there was no overflow parking lot. She noted there was not a lot of additional space on the property for parking. She reported on-street parking was not allowed on Round Lake Road. She explained Saltbox was aware of the number of parking stalls that was available to them and indicated Saltbox plans to manage the parking situation with their members through issuing access passes. Chair Vijums requested further information on the history of this building. City Planner Jagoe stated this building was previously owned by Deluxe Corporation and has been vacant for several years. She understood the interior of the building was being demoed in order to complete the buildout for Saltbox. Chair Vijums commented Saltbox would not utilize the full 108 parking spaces from day one but rather would be building their clientele over time. David Sorensen, Project Manager for Saltbox, reported this was the case. He explained the plans for the building were at about 90% and he has not yet applied for a building permit. He commented on the parking studies that were completed for the Dallas, Atlanta, Denver and LA Saltbox locations and noted the 108 spaces would be sufficient for the Arden Hills site. He indicated he supported adding the 36 striped spaces in order to more closely align with the City’s parking requirements. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-007 for Site Plan review at 4440 Round Lake Road West based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the May 4, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She explained the Council approved the CUP for the home occupation the Commission considered in April. She thanked the Commission and all of the residents for their comments regarding the home occupation. She noted the Council would be discussing food trucks at a future worksession meeting. She stated summer hours would begin after Memorial Day and City Hall would be open Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. She explained the City added a new tab on its website for resident resources. She indicated the Council approved an EAB contract with Rainbow Tree which would include discounted tree removal services for residents. She then discussed the major street reconstruction projects that would be completed this summer, which included the parking lot at City Hall. She invited the public to attend the Touch a Truck event on Saturday, May 21 that would be held at Perry Park from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She encouraged the public to attend Scoops for Troops To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. 1 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-032 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 4440 ROUND LAKE ROAD W. WHEREAS, City Staff received a land use application for 4440 Round Lake Road W. (“Subject Property”) for a Site Plan Review on April 1, 2022; WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the GB – Gateway Business Zoning District and is guided as Light Industrial and Office in the Land Use plan; WHEREAS, the Subject Property’s use as office and warehouse is legal nonconforming in the GB District; WHEREAS, a Site Plan Review is required for reorganization of parking and drive aisles in Business zoning districts; WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to convert a portion of the existing parking lot by immediately striping 36 new parking spaces as well as identifying an area as proof of parking to stripe in the future 20 additional spaces pending demand for use by tenants of the building; WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; WHEREAS, the City’s obligation has been met where the Arden Hills Planning Commission duly held a hearing on May 4, 2022. All persons present at said meeting were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for a Site Plan Review and, as such voted 6-0 in favor of the recommending approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Hereby adopts Resolution 2022-032 approving Planning Case 22-007 for a Site Plan Review at the Subject Property 4440 Round Lake Road W. to reorganize the parking lot layout to To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. 2 install additional parking spaces, including future installation of parking spaces identified as proof of parking. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 22-007 for a Site Plan Review at the Subject Property 4440 Round Lake Road W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans and May 23, 2022 Report to the City Council, as amended by the following conditions: 1) That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) The proposed parking spaces and drive aisles shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3) A building permit shall be obtained prior to installation for the parking spaces identified as “Proof of Parking”. Future installation of Proof of Parking area can be processed administratively through the Planning Department as part of the Site Plan approval if completed in accordance with the plans submitted under this review. 4) Saltbox shall be required to maintain a listing of building tenants and provide said listing to the City upon request as needed for verification of occupancy in satisfaction of nonconforming uses. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2022. ___________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Planning Case #22-007 –No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Baker Hostetler LLP on behalf of Saltbox Property Location: 4440 Round Lake Road W. Request: Site Plan Review 1 Overview Request •On March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. •Overall feedback of the City Council was generally supportive of the Saltbox proposal. •Applicant identified a willingness to install additional parking based on tenant occupancy and demand of future utilization. Paving of 36 new parking spaces Proof of Parking for 20 future parking spaces, as needed 2 Land Use Chart •2040 Comprehensive Plan guided towards Light Industrial and Office •Zoning District –GB, Gateway Business •Property was developed in 1979 prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business Zoning District •Historically property has continuously been utilized for office and warehouse use 3 Nonconforming Uses, Section 1350 •Mirrors language in State Statute 462.357 for determining what type(s) of activity (i.e. continuation, rebuild, maintenance, expansion, etc.) may or may not be allowed. •Nonconformities are simply any land uses, structures or lots that do not comply with the current zoning ordinance of a City. •Legal nonconformities are those uses, buildings, or lots that were legal when the zoning ordinance or amendment was adopted, in that they complied with then existing ordinance. •Intent of these regulations is to allow a nonconforming use of land or building to be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. 4 Saltbox •Flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. Constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. •All-inclusive collaborative workspace with shared conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room. •Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on-demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus order fulfillment assistance. •Arden Hills location for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. •Flexible business model means that all members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. 5 Site Plan Review •36 Parking Stalls to be striped •20 additional “Proof of Parking” spaces 6 Off-Street Parking •Determination made that use is a continuation of not more than 10% office and 90% warehouse. •Parking Analysis conducted studying Saltbox Texas location. •Saltbox monitors parking through issuance of access passes to members. •Site Plan Review for parking lot striping that would bring property closer to conformance with current code requirements for the number of spaces required. •City code requires individual parking spaces to be at least 9 x 18. •Proposed parking spaces comply at 9 x 20. Land Use Parking Requirement Required Number of Spaces by Use Total Spaces Required at 10%/90% Number of Existing Spaces Current Parking Deficiency Business & Professional Office @ 10%or 11,356 sq.ft. 1 for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area 45.4 spaces 147.6 spaces 108 spaces -39.6 spacesOtherBusiness and Industry at 90%warehouse or 102,209 sq.ft. 1 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area 102.2 spaces 7 Findings of Fact –General Findings 1.The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install striping for additional parking spaces at the subject property 4440 Round Lake Road W. 2.The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 3.The Subject Property was developed prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business District and is considered to be legal nonconforming. 4.The Applicant intends to continue the utilization of the existing 113,565 square foot building for office and warehouse purposes in a manner consistent with the nonconforming regulations. 5.The Applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot layout within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. 6.The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 7.The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8.The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 9.The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions. 10.A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. 8 Deadline for Agency Action •The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 1, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 30, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. 