Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11/10/2020 - City Council Special
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY NOVEMBER 10, 2020 5:30 P.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. JOINT MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION IV. JOINT MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION V. 2021 ENTERPRISE AND SPECIAL REVENUE BUDGETS VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Information Memo November 10, 2020 Eagan Special City Council Meeting III.JOINT MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION Action To Be Considered: There is no formal action to be taken. The ARC work plan will be added to a future City Council consent agenda for formal consideration. Facts: ➢The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) is prepared to provide a brief presentation focusing on the following topics: o The accomplishments of the commission over the past year o The status of the City’s request of the FAA o Pending noise mitigation in Eagan o Proposed 2020-2021 work plan for the year ahead ➢ARC Chairman, Michael Johnson and Assistant City Administrator Dianne Miller will provide the presentation, with input from ARC Commissioners. ➢If directed by the Council, formal action will be included on the November 17, 2020 City Council consent agenda to approve the 2020-2021 ARC work program. Attachments: (3) III-1 ARC Power Point Presentation III-2 September 2020 FAA letter to MAC III-3 Proposed 2020-2021 ARC Work Plan Eagan Airport Relations Commission Accomplishments and 2020 Work Plan City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 The Airport Relations Commission Mission The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC, under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents of Eagan to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan without jeopardizing safety. The Airport Relations Commission Purpose To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community. Topics to Review with the City Council 2019 ARC Accomplishments and Efforts Status of Eagan’s Request to the FAA for Runway Use Changes Anticipated Noise Mitigation in 2021 Proposed 2020- 2021 ARC Work Plan •Received fleet mix update from Delta Airlines—showing trends to purchase and use quieter aircraft •“FAA 101” Presentation—educating the public on what air traffic controllers consider when guiding aircraft •State of the Airport Update by Brian Rykes, CEO of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (presented at joint meeting with the Mendota Heights airport relations commission) •Initiated letter to FAA seeking changes to runway use to reduce noise over Eagan. •2019-2020 ARC Accomplishments •September 2019: At the request of community members and the recommendation of the ARC, the City Council requested the FAA review eight possible changes to runway use to improve aircraft noise in Eagan. •The requests sought to have the FAA better utilize the Runway Use System, keeping planes over more noise compatible area. Eagan’s Request of the FAA •December 2019: The Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) endorsed, and the MAC approved, sending four of the requests to the FAA for a high-level review. •February 2020: The FAA deemed two of the requests had merit for further consideration. Eagan’s Request of the FAA Request #1: Direct departures with COULT heading from Runway 17 to Runways 12L and 12R (as long as departures were not impeded and crossing in the corridor could be used). Request #2: Move westbound departures from 12L and 12R to Runway 17 to take advantage of the river departure procedure provided aircraft follow the river for no less than five nautical miles. Request #1: Use of parallels for southeast (COULT) Departures Request #2: Move westbound departures to 17 •May 2020: NOC approves Request #1 to move forward to the FAA •Request #2 was deemed by the NOC to have too great of a noise impact on surrounding communities and thus the request was withdrawn. •September 2020: The FAA completed a more thorough review of Eagan’s request and is ready to test the procedure. •November 2020: Due to the pandemic and low traffic volume, Runway 17 is not being used. The procedure will be tested when traffic levels increase and include the use of Runway 17/35. Eagan’s Request of the FAA •16 homes in the Rolling Hills neighborhood will receive mitigation after three consecutive years of being within the actual noise contour. •Mitigation options include $5,500 and installation of central air OR mitigation improvements up to a cost of $19,532. Anticipated Noise Mitigation in 2021 •Monitoring the impact of the pandemic on the aviation industry •Communicate changes to the public when all runways are operational and aircraft noise increases •Following up with the FAA when they are able to test the proposed runway use change approved for consideration •Hear from experts on worldwide best practices in noise mitigation •Review FAA’s Survey to Reevaluate Noise Measurement Metrics Proposed 2020-2021 ARC Work Plan Questions and Conversation U.S. Deponment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Rick King Chairman, Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28'" Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Re: MSP Departure Procedure Adjustment Requests Dear Mr. King, Great Lakes Region 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 September 2, 2020 Thank you for your letter requesting that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conduct an appropriate feasibility and safety assessment of directing departures from Runway 17 with an initial departure fix of COULT to Runway 12R and Runway 12L unless the departure would impede or be impeded by arrival traffic to those runways and provided these departures would utilize the Crossing -in - the -Corridor noise abatement procedure. This letter provides a preliminary, high-level assessment of your proposal. The FAA has not conducted an in-depth analysis of whether the proposal is either feasible or safe. This type of detailed analysis is premature at this time. The FAA has tentatively determined that the fix of COULT can be moved from departures on Runway 17 to departures on Runway 12L during times of low traffic demand. When MSP aircraft are landing and departing using a Runway 12L, Runway 12R, and Runway 17 configuration, aircraft land and depart on Runway 12L, land on Runway 12R, and depart on Runway 17. The feasibility of moving aircraft that are departing Runway 17 with an initial fix of COULT to Runway 12L during times of low traffic demand is predicated on the use of Runway 12L for both arrival and departure traffic. Departures with an initial fix of COULT utilizing Runway 12L would normally be assigned an initial heading of 120, which would be consistent with the Crossing -in -the -Corridor procedure. However, as with all the changes proposed by the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), traffic demand will need to be considered to determine when this procedure would be used. This procedure must be ripe for evaluation in order to be properly tested. At this time, traffic levels are such that Runway 17 is not being regularly used for departing traffic. This means that the FAA cannot evaluate the potential impact of the proposal from either a safety or an efficiency perspective. Until the demand at MSP reaches approximately 80% of the pre-COVID levels, the FAA does not expect to be in a position to be able to test this procedure, or any of the other changes proposed by the NOC. The FAA will determine when traffic levels are high enough to meaningfully start the required analysis and engage MAC staff at that time. No additional action on the part of the MAC or the NOC will be required. As a point of clarification, directing departures from Runway 17 with an initial departure fix of COULT to Runway 12R and Runway 12L will necessarily impede, or be impeded by, arrival traffic to Runway 12R under certain conditions. As mentioned above, during a Runway 12L/R and 17 configuration, Runway I2R is being utilized as a landing only Runway. Sometimes the longest mnway for departures is required from this configuration for operational necessity, thus Runway 12R is requested for departures. When this occurs, the FAA must adjust the arrival spacing and create a "gap" for this departure, causing a delay for the departure aircraft while they waif for space to be created, and impeding arrivals to this runway. For this reason, the FAA cannot commit to moving a departure with an initial fix of COULT from Runway 17 to Runway 12R without impeding or being impeded by arrival traffic to Runway 12R. Testing of this procedure, once operations rebound, will help determine the conditions under which COULT departures can be removed from Runway 17 and placed on either parallel runway. By testing during low arrival demand periods, more will become known about the extent to which other traffic would be impeded, ensuring continued safe and efficient operations. A procedure testing period will also allow the FAA to fully respond to the NOC's desire to learn how the procedure changes would be operationalized. 1 trust the information provided addresses your question. If you would like to discuss the matter further, please feel free to contact me at 847-294-7294. Sincerely Rebecca Mac erson Regional Administrator Great Lakes Region 2020-2021 DRAFT Eagan Airport Relations Commission (ARC) Work Plan ARC Purpose: To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community. ARC Mission: The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC, under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents of Eagan to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan without jeopardizing safety. Work Plan Topic Presenters/Invited Guests Schedule Joint Meeting with the Eagan City Council • Present draft 2020-2021 ARC Work Plan to City Council • Update to Council on request of FAA for operational changes, including current hold on testing the new procedure due to current operational levels at MSP Airport • Regular ARC Meeting: review pandemic impact on MSP operations Thursday, November 10, 2020, 5:30pm Eagan City Hall Council Chambers Regular ARC Meeting: 6:30pm, Eagan Room Regular ARC Meeting • Presentation: Brad Juffer and International Air Transport Association o Worldwide best practices in aircraft noise abatement o US Regulations impacting noise abatement measures at MSP o Noise Abatement measures at MSP- How does MSP compare to other airports? o The roles of the MAC, Noise Oversight Committee, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Brad Juffer, MAC Community Engagement International Air Transport Association Representative (person TBD) Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 6:30pm Eagan City Hall 2020-2021 ARC Work Plan Template Work Plan Topic Presenters/Invited Guests Schedule (tentative) Regular ARC Meeting • Presentation: Brad Juffer o Results of the FAA’s Survey to Reevaluate Noise Measurement Methods (tentative, dependent on the FAA timeline for release) o Area Navigation (RNAV)—If and when it will be coming to MSP Airport? o 2020 Actual Noise Contour Report o Noise Mitigation to Occur in Eagan in 2021 Brad Juffer, MAC Community Engagement Tuesday, March 9, 2021, 6:30pm Eagan City Hall Regular ARC Meeting OR Offsite Tour—MSP Air Traffic Control Tower • If a tour is not possible, invite FAA Tower Manager to provide a virtual tour or attend the meeting for an operational overview FAA Tower Manager Tuesday, May 11, 2021, Time TBD Joint Meeting with Mendota Heights ARC • Presentation: Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director o State of the Airport Update o Impact of the pandemic on MSP Airport operations, capital efforts, and strategic planning Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director Naomi Pesky, MAC Vice President, Strategy and Stakeholder Engagement Mendota Heights ARC Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 6:30pm, Location TBD Regular ARC Meeting and 2021-2022 Goals and Work Plan Workshop • Presentation: Delta Airlines, Skywest and Endeavor—Fleet Mix and Noise Abatement Update Jeff Hart, Delta Airlines General Manager Customer Service & Airport Operations Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 6:30pm, Eagan City Hall Joint Meeting with the Eagan City Council and Regular ARC Meeting • Present 2021-2022 Work Plan Tuesday, November 9, 2021, 5:30pm, Council Chambers Regular ARC Meeting: 6:30pm in Eagan Room 2020-2021 ARC Work Plan Template Other Topics/Efforts throughout the Year • Public communication efforts (especially when Runway 17 resumes operations) • Community Connections Booth • Host a Quarterly NOC Listening Session • MAC Emergency Preparedness exercise • Nighttime Operation Reports • Converging Runway Operations updates • Updates on MSP 20-year Long-term Plan • MAC Annual Noise Complaint Report Agenda Information Memo November 10, 2020 Eagan Special City Council Meeting IV. JOINT MEETING WITH ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Action to be Considered: To discuss various topics with the Advisory Planning Commission. Facts: At the October 27, 2020 APC Workshop, Commissioners suggested discussion topics for the annual APC/City Council joint meeting. Those topics suggested by the APC and staff include: 1.Lighting/Brightness Standards for Dynamic Display Signs Issue The Advisory Planning Commission has recently reviewed several conditional use permit requests to allow dynamic display signs near residential properties. -Living Word Church (4300 Nicols Road) – a 14-foot pylon sign with dynamic display. The 14- foot sign was proposed to replace an existing static monument sign along the Nicols frontage road. The church is located