9 Public Notice •Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on May 12, 2022. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. •No comments received regarding this application as of May 18, 2022. 10 •Approval with Conditions:Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W. as presented in the May 23, 2022 Report to the City Council as amended by the conditions below: 1)That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2)The proposed parking spaces and drive aisles shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 3)A building permit shall be obtained prior to installation for the parking spaces identified as “Proof of Parking”. Future installation of Proof of Parking area can be processed administratively through the Planning Department as part of the Site Plan approval if completed in accordance with the plans submitted under this review. 4)Saltbox shall be required to maintain a listing of building tenants and provide said listing to the City upon request as needed for verification of occupancy in satisfaction of nonconforming uses. •Approval:Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W. as presented in the May 23, 2022, Report to the City Council. •Denial:Motion to deny Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W.: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. •Table:Motion to table Resolution 2022-032, approving Planning Case 22-007, for Site Plan Review at 4440 Round Lake Road W.: the City Council should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. 11 Options and Motion Language Planning Case 22-007 –Baker Hostetler LLP Site Plan Review 12 Questions? Page 1 of 9 NEW BUSINESS – 10C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-004 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: William and Adrienne Guelker Property Location: 1152 Benton Way Request: Variance Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Motions to approve, table, or deny the following: • Adoption of Resolution 2022-033 for Planning Case 22-004 for a variance to remove an existing 20’ by 12’ deck on the rear side of the single-family dwelling located at 1152 Benton Way (“Subject Property”) and replace it with a 14’ by 14’ addition and 14’ by 12’ deck. To construct the proposed addition and deck, William and Adrienne Guelker (“Applicants”) are requesting four variances: o Side Yard Setback: The minimum combined side yard setbacks shall be 15 feet. The applicants are requesting a variance with the home addition to maintain the existing combined side yard setbacks of 11.6 feet. o Minimum Landscape Area: The minimum required landscaped area is 65%. The applicants are requesting a variance to decrease the minimum to 62% of the property. o Maximum Structure Coverage: The maximum allowed structure coverage is 25%. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow 30% structure coverage. o Floor Area Ratio: The maximum allowed floor area ratio is 0.3 or 1,800 square feet of floor area on this property. The applicants are requesting a variance to construct an addition that would result in a total of 2,188 square feet of floor area, equaling a floor area ratio of 0.36. Approval of a Variance requires an affirmative vote of three councilmembers. Page 2 of 9 Background 1. Existing Site Conditions: 1152 Benton Way, the Subject Property, is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicants. Surrounding parcels to the North, East, and South are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The parcel to the West is zoned B-2, General Business District and designated for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Site Data 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-3 Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District Lot Size: 0.14 acres 3. Proposed Use The Applicants are requesting a variance to the required side yard setback and decrease the landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio for a proposed building addition and deck replacement. The table below details the variance requests. Required Existing Proposed Side Yard Setback 5’ minimum/ 15’ combined 5.8’ minimum/ 11.6’ combined 5.8’ minimum/ 11.6’ combined Landscaped Area Greater than 65% 65% 62% Structure Coverage Less than 25% 27% 30% Floor Area Ratio Less than 0.3 0.31 0.36 The Applicants are proposing to use the second floor of the addition as a dining room and the first floor as a small work shop and storage area. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck. Due to the size of the Subject Property, the Applicants would not be able to construct the proposed deck or addition without a variance. 4. Hunters Park Planned Unit Development The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved in 1973. The single family portion of Hunters Park is built on approximately 29 acres of which seven acres are shared green space, almost three acres are used for shared driveways, and the remaining 19 acres are divided into 84 single-family residential homes. The PUD process can permit a great amount of flexibility for developments from the underlying zoning regulations. This development used the flexibility permitted in the PUD process, and the neighborhood was designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and lot coverages. Lots in the neighborhood range in size from 4,356 square feet to 32,670 square feet with a median lot size of 7,187 square feet. A number of the lots were permitted to have structures that did not Page 3 of 9 meet the underlying zoning requirements, which is allowed under the PUD process. Because the lot sizes and building locations were approved as part of the PUD process, they are not considered nonconforming even if they do not meet the underlying R-3 zoning requirements. Therefore in developments like the Hunters Park neighborhood, it is not uncommon for the PUD to include an alternative set of regulations that supersede the underlying zoning regulations. In the case of the Hunters Park, alternative lot layout standards were not created, which means that the underling R-3 regulations were left in place. Since most of the structures and lots do not meet the R-3 Zoning regulations, virtually any change to the structures in Hunters Park would trigger a request for a variance. Furthermore, it can be difficult to apply the R-3 regulations to lot sizes that do not meet the minimum R-3 lot size. The City Council considered approving an alternative set of regulations for the Hunters Park neighborhood in 1985 (Planning Case 85-010). As part of this planning review, the City compiled a summary of the existing development patterns within the Hunters Park Development which were as follows: • Front Yard Setback from Public Street – Vary from 8 feet to 60 feet. Most units determined to be in a range of 20 feet to 25 feet. • Front Yard Setback from Private Street – Range of 18 feet to 20 feet. • Side Yard Setback – Several as low as 2 feet and some as high as 30 feet. Common range determined to be 4 feet to 15 feet, with a combined setback of 15 feet. • Rear Yard Setback – Range from 8 feet to 45 feet. Most units determined to be 14 feet to 24 feet. • Lot Structure Coverage – Range from 17% to 38%. Most lots determined to have 25% to 30% structure coverage. From this analysis it was determined that an alternative set of regulations for Hunters Park should not be created because the lots and structure layouts were so varied in the original PUD that it would be very difficult to create a standard that is less complicated than the existing process. The City Council did, however, approve a process for evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park: 1. If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances from the R-3 Zone, only a building permit issued administratively by the City shall be required. This removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change. 2. If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind from the R-3 Zone, the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply. 3. In both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunters Park Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or alteration before submitting the same to the City. It shall assist individual homeowners in determining if a variance is required for proposed alterations. According the planning case files, the Hunters Park homeowner association approved this process along with the City. Since many of the lots and structures do not meet current requirements under the R-3 regulations, a variance is still almost always required. A number of other properties in the Hunters Park neighborhood have received variances to construct similar additions; however past variance approvals are not a basis for current variance reviews. The previously approved variances were: Page 4 of 9 1. Planning Case #86-35: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1153 Benton Way 2. Planning Case #97-21: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1124 Benton Way 3. Planning Case #09-012: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1126 Benton Way 4. Planning Case #12-013: Side yard setback, lot coverage, and landscaped area variance approved at 1185 Benton Way There may be other properties that have improvements/additions from the original PUD approval and/or subsequent amendment in 1985 that did not trigger the requirement to apply for a variance. While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all of the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, the City is not bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property was constructed as part of the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development, approved in 1973. The Subject Property has a lot area of 6,000 square feet. Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit. Proposed Site Plan Page 5 of 9 Structure Setbacks In the R-3 District, the minimum side yard setback requirement is five 5 on each side and 15 feet combined. The current structure is located approximately 5.8 feet from each side yard property line, making the combined side yard less than the minimum required. The proposed building addition would maintain the existing building line of the structure at a setback of 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The proposed addition would conform to rear setback requirements. The structure located on the parcel south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet from the existing structure. Landscaped Area In the R-3 District, the minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65% of the property or 3,900 square feet. The Subject Property has an existing landscaped area of 3,906 square feet or 65%. The proposed addition would decrease the total landscaped area to 3,710 square feet, or 62% percent of the property. Structure Coverage The R-3 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25% or 1,500 square feet on the Subject Parcel. The existing structure coverage is 1,626 square feet or 27%. This does not conform to the requirements of Section 1320.06 of the Arden Hills City Code. The proposed addition would increase the total structure coverage by 196 square feet for a total of 1,822 square feet, or 30% of the Subject Property. Floor Area Ratio In the R-3 District, the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.3, or 1,800 square feet on the Subject Property. The existing floor area is 1,837 square feet, equally a FAR of 0.31. The proposed addition will increase the FAR to 0.36, or 2,188 square feet. 2. Variance Review The role of the City Council is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Council should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the City Council may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The City Council may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicants request a variance to construct a 14’ by 12’ deck and a 14’ by 14’ home addition. The City Council will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicants do not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Page 6 of 9 Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variance request for 1152 Benton Way is for a proposed addition. The Subject Property is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and is guided as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. According to the Applicants, the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development would preclude an improvement to the house without granting a variance and the request to improve the home would seem to be a reasonable pursuit. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The Applicants have indicated in their narrative that the approved PUD was to allow more homes in a smaller area creating the nonconforming issues and that action was beyond the control of Owners seeking future improvements to the house. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will match the exterior materials of the existing structure. By doing so, the Applicants have stated this will maintain the character of the area. Also according to the Applicants, the proposed addition would not create over building and crowding within the neighborhood. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Page 7 of 9 Suggested Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May 4, 2022, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio at the Subject Property, 1152 Benton Way. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved with flexibility in the development standards. 3. The Subject Property does not comply with the underlying R-3 district standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio. 4. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. 5. The proposed addition would not require a rear yard setback variance. 6. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 27% to 30% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to exceed 25% structure coverage of a parcel. 7. The landscaped area is proposed to decrease from 65% to 62% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to reduce landscaped area below 65% of the parcel. 8. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to increase from 0.31 to 0.36. A variance is required to increase FAR above 0.3. 9. The proposed addition of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-3 district. 10. The City Council has approved similar variance requests for other properties in the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development. Variance Findings: 11. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 12. A single-family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the R-3 District. 13. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 District, which was approved as part of the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents a unique situation for the property owner. 14. The proposed addition will not reduce the existing side yard setbacks. The addition will not require a rear yard setback variance. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet away. 15. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Hunters Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. 16. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. 17. The Applicants have received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee for the proposed addition. Page 8 of 9 Options and Motion Language The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May 4, 2022, meeting. At that time, they recommended approval with conditions of Planning Case 22-004 for side-yard setback, landscape area, structure coverage, and floor area ratio variances at 1152 Benton Way by a 6-0 vote. The following are motion language options for the City Council to consider. • Approval with Conditions: Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-033, approving Planning Case 22-004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way as presented in the May 23, 2022 Report to the City Council as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Approval: Motion to adopt Resolution 2022-033, approving Planning Case 22-004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way as presented in the May 23, 2022, Report to the City Council. • Denial: Motion to deny Resolution 2022-033, approving Planning Case 22-004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Resolution 2022-033, approving Planning Case 22-004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way: the City Council should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property on May 12, 2022. A meeting notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on May 12, 2022. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. No comments have been received regarding this application as of May 18, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 24, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 24, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. The applicants submitted a written request to waive the 60-day review period on March 10, 2022. The City must act on the variance application at 1152 Benton Way by May 31, 2022. Page 9 of 9 Budget Impact N/A Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Letter D. Site Survey E. Building Plans F. Homeowner’s Association Approval G. Applicant Request to Waive 60-day Review H. Planning Commission Memo I. Draft Planning Commission Minutes J. Resolution 2022-033 K. City Council Presentation 1152 Benton Way Lege nd Address La bels Muni ci pal Bou nda ry City Mask April 27, 2022 Map P owered By DataLink 1 in = 188 ft ± March 2, 2022 Arden Hills Planning Commission City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter will provide you with the building details of our proposed project. In addition to the details of the project we will provide the information that will hopefully result in the approval for a variance. A variance in this case is required for four reasons. They are: 1. Side Yard Setback, 2. Minimum Landscaped Area, 3. Maximum Structure Coverage and 4. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Before we address these standards I would like to give a short historical perspective relating to Hunters Park Addition. In the early 70’s the City of Arden Hills approved a Planned Unit Development. The plans called for 68 homes along with common areas and common roadways. The common areas, or green space, was required to approve the small size of the lots. By the nature of the lot sizes the homes were built quite close together and in many instances were non-conforming with setbacks and other normal requirements. Whether the developers anticipated future additions to the homes no one knows, but given the configuration there most likely could be none without applying for a variance. Even faced with this, the city has approved 6 additions to homes in Hunters Park. We have no way of knowing which of these required a variance, but it seems likely that some, if not all, did. According to the Hunters Park Home Owners Association bylaws any addition to a home must be approved by the Architectural and Environment Committee. We have received said approval and an email to that effect is included in our packet. Details of the Project Included with this letter will be copies of the land survey and architectural drawings that detail the dimensions as well as exterior view of the addition. Currently, our home has a 20X12 deck on the rear (west side) of the house. We propose to remove that deck in its entirety and replace it with a two level 14X14 foot addition. The plans also include a 14X12 foot deck off of the north side of the addition. There will be a foundation laid and 2X6 walls will be built to frame in the addition. The lower level will have an 8 foot ceiling and the upper level will have 8 foot sidewalls with a vaulted ceiling. The exterior of both levels will be “batten board on sheeting” to conform with the current siding of the home. The roof of the addition will have two foot eaves on each side and in the peak. I refer you to the plans for the window and door placements along with the size. The current home has slider windows as will the addition. There will be a 14X8 concrete slab on the north side of the lower level. The upper level deck will have composite decking with aluminum railing. The roof will be gabled into the existing roof at a right angle. It will consist of standard architectural shingles matching the existing roof. The roof will be a 6/12 pitch. The addition on both levels will be electrically wired as per code. The upper level will be heated and cooled using a heat pump duplex system. The lower level will have electric heat. Variance Details 1.Side yard setback: A variance is needed because the distance between our home and the neighbor to the north is 11.6 feet and not the required 15 feet. This is an existing non-conforming issue and is not exacerbated by the plans for this addition. All other set backs conform to city ordinance. 2.Minimum Landscaped Area: The minimum landscaped area allowed without a variance is 65% or 3900 square feet. The existing landscaped area is 3925 square feet or 65%. After the addition I calculated 3729 square feet which is 62% and would require a variance. 3.Maximum Structure Coverage: The maximum allowed structure coverage without a variance is 25% or 1500 square feet. The existing structure coverage is 1626 square feet or 27 %. I calculated 1822 square feet after the addition which is 30% and would require a variance. It should be noted that without the addition the house is currently non-conforming. 4.Floor Area Ratio: The maximum allowed FAR for R-3 without a variance is 0.3 which would be 1800 square feet. The existing floor area is 1837 square feet with an FAR of .31. I calculated 2188 square feet after the addition for an FAR of .36 and would require a variance. Request for Variance 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: Not only is the home currently non-conforming, the requirements stated above would always preclude an improvement to the house without granting a variance. Wanting to improve the home would seem to be a reasonable pursuit and without a variance that cannot proceed. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The purpose of the approved Planned Unit Development was to allow more homes in a smaller area creating permanent non-conforming issues. This was mitigated by requiring common green-space. This action created a situation that was clearly beyond our control for future improvements to the house. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance: The ordinance is likely meant to prevent over building and crowding within a neighborhood. We do not believe this type and size of addition in anyway creates an over-crowding or objectionable use. With the exception of the legal/non-conforming set back issue on the north side the plans do not require building beyond set backs currently in place. As such this addition is not causing additional crowding in the neighborhood. 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone: The addition is in an R-3 zone which is residential. If granted, these variance requests will result in further residential use. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City: This proposed addition is relatively small in the scheme of things. By and large, most homes in Arden Hills are one or two level structures with many of them having this type of addition. By maintaining the look of the existing house this addition should have no impact on the character of the city. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone: There are no economic reasons for this variance request. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to meeting with you and answering any questions you might have. Sincerely, William and Adrienne Guelker 651-503-8745 email: guelk001@comcast.net CERTIFICATE OF SURVO Propeirty Address: #H52 lemon Way. Arden Hffls. MN 55t11212'X20.3' DECK TO BE REMOVED. A NEW 12'X14' DECK to the north as shown, and 14'X14' home addition to be FOR: BIILL GUEi.KER g d EXSITlffG HOUSE I / / bull Vffllll8 exlstlng deck Is. C #"lr.-i:r"' t Ii,, Ii "'-'(i,,4' t • 0 Ill @ � LEGEND OEN'.OlES IRON MONUMENT FOUND OENOlES IRON M:ONUMENT SET DBl:OlES Ut!UiY BOX l!JEN'.OlES MtSCE.l.LAHEOUS MAM«llE DENOTES GATE 'wAL\£ DENOTES ARE HmRMT x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. �{ f.N FKET } t mcl!t = zott. � V; �-,. ... ) �� ::u- �----- 3 __ , RISl1095 .,,/ S0UlH UI€ CF U>T 3,, BWCK 3-- EXSITING GARAGE; {', i AREAS '9,. ... r-... ., , 1:/i .., BfT1llllj' � 925.7 tf.5 ¢,-1 t----....;;::�gl�& LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 3, Btodc 3. and\ that part of Outlot "\•. all in HUN1ERS ?ARK FOORTH A.OOrnON. Ramsey County, Mirmesotai. which Iles n:�y of th� westerly extension of the southerly tine af said! Lot 3 andl hes sootherly of the westerly extension; of the north line of said Lot 3. NOTES -BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED OA '\'UM.-FIELD SURVEY COMPLETED 09/12/2021.- El.EVA TIONS ON ASSUMED DA 111.lM.-CONTRACTOR TO VERtFY HOUSE OIME!lliSIONS.AND SEVER ANO BASEMENT DEPTHS.-FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED I BUlUllNG SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOVER l'HAN lHE 92�.1 FIN;ISHEO GRADE AT ffiE BUILDING. - ANISHEO - ?OT.AL lOT AREA ,. 6,000 SCf. ft. O.U ccaree GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE E>:ISRNG HOOSE � s-:1: .,,,, n WHH lURf' ESTABUSHMENT. : DECK ·.,;, 244 SQ.Fr. • "" .,..... . -alY TO VERIFY All BUILDING SETBACKS.- EX. OOKCR£JE 4r: Bl11ll«t«lUS ('MiTHIH L.Ol) ""' 468:f: SQ.FT.- LEGAL DESCRIPTCONI PER tNSPEClilON OF TAXpcereby certify th�t this p!an •• �y or report Wmt prepaf"�d! by RECORDS AND RE\IIEW OF COON.TY t/2 SECTION me or under my drrect � and that. I am 01 duly Uunud MAPS.. MO TI1lf.WORK FURNISHED TO SUR\£\'OR. Lamd Surve)'CI!" 11.md!w the laws of the State of M·fll!nao•ta. SURVEY SUBJECT TO RE\!ISlON UPON RECEIPT ,,, JS.CRE UNO SURVEYINQ'rn_OF TITlEWORK. LAL.-?'C' � Rev. 09/27 /21. tegat dac:ript!on 8llntw lwlll CIIINJ Mlaliro = I -ERIC R. \ltCKARYOOS Dote: SEPT. 21ST. 2(l-21 Req. Ne. 44t25 __, 111d belend' r--Ill 7m-49-911 acrelandel.lrv ,agtnaJI. o O\Users'\erlc,NJnellr"lve\CAB-lir.213-12 CD loll -tHINli\.dlrgi'c:�1312cer1: CD.dt!g �/27'/3121 11<06&ll M C&T NORTH 1 Jessica Jagoe From:William and Adrienne Guelker <guelk001@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, March 10, 2022 8:59 AM To:Jessica Jagoe Subject:1152 Benton Way Addition Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. I understand that based on my land use application submittal date of February 24th, the City is required under State Statute 15.99 to approve or deny my application within 60 days which would be no later than Sunday, April 24, 2022. I confirm that it is my intent to extend the time period to approve or deny the application until no later than Tuesday, May 31, 2022. I am hereby waiving the right to have the City act on the application within the 60‐day period. William Guelker Sent from my iPhone Page 1 of 9 PC Agenda Item – 4A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-004 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: William and Adrienne Guelker Property Location: 1152 Benton Way Request: Variance Requested Action William and Adrienne Guelker (“Applicants”) have requested a variance to remove an existing 20’ by 12’ deck on the rear side of the single-family dwelling located at 1152 Benton Way (“Subject Property”) and replace it with a 14’ by 14’ addition and 14’ by 12’ deck. To construct the proposed addition and deck, the applicants are requesting four variances: 1) Side Yard Setback: The minimum combined side yard setbacks shall be 15 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance with the home addition to maintain the existing combined side yard setbacks of 11.6 feet. 2) Minimum Landscape Area: The minimum required landscaped area is 65%. The applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the minimum to 62% of the property. 3) Maximum Structure Coverage: The maximum allowed structure coverage is 25%. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 30% structure coverage. 4) Floor Area Ratio: The maximum allowed floor area ratio is 0.3 or 1,800 square feet of floor area on this property. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition that would result in a total of 2,188 square feet of floor area, equaling a floor area ratio of 0.36. Background 1. Existing Site Conditions: 1152 Benton Way, the Subject Property, is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicants. Surrounding parcels to the North, East, and South are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Page 2 of 9 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The parcel to the West is zoned B-2, General Business District and designated for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. Site Data 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-3 Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District Lot Size: 0.14 acres 3. Proposed Use The Applicants are requesting a variance to decrease the required side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio for a proposed building addition and deck replacement. The table below details the variance requests. Required Existing Proposed Side Yard Setback 5’ minimum/ 15’ combined 5.8’ minimum/ 11.6’ combined 5.8’ minimum/ 11.6’ combined Landscaped Area Greater than 65% 65% 62% Structure Coverage Less than 25% 27% 30% Floor Area Ratio Less than 0.3 0.31 0.36 The Applicants are proposing to use the second floor of the addition as a dining room and the first floor as a small work shop and storage area. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck. Due to the size of the Subject Property, the Applicants would not be able to construct the proposed deck or addition without a variance. 4. Hunters Park Planned Unit Development The Subject Property is located within the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development which was approved in 1973. The single family portion of Hunters Park is built on approximately 29 acres of which seven acres are shared green space, almost three acres are used for shared driveways, and the remaining 19 acres are divided into 84 single-family residential homes. The PUD process can permit a great amount of flexibility for developments from the underlying zoning regulations. This development used the flexibility permitted in the PUD process, and the neighborhood was designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and lot coverages. Lots in the neighborhood range in size from 4,356 square feet to 32,670 square feet with a median lot size of 7,187 square feet. A number of the lots were permitted to have structures that did not meet the underlying zoning requirements, which is allowed under the PUD process. Because the lot sizes and building locations were approved as part of the PUD process, they are not considered nonconforming even if they do not meet the underlying R-3 zoning requirements. Therefore in developments like the Hunters Park neighborhood, it is not uncommon for the PUD to include an alternative set of regulations that supersede the underlying zoning regulations. In the case of the Hunters Park, alternative lot layout standards were not created, which means that the Page 3 of 9 underling R-3 regulations were left in place. Since most of the structures and lots do not meet the R-3 Zoning regulations, virtually any change to the structures in Hunters Park required a variance. Furthermore, it can be difficult to apply the R-3 regulations to lot sizes that do not meet the minimum R-3 lot size. The City Council considered approving an alternative set of regulations for the Hunters Park neighborhood in 1985 (Planning Case 85-010). As part of this planning review, the City compiled a summary of the existing development patterns within the Hunters Park Development which were as follows: o Front Yard Setback from Public Street – Vary from 8 feet to 60 feet. Most units determined to be in a range of 20 feet to 25 feet. o Front Yard Setback from Private Street – Range of 18 feet to 20 feet. o Side Yard Setback – Several as low as 2 feet and some as high as 30 feet. Common range determined to be 4 feet to 15 feet, with a combined setback of 15 feet. o Rear Yard Setback – Range from 8 feet to 45 feet. Most units determined to be 14 feet to 24 feet. o Lot Structure Coverage – Range from 17% to 38%. Most lots determined to have 25% to 30% structure coverage. From this analysis it was determined that an alternative set of regulations for Hunters Park should not be created because the lots and structure layouts were so varied in the original PUD that it would be very difficult to create a standard that is less complicated than the existing process. The City Council did, however, approve a process for evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park: 1. If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances from the R-3 Zone, only a building permit issued administratively by the City shall be required. This removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change. 2. If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind from the R-3 Zone, the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply. 3. In both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunter's Park Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or alteration before submitting the same to the City. It shall assist individual homeowners in determining if a variance is required for proposed alterations. According the planning case files, the Hunters Park homeowner association approved this process along with the City. Since many of the lots and structures do not meet current requirements under the R-3 regulations, a variance is still almost always required. A number of other properties in the Hunter’s Park neighborhood have received variances to construct similar additions; however past variance approvals are not a basis for current variance reviews. 1. Planning Case #86-35: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1153 Benton Way 2. Planning Case #97-21: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1124 Benton Way 3. Planning Case #09-012: Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage variance approved at 1126 Benton Way 4. Planning Case #12-013: Side yard setback, lot coverage, and landscaped area variance approved at 1185 Benton Way Page 4 of 9 There may be other properties that have improvements/additions from the original PUD approval and/or subsequent amendment in 1985 that did not trigger the requirement to apply for a variance. 5. Approvals The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether a variance request for flexibility on side yard setbacks, landscaped area, structure coverage, and floor area ratio should be approved. The sketches that have been submitted show the location of the proposed building addition and deck replacement. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property was constructed as part of the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development, approved in 1973. The Subject Property has a lot area of 6,000 square feet. Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit. Structure Setbacks In the R-3 District, the minimum side yard setback requirement is five 5 on each side and 15 feet combined. The current structure is located approximately 5.8 feet from each side yard property line, making the combined side yard less than the minimum required. The proposed building Page 5 of 9 addition would maintain the existing building line of the structure at a setback of 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The proposed addition would conform to rear setback requirements. The structure located on the parcel south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet from the existing structure. Landscaped Area In the R-3 District, the minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65% of the property or 3,900 square feet. The Subject Property has an existing landscaped area of 3,906 square feet or 65%. The proposed addition would decrease the total landscaped area to 3,710 square feet, or 62% percent of the property. Structure Coverage The R-3 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25% or 1,500 square feet on the Subject Parcel. The existing structure coverage is 1,626 square feet or 27%. This does not conform to the requirements of Section 1320.06 of the Arden Hills City Code. The proposed addition would increase the total structure coverage by 196 square feet for a total of 1,822 square feet, or 30% of the Subject Property. Floor Area Ratio In the R-3 District, the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.3, or 1,800 square feet on the Subject Property. The existing floor area is 1,837 square feet, equally a FAR of .31. The proposed addition will increase the FAR to 0.36, or 2,188 square feet. 2. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicants request a variance to construct a 14’ by 12’ deck and a 14’ by 14’ home addition. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicants do not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Page 6 of 9 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variance request for 1152 Benton Way is consistent with the purpose and intent of the R-3 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A single- family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the Low Density Residential land use designation and the R-3 Zoning District. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The existing parcel on the Subject Property is currently “non-conforming” with the R-3 district’s standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio due to the small lot sized approved at part of the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. The proposed addition would decrease the Subject Property’s landscaped area and increase the structure coverage. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are reasonable in the Hunter’s Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development was approved with small lot size and density in mind. At the time of development, many of the dwellings in the neighborhood were built closer to property lines than would otherwise be allowed by the Arden Hills Zoning Code. Due to the small lot sizes in the Hunter’s Park neighborhood, the requirements of the R-3 District are an impediment to home improvements for the Subject Property as well as the surrounding parcels. A variance would be needed for most scenarios involving a substantial home improvement project within the neighborhood. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and would not require a rear yard setback variance. The proposed addition will match the exterior materials of the existing structure. By doing so, the Applicants have stated this will maintain the character of the area. Also according to the application, the proposed addition would not create over building and crowding within the neighborhood. Page 7 of 9 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio at the Subject Property, 1152 Benton Way. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved with flexibility in the development standards. 3. The Subject Property does not comply with the underlying R-3 district standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio. 4. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. 5. The proposed addition would not require a rear yard setback variance. 6. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 27% to 30% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to exceed 25% structure coverage of a parcel. 7. The landscaped area is proposed to decrease from 65% to 62% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to reduce landscaped area below 65% of the parcel. 8. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to increase from 0.31 to 0.36. A variance is required to increase FAR above 0.3. 9. The proposed addition of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-3 district. 10. The City Council has approved similar variance requests for other properties in the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development. Variance Findings: 11. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 12. A single-family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the R-3 District. 13. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 District, which was approved as part of the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents a unique situation for the property owner. Page 8 of 9 14. The proposed addition will not reduce the existing side yard setbacks. The addition will not require a rear yard setback variance. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet away. 15. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Hunter’s Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. 16. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. 17. The Applicants have received approval from the Hunter’s Park Architectural and Environmental Committee for the proposed addition. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the May 4, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials in the May 4, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property on April 22, 2022. A public hearing notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on April 22, 2022. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. Public Comments Page 9 of 9 Staff have not received written or verbal comments in regard to this proposal as of April 28, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 24, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 24, 2021 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. The applicant submitted a written request to waive the 60-day review period on March 10, 2022. The City must act on the variance application at 1152 Benton Way by May 31, 2022. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Planning Commission Letter D. Site Survey E. Building Plans F. Homeowner’s Association Approval G. Applicant Request to Waive 60-day Review Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL OATH OF OFFICE Chair Vijums administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Clayton Zimmerman. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Shelley Blilie, Joshua Collins, Marcie Jefferys, Jonathan Wicklund and Clayton Zimmerman (Alternate). Absent: Commissioner Arlene Mitchell, Steven Jones and Kurt Weber. Also present were: City Planner Jessica Jagoe and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – MAY 4, 2022 Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the May 4, 2022, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 6, 2022 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jefferys moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the April 6, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 22-004; 1152 Benton Way – Public Hearing Not Required ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 2 City Planner Jagoe stated 1152 Benton Way, the Subject Property, is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicants. Surrounding parcels to the North, East, and South are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The parcel to the West is zoned B-2, General Business District and designated for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff provided a detailed history of this neighborhood and the approval requirements for the Hunter’s Park development. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the following General and Variance Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio at the Subject Property, 1152 Benton Way. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved with flexibility in the development standards. 3. The Subject Property does not comply with the underlying R-3 district standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio. 4. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. 5. The proposed addition would not require a rear yard setback variance. 6. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 27% to 30% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to exceed 25% structure coverage of a parcel. 7. The landscaped area is proposed to decrease from 65% to 62% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to reduce landscaped area below 65% of the parcel. 8. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to increase from 0.31 to 0.36. A variance is required to increase FAR above 0.3. 9. The proposed addition of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-3 district. 10. The City Council has approved similar variance requests for other properties in the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development. Variance Findings: 11. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 12. A single-family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the R-3 District. 13. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 District, which was approved as part of the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents a unique situation for the property owner. 14. The proposed addition will not reduce the existing side yard setbacks. The addition will not require a rear yard setback variance. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet away. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 3 15. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Hunters Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. 16. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. 17. The Applicants have received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee for the proposed addition. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund asked what was behind the house on the west side. City Planner Jagoe explained this was either the nature preserve or outlot. Commissioner Wicklund questioned what the size of the proposed addition would be. City Planner Jagoe reported the applicants are proposing to construct a 14’ by 14’ addition. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired if this variance request was unique to this lot, because of the lot size. City Planner Jagoe discussed the PUD amendment that was reviewed and process approved in 1985. She stated the original approval had varying standards by lot. She reported depending on the size of the addition requested by a lot, the variance needed for each property would be unique and there was no set standard. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if this request would lead to additional variance requests. City Planner Jagoe reported the City has heard four variances for the association in the past. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned if the overall development should come forward versus the City having to review each variance request separately. City Planner Jagoe stated when the development was approved it was granted the flexibilities that exist today. She indicated as circumstances change and homeowners want to make an improvement to the property, this was triggering variance requests. Commissioner Collins requested further comment on the R-3 lot size requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 4 City Planner Jagoe indicated the R-3 zoning district requires lots to be at least 11,000 square feet. Further discussion ensued regarding the flexibility that was granted within the Hunters Park PUD when it was granted. Commissioner Collins indicated his only concern with this request was with the floor area ratio (FAR). City Planner Jagoe reviewed the FAR for the four variances that were previously approved for this development. Commissioner Jefferys stated the challenges of applying the City’s standards are difficult for this request. She asked if there were any other developments like this in Arden Hills. City Planner Jagoe indicated there were other residential projects that have utilized the PUD process. Chair Vijums asked when the other four variances were approved within this development. City Planner Jagoe stated the variances were approved in 1986, 1997, 2009 and 2012. Chair Vijums questioned what the structure to structure setback was referring to for this application. City Planner Jagoe reported this was not in reference to a zoning code setback requirement, but this was mentioned as a consideration discussed in the original PUD for the review of flexibilities granted. In this case, the applicant would be maintaining the 18 feet from the adjacent structure. Chair Vijums read a prepared statement with his thoughts for this planning case. He