within a residential area. Single-family homes are located to the north and south of the church property. A dynamic display sign for another church located on the west side of Nicols Road and immediately adjacent to the Living Word Church was administratively approved. -Brianno’s Deli (2280 Cliff Road) – Planned Development Amendment request to allow a 40- foot dynamic display sign. Residential properties are adjacent to the south. The proposed sign was one-sided and would have been oriented north. The sign proposal lacked details, particularly concerning brightness and other operational parameters. -Eagan High School Scoreboard (4183 Braddock Trail) – Although not entirely similar to the commercial uses mentioned above, the proposal was for an 880 square foot scoreboard and dynamic display sign to replace the existing football field scoreboard. Background The Sign Code was amended in 2007 to address dynamic display signs; The Sign Code was amended in 2014 to address dynamic signage hold times. Change from 20- minute hold times to 1-minute hold times. The Sign Code regarding brightness standards is vague (see attached §11.70, Subd. 28.L); Code does not call out specific brightness allowances, particularly in situations when dynamic display signs are located near residential properties. Per City Code §11.70, Subd. 28.K.3(a): Dynamic display signs are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for conditionally permitted uses in residential districts and for all uses in other districts… Dynamic display signs are reviewed administratively where business signs less than seven (7) feet in height are permitted. Discussion Questions 1. Should the location of the dynamic display sign be considered when determining the acceptability of the request? Should conditions and/or performance standards be used when signs are near residential properties? 2. Should performance standards regulating sign brightness be adopted? 3. Other considerations as directed by Council. 2. Attached vs. Detached garbage enclosures Issue Recent commercial projects, particularly those involving a Planned Development, have requested deviation from the attached garbage enclosure requirement. The Hilltop/Hy-Vee Redevelopment requested detached enclosures for all three buildings (off- sale liquor store, convenience store with drive-through, car wash). The Viking Lakes commercial development also proposed two detached enclosures, although the westerly enclosure is detached by only several feet. Central Park Commons commercial development received Planned Development approval allowing centralized and shared garbage enclosures. Garbage hauler access to trash enclosures is challenged by drive-through facilities and one-way traffic lanes. Multi-tenant buildings prefer shared trash facilities. Placing enclosures away from the building provides design flexibility. The Eagan Fire Department has recently indicated a preference for detached trash enclosures due to potential for dumpster fires. New Dakota County waste management regulations may require additional containers and larger enclosures for separation of waste materials. Background The City adopted new garbage enclosure requirements in 1997 to negate the need for conditional use permit approval as trash receptacles were considered outdoor storage and subject to the outdoor storage ordinance. The approved ordinance requires attached trash enclosures in certain zoning districts, but allows detached enclosures within the I-1, Limited Industrial zoning district. City Code trash enclosure requirements are: 7. Enclosure of trash and recyclables containers. All trash and recyclables containers stored outside in the R-4, LB, NB, GB, CSC, RD, I-1, I-2, PF and BP zoning districts shall be stored within an enclosure subject to the following standards: a. The enclosure shall have an impermeable floor surface. b. The enclosure shall be attached to the principal building in the limited business (LB), neighborhood business (NB), general business (GB), community shopping center (CSC), and research and development (RD) zoning districts. c. The enclosure may be detached from the principal building in the residential multiple (R- 4), limited industrial (I-1), general industrial (I-2), business park (BP) and public facility (PF) zoning districts. d. The enclosure shall satisfy principal structures setbacks required for the applicable zoning district. e. The enclosure shall be constructed of materials to match the exterior of the principal structure, with gates or doors having at least 90 percent opacity. f. The enclosure shall be of sufficient size to enclose all trash and recyclables containers and shall be not less than six feet and not more than ten feet in height. g. The above provisions apply in addition to the provisions of chapter 10 of this Code which regulate the storage, deposit, and disposal of refuse on all properties. Discussion 1. Should the City continue to review Variances and Planned Development proposals for detached trash enclosures on a case-by-case basis? 2. Should the City consider Code amendments to provide flexibility and/or other design standards (i.e. accessible pathways, lighting, and covered enclosures to prevent contaminated storm sewer runoff)? 3. Other considerations as directed by Council. 3. Impact of COVID-19 on City zoning, development, and 2040 Comp Plan Issue The Advisory Planning Commission inquired about the potential impacts COVID-19 may have on land use and development. Background Cities will have short-, medium-, and long-term responses to COVID-19 impacts. In spring 2020, the City reacted to the virus outbreak and executive orders closing workplaces. The City Council declared a State of Emergency and the emergency operations plan was activated. City Hall was closed briefly while staff developed plans for remote work and social distancing in City offices. Information for residents and businesses was posted on the City’s web page and distributed through social media. Once the shutdown was lifted, and businesses began resuming in-person operations, the City initiated medium-term responses. The City will continue to adopt medium-term responses until more normal operations and interactions can be safely resumed. The City Council’s May 2020 resolution waiving certain City Code requirements and the City’s approval of $733,000 in Eagan CARES grants to small businesses and nonprofits are examples of medium-term responses. Additional medium-term responses may be necessary to address current conditions. Indoor dining is limited or closed at most restaurants. Restaurants and other businesses are relying heavily on drive-through and curbside pickups. Several banks have not reopened branch services to the public. Understanding future trends will be critical for the City’s long-term COVID-19 response. The City should monitor current conditions that could lead to long-term changes