explained after reading through this case his initial thoughts were to deny or table the request. He stated he was troubled by the alternative set of regulations within the Hunter’s Park development that supersedes the City’s underlying zoning regulations. He indicated he did not understand the “flexibility” that was approved for this neighborhood. While he understood four variances were approved previously, he believed the Commission should not be forced into approving all variance requests. He was of the opinion that the homeowners purchasing lots within Hunters Park should be made aware of the fact their lots were non-conforming and he wanted to understand if there were practical difficulties with these lots. He reported in the past the Commission has adhered to City standards and he did not believe it was fair that this neighborhood did not have to. Bill Guelker, 1152 Benton Way, thanked the Commission for hearing his request. He explained he no idea how complicated variance requests were and he thanked staff for all of their assistance. He reported he has lived in Arden Hills for the past 38 years and he has lived in the Hunters Park addition for this entire time. He noted he has served as the president of the Hunters Park Association over the years. He explained the land behind Hunter’s Park was owned by Bethel University and Crepeau Park. He commented he did not believe his variance request would lead to numerous other requests. He discussed the proposed addition and noted he was hoping to add a 14’ by 14’ dining room onto the house to meet the growing needs of his family. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 5 Adrienne Guelker, 1152 Benton Way, introduced herself to the Commission and thanked the Commission for considering her request. Chair Vijums questioned if the applicant had considered other options for the addition, in order to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Guelker reported he had considered other options and noted the only thing that could mitigate the need for a variance would be to put the dining room on stilts and to leave the area underneath unfinished. He explained if the dining room were 12’ by 12’ he would not need a variance, but indicated this sized addition would not meet the needs of his family. Commissioner Blilie stated she drove by the applicant’s home and it was her opinion that no one would notice the proposed addition except the neighbors to the immediate right and left. Mr. Guelker commented this was correct. Chair Vijums asked if the Guelker’s discussed the proposed addition with their neighbors. Mr. Guelker reported a committee consisting of his two nearest neighbors and association board members voted to approve his addition. Chair Vijums stated this was completely outside his comfort zone, having a separate set of rules for this neighborhood than any other neighborhood in the City of Arden Hills. He indicated he was having a hard time supporting this request, but understood four other variances had already been approved for the Hunters Park neighborhood. Commissioner Wicklund indicated the staff report was very clear for this request and clearly articulates the challenges that the PUD has. He commented that past variance approvals are not a basis for current variance reviews and the four previous variances that were approved are a framework or guide. He explained the existing structure setbacks were not being requested to be removed, but rather the structure lines were being maintained, which he appreciated. He stated the property to the south would not be visually impacted by the proposed addition and noted the property to the north was offering their support to the addition. He was of the opinion a 14’ by 14’ variance was reasonable and explained he would be supporting the variance as requested. Commissioner Collins stated the City completed an interesting study in 1985 to try and formalize the criteria for this neighborhood. He explained the Commission was being asked to apply a framework that was twice the size of this property. He commented on the flexibility that was written into this development and stated he would be offering his support for the variance requested. Commissioner Jefferys reported the Commission may see more requests like this in the future as residents request flexibility for their living space. She noted this development was PUD which allowed for more greenspace with more dense housing. She supported the variance with the conditions for approval. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 6 Commissioner Zimmerman commented this situation would require flexibility on an ongoing basis. He supported the homeowners association come forward and asking to change the requirements for lot sizes and setbacks for the overall development in order to eliminate the need for future variances within Hunter’s Park. Chair Vijums stated he understood this concern but reported this neighborhood would still require variances because the lots would never comply with City requirements. He believed it would be very difficult to establish any type of rules at this point for the Hunters Park development. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Blilie seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the May 4, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 22-007; 4440 Round Lake Road West – Site Plan Review – Public Hearing Not Required City Planner Jagoe stated at their March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. Saltbox offers flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. The intent of Saltbox is to provide an all-inclusive collaborative workspace to small businesses by providing the essential operations and logistical infrastructure that enables a business to start and scale its growth. City Planner Jagoe reported Saltbox will be remodeling the interior of the building to construct flexible work spaces that can be used as either warehouse, office, or some combination of the two. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. The suites are constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. Each Saltbox facility is designed with conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room that are shared by the small business tenants. The facility is open seven (7) days a week from 6 AM to 11 PM. City Planner Jagoe explained Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on- demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus they are able to provide order fulfillment assistance to the small business owners. A package that is delivered to Saltbox is received by the Operations Specialist at the loading dock. The Saltbox employee then distributes smaller boxes to the individual suites or there is secured warehouse space for larger packages. Saltbox employees are onsite from 8 AM to 6 PM. The Applicant has stated this window of time is when 95% of their activity is expected to occur. City Planner Jagoe indicated the Arden Hills location would be for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. Saltbox would say that their flexible business model means that the 398 members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. As part of the improvements to the property, the Applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking lot layout that would result in the immediate addition of 36 parking spaces and also To view the final document, access adopted Resolutions via Arden Hills Public Laserfiche Weblink by visiting cityofardenhills.org and clicking on Archived Documents under Helpful Links on our main webpage. 1 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-033 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 1152 BENTON WAY WHEREAS, City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and decrease the landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio for a proposed building addition and deck replacement on a property in the R-3 District at 1152 Benton Way (“Subject Property”); WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development approved in 1973; WHEREAS, the Hunters Park Development was approved with flexibility and designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and lot coverages as part of the Planned Unit Development process; WHEREAS, a variance may be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance if enforcement of a provision in the ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties; WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; WHEREAS, the City’s obligation has been met where the Arden Hills Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, duly held a hearing on May 4th, 2022. All persons present at said meeting were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the Applicants request for side-yard setback, landscape area, structure coverage, and floor area ratio variances and, as such voted 6-0 in favor of the recommending approval with two (2) conditions. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Hereby adopts Resolution 2022-033 approving Planning Case 22-004 for a variance request at the Subject Property 1152 Benton Way for an addition and deck replacement with a decrease in the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase in the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 22-004 for a variance request at the Subject Property 1152 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 23rd, 2022 Report to the City Council, as amended by the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY 2022. ________________________________ David Grant, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Planning Case #22‐004 –No Public Hearing RequiredApplicant: William and Adrienne GuelkerProperty Location: 1152 Benton WayRequest: VarianceZoning: R‐3 (Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District)Land Use: Low Density Residential1 Proposal•Variance to the required combined side yard setback, decrease the landscaped area, and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio for a proposed building addition and deck replacement. Required Existing ProposedSide Yard Setback5’ minimum/15’ combined5.8’ minimum/11.6’ combined5.8’ minimum/11.6’ combinedLandscaped AreaGreater than 65% 65% 62%Structure CoverageLess than 25% 27% 30%Floor Area RatioLess than 0.3 0.31 0.362 BackgroundApproved as part of the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development (1973). The neighborhood was designed with great variety.3•Lot sizes –from 4,356 to 32,670 sf.