in land use demand and development. Many corporate offices have extended remote work until early 2021. Employees have embraced remote work and employers have not reported productivity challenges. Although in- person work is expected to resume, analysts predict that full-time, in-person work may not be the norm for many workers in the future. How will that affect corporate campuses, business parks and office buildings? On-line shopping and home delivery have increased substantially during the pandemic. High- volume curbside pickup locations require expanded access and loading. Retail locations may need on-site storage of delivery vehicles. Best Buy is already making building alterations to decrease showroom space and increase warehouse space to accommodate on-line fulfillment and curbside pickup. How will retail evolve to meet consumer preferences? Some estimates predict that up to 40 percent of hospitality businesses will permanently close by the end of 2020. Hotels have been converted to homeless shelters. One Eagan hotel is requesting conversion to another land use. Will recovery of hospitality demand support the current supply? Discussion 1. Are additional medium-term responses necessary at this time? 2. Staff will continue to monitor long-term impacts regionally and nationally. Does the Council have initial direction regarding long-term impacts? Attachments: (3) IV-1 City Code Sign Ordinance IV-2 APA Article – COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession IV-3 APA Zoning Practice (Oct. 2020) – Practice Post-COVID Zoning 11/4/2020 City Code https://www.cityofeagan.com/city-code 1/6 Subd. 28. A. 1. 2. 3. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) B. 1. 2. (a) (b) (c) C. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Placement, erection and maintenance of signs. Purpose, construction and definitions. Purpose. The purpose of this section shall be to regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of signs in the city so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the city. Construction. All terms and words used in this section shall be given their commonsense meaning considered in context, except as hereinafter specifically defined. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this section, shall have the meanings stated: Business sign means any sign upon which there is any name or designation that has as its purpose business, professional or commercial identification and which is related directly to the use of the premises upon which the sign is located. Freestanding ground sign means a business sign erected on freestanding shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground and completely independent of any building or other structure. Any business freestanding ground sign which projects more than seven feet above ground level is considered a pylon sign. Governmental sign means any sign placed, erected or maintained by a governmental entity or agency for identification of or directions to a public facility or street or for traffic control or general public services. Local street means a street within the city that is under the exclusive control and jurisdictional authority of the city. Nonbusiness sign means any sign such as a personal nameplate or designation as for residences, churches, schools, hospitals, traffic or road signs, which do not contain advertising and are directly related to the premises upon which they are located. Noncommercial sign means any sign which does not contain advertising for the sale of products or services. Off-premises sign means a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold or offered somewhere other than on the property upon which the sign is located. Product sign means any sign upon which there is any brand name, trademark, logo, distinctive symbol, designation or advertising which has as its purpose the promotion of any business, product, goods, activity or service. Product signs shall be subordinate to business signs. Public right-of-way or public rights-of-way means the surface, air space above the surface and the area below the surface of any public street, highway, lane, path, alley, sidewalk, trail, avenue, boulevard, drive, court, concourse, bridge, tunnel, park, parkway, skyway, waterway, dock, bulkhead, wharf, pier, easement or similar property or waters within the city owned by or under control of the city, or dedicated or otherwise conveyed to the city for general public use. Pylon sign means a business sign erected on freestanding shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and which projects more than seven feet above ground level. Pylon signs, when authorized, are considered a conditional use, as defined in the zoning chapter, and are subject to all conditions, regulations and fees required for conditional uses. Sign means any surface, facing or object upon which there is printed, painted or artistic matter, design or lighting. Sign area means the gross area, exclusive of supportive frame, which contains copy or identifying features such as a logo, character or identifying figure. The gross area shall be calculated as an enclosed area bounded by no more than 12 straight lines. Sign height means the distance from the lowermost ground point to which the sign is attached, to the highest point on the sign. Trail means any paved surface within the public right-of-way, outside of the paved street surface, used by pedestrians and cyclists. Permitted uses. Location of business signs. Business signs are permitted on property zoned business, industrial, agricultural, public facilities, RD or PD only in conjunction with an approved business, industrial or agricultural use. Location of business signs in residential areas. Business signs are permitted in residentially zoned areas or areas of PD designation for residential use only under the following cases: "For sale" or "for rent" signs, four feet by four feet or smaller, advertising the premises upon which such sign is located. Real estate "for sale" signs, not over 100 square feet, of a land developer, which are located upon the premises offered for sale. Area identification signs for major apartment complexes. General sign standards. Construction and erection of signs. All signs shall be constructed and erected in a good and workmanlike manner of sound and sufficient materials so as to ensure the safety of the public and in accordance with all reasonable standards employed by professional signmakers. Location on private property. No sign shall be erected, placed or located upon private property without the permission of the property owner or the lessee. Location to property line. No business sign shall be located nearer than ten feet from any property or dividing line. Location on public property. No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be placed upon any city owned public property, or railroad right-of-way. No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be affixed to any utility pole. Moving parts, lights. No signs are allowed which contain moving sections or intermittent or flashing lights, except for intermittent display of time and temperature, governmental signs, and dynamic display signs allowed under subdivision K. below. Obstruction of vision. No sign shall be erected or maintained in such place and manner as obstructs driver vision or is noxious, annoying or hazardous because of method of lighting, illumination, reflection or location. Painted signs on buildings. No signs are allowed which are painted directly upon the walls of a building. Placement within public right-of-way. No sign other than governmental signs, shall be located within any city owned 11/4/2020 City Code https://www.cityofeagan.com/city-code 2/6 (a) (b) 9. D. 1. 2. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) 3. 4. 5. 6. E. 1. (a) (b) (c) (d) 2. (a) (b) (c) (d) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. (a) (b) public right-of-way, except as follows: Residential name and address signs may be located within the public right-of-way when such signs are attached to mail boxes, private lampposts or the like. Noncommercial signs may be placed in the public right-of-way of a local street only if the sign is located more than five feet from the back of the street curb where no trail exists, or where a trail exists, more than one foot from the edge of the trail furthest from the street curb. Source of lighting. No signs are permitted for which the source of light is directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicle traffic. Off-premises signs. No off-premises sign shall be permitted in any zone within the city except as permitted under this subparagraph. The owner of an existing off-premises sign may construct a new off-premises sign pursuant to a conditional use permit issued in accordance with the provisions ofchapter 11 of the City Code, and under the following criteria: No sign will be permitted which increases the number of signs beyond the number of signs depicted in Table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time. No sign shall be permitted which increases the total square footage of all signs beyond the number of total square feet depicted in Table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time. No sign shall be permitted which increases the total number of sign surfaces beyond the total number of sign surfaces depicted in Table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time. The maximum square footage of a sign shall be 250 square feet; however, the city may allow a sign in excess of 250 square feet upon (i) the reduction of the total number of signs, square footage or surface areas depicted in Table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time, and (ii) amendment to said Table A to reflect such reduction, and (iii) further, so long as the total square footage of all signs is not increased beyond the total of sign square footage depicted in said Table A, at the time of application for a new sign. No sign shall be located nearer to any other off-premises sign than 1,500 lineal feet on the same side of the street or 300 lineal feet on the opposite side of the street. No sign shall be located on a platted lot which contains a business sign. No sign shall be located within 300 feet of any freestanding ground sign or pylon sign. No sign shall be located within 200 feet of any residentially zoned district. No sign or any part thereof shall exceed 40 feet in height as measured from the land adjacent to the base of the sign. Any new off-premise sign permitted under this paragraph, shall not be placed upon any property upon which a building or structure already exists. Any new off-premise sign permitted under this paragraph, above, shall be located only on property zoned for business or industrial use. Any off-premise sign now existing or permitted to be constructed shall be removed prior to the city approving the platting of the property upon which the sign is located or prior to the city issuing a building permit for the construction of a structure upon the property upon which the sign is located, whichever occurs earlier. Any new off-premise sign pursuant to a conditional use permit issued hereunder shall be subject to the provisions governing conditional use permits as set forth elsewhere in this chapter. Building-mounted, window/door and temporary business signs, standards. Building signs on single-tenant buildings and end units in multi-tenant buildings. On single-tenant buildings, no more than three total signs, distributed on up to two elevations, are allowed in the following combinations, not to exceed the allowed sign area based on zoning: One elevation displaying a business name sign, and one elevation displaying a business name and a product name sign for a total of three signs; or One elevation displaying a business name sign, and one elevation displaying either a business name or a product name sign for a total of two signs; or One elevation displaying a business name sign or a product name sign for a total of one sign; or Two signs, each displaying a separate business name if two tenants are occupying one unit space for a total of two signs on one elevation. Building signs on interior units of multi-tenant buildings. On multi-tenant buildings, no more than two signs per tenant on one elevation are allowed in the following combinations, not to exceed the allowed sign area based on zoning: One sign displaying a business name, and one sign displaying a product name for a total of two signs on one elevation; or Two signs, each displaying a separate business name if two tenants are occupying one unit space for a total of two signs on one elevation; or One sign displaying a business name for a total of one sign on one elevation; or One sign displaying a product name for a total of one sign on one elevation. Design similarity. All business signs mounted on a building shall be similar in design. Multi-tenant building signage. Building facade signage on multi-tenant buildings shall be evenly distributed between all tenants. Product name signs. Product name signs shall be subordinate to business name signs. Roof signs. No sign mounted upon a building is allowed to project above the highest outside wall or parapet wall. Roof signs in BP and RD districts. In BP and RD districts, no roof signs shall be allowed. Sign area. No signs or combination of signs mounted upon a building shall cover in excess of ten percent of the gross area of a side in the RD and BP zoning districts, and 20 percent of the gross area of a side in all other zoning districts, where business signs are allowed. A sign displayed on a window or within an area 18 inches from the face of the window, as measured from the 11/4/2020 City Code https://www.cityofeagan.com/city-code 3/6 (c) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. F. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. G. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. H. interior glass to the building interior, shall not occupy more than 60 percent of the area of the windows and/or doors on the side of the building on which the window/door sign is displayed. The area of a window/door sign shall be included in the calculation of the sign area allowed for building-mounted signs provided herein and shall not exceed the applicable sign area permitted. Window/door signs shall be allowed only on the building façade that has building-mounted signage. Any sign not exceeding a two square feet area that depicts "Open/Closed" or hours of operation shall be exempt from requirements. A sign or display inside the building which is located more than 18 inches from the inside glass face of the window glass is not deemed a "window sign" for purposes of this section. Any property or business that exceeds the 60 percent window/door area as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the 60 percent window/door area restriction, provided the following conditions are met: The property owner/occupant completes and files an "exemption registration" with the city within six months of the effective date of the ordinance. If an exemption is not timely filed with the city, the 60 percent window/door sign area regulation will apply. The property, which is exempt from the 60 percent window/door sign area regulation, is prohibited from exceeding its registered window/door sign coverage. Any change in sign size or type rescinds/voids the exemption and the 60% window/door sign area regulation shall apply. Any change in business located in the subject space rescinds/voids the exemption and the 60 percent window/door sign area regulation shall apply. Any modification to the window or door size rescinds/voids the exemption and the 60 percent window/door sign area regulation shall apply. Any exemption not voided or rescinded as set forth in this section shall automatically expire and be void on January 1, 2014. Sign projection. No sign mounted upon a building is allowed to project more than 18 inches from the vertical surface of the building. Temporary signs for special business sales. Any commercial use may have up to three signs for the purpose of promoting a special sales event, provided the signs may not be displayed for no more than 14 days within a 60-day period. The 60-day period shall commence on the first day of posting a temporary sign and conclude 60 days thereafter. The temporary signs shall not exceed an aggregate total area of 100 square feet. The sign permit application shall specify the days, not to exceed 14, which the temporary sign will be displayed. Canopy signage. Canopy signage is limited to the business name and/or logo, and shall not exceed 20 percent of the canopy facade, excluding corporate color raceway. No more than one canopy sign for each street frontage shall be permitted on a canopy for the business located upon the property; illumination is limited to business name and/or logo. Freestanding business signs, standards. Freestanding ground signs. Up to one allowed per building. Such signs shall be limited to seven feet total height, with four-foot maximum height of sign area. Pylon signs. Up to one allowed per building. When used, a pylon sign is allowed in lieu of a freestanding sign. No pylon sign may be located within 300 feet of any other pylon sign, measured on the same side of the street. No pylon signs shall project more than 27 feet above the lot level, roadway level, or a specified point between the two levels as determined by the council. The level used shall be based upon visibility factors from the adjacent roadway(s). The applicant shall submit diagrams, drawings, pictures and other information requested by the city prior to action by the council upon the application. No pylon sign shall exceed 125 square feet in area per side except pylon signs authorized under subparagraph C[G], below. In the RD and BP districts, no pylon signs shall be allowed. Major complex. When an area identification is required, such as for a shopping center, major apartment complex, or major industrial building, up to one freestanding or pylon sign may be allowed for each major adjacent street. The council shall determine the maximum size after reviewing the applicable conditions including terrain, safety factors, etc. Freeway locations. An on-premises pylon sign for identification purposes is allowed for a business sign located directly adjacent to a freeway within the city. Any business that acquires a conditional use permit to erect a pylon sign for freeway identification may be allowed an additional freestanding ground sign to be located on the side of the property opposite of the freeway. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision restricting the number of building-mounted signs permitted, a business name sign may be displayed on the elevation facing the freeway in lieu of an on-premise pylon sign permitted in this paragraph. All signs must comply in all other respects with the provisions of this section. A freeway shall be defined as a principal arterial highway as defined in the comprehensive plan. Multi-lot developments. In multi-lot developments, the design and placement of monument and directional signs shall be coordinated through an overall signage plan. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the following signs are exempt from the permit or fee provisions of this section. No exempt sign shall exceed 16 square feet of area except where stated below: For sale, lease, or rent signs of real estate when located on the property advertised, and when under 16 square feet in total copy area. Church, hospital, or school directional signs, less than six square feet in total copy area. One on-property church sign for each church site. Signs warning of hazardous conditions. Simple information signs, such as "exit," "loading dock," etc. Simple nameplate signs on or over the entrance to a place of business or used to identify the parking area of a place of business. Not to exceed three square feet in gross area. Signs erected by a recognized unit of government having jurisdiction in the city, or a school district within the boundaries of the school district. Noncommercial signs. Temporary signs for special civic events or garage or neighborhood sales, for a period not to exceed 20 days. Nonconforming signs. 11/4/2020 City Code https://www.cityofeagan.com/city-code 4/6 1. 2. I. 1. 2. 3. 4. J. K. 1. 2. 3. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) The protective inspections department shall order the removal of any sign erected or maintained in violation of the law as effective date of this section. Removal shall be in accordance with this subdivision. Other signs existing on the effective date of this section and not conforming to its provisions, but which did conform to previous laws, shall be regarded as nonconforming signs which may be continued if properly repaired and maintained as provided in this section and if in conformance with other provisions of the City Code. If said signs are not continued with conformance of above, they shall be removed in accordance with this subdivision. Sign permits and fees. Sign permits. No signs, except those specified in this subdivision, above, shall be erected or maintained anywhere in the city without first obtaining a sign permit. Application, permit and fees. A formal application together with accompanying documents prescribed by the city shall be submitted to the city to obtain a sign permit. Permit fees are as adopted by resolution of the city council and shall accompany the permit application. If any sign is placed, erected, or installed without first obtaining a sign permit, then the permit fee shall be the amount equal to two times the permit fee. Review of applications. The community development department shall consider approval of all sign permit applications, except that applications for approval of permits for advertising signs, pylon signs and any sign requiring a variance shall be submitted to the council for final approval. Freestanding signs exceeding seven feet in height shall require a footing and foundation inspection by the protective inspections division and all building code requirements shall be met. Return of the fees. In the event said application shall be denied, the city shall return the applicant's permit fee, less a reasonable amount determined by the council which shall be retained as an administrative cost. Removal. All signs which have not been removed within the designated time period may after due notice be removed by the city, and any expense incurred thereof may be charged to the sign owner or assessed against the property on which they are located. Dynamic display signs. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character. Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This impact would obviously be compounded in a corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time is appropriate. A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, which could result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays generally should not be allowed to occupy the entire copy and graphic area of a sign. In conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety. Dynamic display sign means any sign, except governmental signs, with dynamic display characteristics that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign surface to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign surface or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or technology that allows the sign surface to present a series of images or displays. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions: Dynamic display signs are subordinate to off-premises signs, monument and pylon signs, and business signs. Dynamic displays must not be the predominant feature of the sign surface. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used. Dynamic display signs are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for conditionally permitted uses in residential districts and for all uses in other districts, subject to the requirements of thisSection 11.70. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign surface; A dynamic display may not change or move more often than once every one minute; The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects; The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign; Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least seven inches in height on a road with a 11/4/2020 City Code https://www.cityofeagan.com/city-code 5/6 (f) (g) (h) (i) 4. A. (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) B. (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) L. 1. (a) (b) speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. If there is insufficient room for copy and graphics of this size in the area allowed under clause (a) above, then no dynamic display is allowed; Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance; Dynamic display signs must comply with the brightness standards contained in subdivision L. below; Dynamic display signs existing on October 6, 2007, must comply with the operational standards listed above. An existing dynamic display that does not meet the structural requirements in clause (b) may continue as a non- conforming use subject to the regulations governing non-conforming structures and uses set forth in this chapter. An existing dynamic display that cannot meet the minimum size requirement in clause (e) must use the largest size possible for one line of copy to fit in the available space. Exceptions. Recognizing that some dynamic displays, such as those used in point of sale dispensers, interactive vending machines and ATMs, often need to change images more frequently than defined by this ordinance in order to perform their intended function and that such image changes can occur in a manner in which they do not create distractions for drivers, dynamic displays with a total area of less than 160 square inches at any point of sale dispenser, interactive vending machines or ATM may be fully animated, provided they do not flash or blink in a manner clearly visible from the roadway and provided they either meet or exceed the building setbacks for the zoning district in which they are located or are at least 30 feet from the public right-of-way, whichever is greater. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premises signs; they are restricted in number by the city; and they are in themselves distracting and their removal serves public safety. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premises signs in certain settings. This removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community and expand the function of off-premises signs to serve a public purpose by providing community and public service messages. Incentive Option A—Reduction of Sign Surfaces. A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off- premises sign if the following requirements are met: The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premises sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one surface of an off-premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant and is depicted in Table A (which follows this section), which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts (ii) and (iii) of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the applicant does not timely do so, and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-premises sign with an enhanced dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface. The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. If the removed sign surface is one for which a state permit is required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until proof is provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. Incentive Option B—Provision of Community and Public Service Messaging. A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off- premises sign if the following requirements are met: The enhanced dynamic display sign replaces an existing surface of an existing off-premises sign; The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the replacement of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to provide to the city no less than five hours (2,250 eight-second spots) per month per enhanced dynamic display sign in the city for community and public service messages at such times as shall be determined by the city. If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. Brightness standards. All signs must meet the following brightness standards: No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. 