•Front Yard Setback –from 8’ to 60’ with most units between 20 – 25’.•Side Yard Setback –from 2’ and some as high as 30’.•Rear Yard Setback –from 8’ to 45’ with most units between 14 – 24’. •Lot Structure Coverage –from 17% to 38% with most lots between 25% – 30% structure coverage. BackgroundIn 1985, the City Council approved a process for evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park:•If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances from the R‐3 Zone, only a building permit issued administratively by the City shall be required. This removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change. •If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind from the R‐3 Zone, the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply. •In both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunters Park Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or alteration before submitting the same to the City. 4 BackgroundFour other properties in the PUD have received similar variances:1. PC #86‐35: 1153 Benton Way2. PC #97‐21: 1124 Benton Way3. PC #09‐012: 1126 Benton Way4. PC #12‐013: 1185 Benton Way5 Approvals•Variance request for flexibility on combined side yard setbacks, landscaped area, structure coverage, and floor area ratio.•Evaluation based on how the facts presented align with District Provisions in Section 1320 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. •Considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. •Past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all of the practical difficulties factors for each variance request. •The City is not bound by decisions made for prior variance requests.•City Council may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 6 Lot Size and Dimensions•Subject Property has a lot area of 6,000 square feet. •Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit. Plan EvaluationDistrict Provisions (R‐3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) –Section 1320.067 DeckAddition30 feet5.8 feet5.8 feetRemove 20’ by 12’ deck on the rear elevation and replace it with a 14’ by 14’ addition and 14’ by 12’ deckSite Plan8 Structure Setbacks •Side yard setback requirement is 5 feet on each side and 15 feet combined. •Current structure is located 5.8 feet from each side yard property line. •The proposed building addition would maintain the existing setbacks. Plan EvaluationDistrict Provisions (R‐3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) –Section 1320.069 Landscaped Area•Minimum landscaped area is 65% of the property or 3,900 square feet. •Subject Property has an existing landscaped area of 3,906 square feet or 65%. •The proposed addition would decrease the total landscaped area to 3,710 square feet or 62% percent of the property. Plan EvaluationDistrict Provisions (R‐3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) –Section 1320.0610 Structure Coverage•Maximum allowed structure coverage is 25% or 1,500 square feet on the Subject Parcel. •Existing structure coverage is 1,626 square feet or 27%. •The proposed addition would increase the total structure coverage by 196 square feet for a total of 1,822 square feet or 30% of the Subject Property. Plan EvaluationDistrict Provisions (R‐3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) –Section 1320.0611 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)•Maximum allowed FAR is 0.3 or 1,800 square feet on the Subject Property. •Existing floor area is 1,837 square feet, equally a FAR of 0.31. •The proposed addition will increase the FAR to 0.36 or 2,188 square feet.Plan EvaluationDistrict Provisions (R‐3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District) –Section 1320.0612 Plan EvaluationVariance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. •The variance request for 1152 Benton Way is for a proposed addition. The Subject Property is zoned R‐3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and is guided as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan.13 Plan EvaluationVariance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. •According to the Applicants, the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development would preclude an improvement to the house without granting a variance and the request to improve the home would seem to be a reasonable pursuit. 14 Plan EvaluationVariance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. •The Applicants have indicated that the approved PUD was to allow more homes in a smaller area creating the nonconforming issues and that action was beyond the control of Owners seeking future improvements to the house. 15 Plan EvaluationVariance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. •The proposed addition will match the exterior materials of the existing structure. •The Applicants have stated this will maintain the character of the area and the proposed addition would not create over building and crowding within the neighborhood. 16 Plan EvaluationVariance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. •The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration.Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. •A solar energy system is not proposed. 17 Findings of Fact – General Findings1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio at the Subject Property, 1152 Benton Way.2. The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved with flexibility in the development standards. 3. The Subject Property does not comply with the underlying R‐3 district standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio. 4. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet.5. The proposed addition would not require a rear yard setback variance.18 Findings of Fact – General Findings6. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 27% to 30% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to exceed 25% structure coverage of a parcel.7. The landscaped area is proposed to decrease from 65% to 62% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to reduce landscaped area below 65% of the parcel.8. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to increase from 0.31 to 0.36. A variance is required to increase FAR above 0.3. 9. The proposed addition of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R‐3 district. 10. The City Council has approved similar variance requests for other properties in the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development.19 Findings of Fact – Variance Findings11. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.12. A single‐family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the R‐3 District.13. The nonconforming lot size for the R‐3 District, which was approved as part of the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents a unique situation for the property owner.14. The proposed addition will not reduce the existing side yard setbacks. The addition will not require a rear yard setback variance. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet away.20 Findings of Fact – Variance Findings15. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Hunters Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood.16. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone.17. The Applicants have received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee for the proposed addition.21 Deadline for Agency Action•The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 24, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 24, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60‐day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. The applicants submitted a written request to waive the 60‐day review period on March 10, 2022. The City must act on the variance application at 1152 Benton Way by May 31, 2022.22 Public Notices•Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on May 12, 2022. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. •No comments have been received regarding this application as of May 18, 2022.23 Options and Motion Language•Approval with Conditions: Motion to adoptResolution 2022‐033, approving Planning Case 22‐004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way as presented in the May 23, 2022 Report to the City Council as amended by the conditions below:1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code.•Approval: Motion to adoptResolution 2022‐033, approving Planning Case 22‐004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way as presented in the May 23, 2022, Report to the City Council. 24 Options and Motion Language•Denial: Motion to denyResolution 2022‐033, approving Planning Case 22‐004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. •Table: Motion to tableResolution 2022‐033, approving Planning Case 22‐004, for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way: the City Council should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.25 Planning Case 22‐004 –Variance Request, 1152 Benton WayQuestions?26