11/4/2020 City Code https://www.cityofeagan.com/city-code 6/6 (c) 2. (a) (b) (c) 3. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the city. The person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the city's determination through the following appeal procedure: After making the adjustment required by the city, the person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the city's determination by delivering a written appeal to the city clerk within ten days after the city's non-compliance notice. The written appeal must include the name of a person unrelated to the person and business making the appeal, who will serve on the appeal panel. Within five business days after receiving the appeal, the city must name a person who is not an official or employee of the city to serve on the appeal panel. Within five business days after the city names its representative, the city's representative must contact the sign owner's representative, and the two of them must appoint a third member to the panel, who has no relationship to either party. The appeal panel may develop its own rules of procedure, but it must hold a hearing within five business days after the third member is appointed. The city and the sign owner must be given the opportunity to present testimony, and the panel may hold the hearing, or a portion of it, at the sign location. The panel must issue its decision on what level of brightness is needed to meet the brightness standards within five business days after the hearing commences. The decision will be binding on both parties. All signs installed after October 6, 2007, that will have illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards in this section. 10/27/2020 COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession https://www.planning.org/blog/9198765/covid-19-communities-and-the-planning-profession/1/4 Hello Mike (/myapa/) (https://www5.smartadserver.com/click? imgid=25668223&insid=9608998&pgid=584791&ckid=7691876668638730387&uii=383755500454543426&acd=1603808562239&opid=6138406292193899938&opdt= 19-communities-and-the-planning-profession%2f&go=https%3a%2f%2fplanning.org%2fdivisions%2f ) (/)My APA (/myapa/)Log Out (/logout/) MENU Search Bookmark This Page My Bookmarks (/myapa/bookmarks) Home (/) > Knowledge Center (/knowledgecenter/) > Multimedia (/multimedia/) > Blog (/blog/) > COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession We are all experiencing the severe impacts from COVID-19 on our personal lives, our work situation (if we still have a job), the cities and places we live in, and the entire world around us. As APA's research director, I'd like to explain how we at APA are approaching the questions of what the impacts on cities and communities are and how this pandemic a ects the planning profession. I will describe our process of identifying current pain points, how we "learn with the future," and what we do to prepare for new uncertainties coming out of this pandemic. I hope to spur your interest in joining APA on this journey and engaging with us in discussions on how to tackle these challenges. At APA, we are looking at the COVID-19 issue through two lenses: 1. What are the impacts on cities and communities — the built environment and the people who live in it — and how do they relate to planning? 2. What are the impacts on the way planners do their work and on the planning profession in general? In addition to our emergency responses to immediate impacts, we need to start asking what all of this may mean for the future. What will social distancing do to our society in the long term? How will COVID- 19 change how we interact in public space, how we use public infrastructure, and how we live, work, play, and move around? Enter keyword or phrase 10/27/2020 COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession https://www.planning.org/blog/9198765/covid-19-communities-and-the-planning-profession/2/4 What will be the impacts on our economy and how will they change urban life? What scal impacts on cities can we expect and how will they a ect planning department budgets speci cally? Though many of these questions can't be answered today, we need to start thinking about them and considering them in our work as planners. FORESIGHT At APA, we started a Foresight practice last year as a way to "learn with the future," prepare for uncertainty, and navigate change. We are now using this approach to analyze the possible impacts from COVID-19, explore scenarios throughout di erent timeframes, and look for solutions that will enable us to continue creating great communities for all in the future. The goal of our work is not to predict the future but to prepare for what might be coming. The pandemic we are currently facing shows how unexpected change can disrupt the entire world and turn our lives upside down from one day to the next. Now is the time to try to understand and start preparing for what the future implications of this disruption will be. Through Foresight, in addition to the two lenses described above, APA is looking at three di erent time frames for COVID-19 related impacts: 1. For the short-term timeframe, we are focusing on the emergency response to COVID-19, including immediate actions and short-term tactics. This is where we identify current impacts on communities and cities, such as the decline in public transit use (lens #1), and current pain points planners are facing in their day-to-day work, such as the need to work from home (lens #2). 2. For the medium-term timeframe, we are looking at the impacts to come over the next several months, evaluating which actions will serve as interim solutions and which may be a transition to a new normal. Our task here is to identify how certain behaviors — the way people live, work, play, and move around in their communities — will change in the next months and how this may a ect both the way communities and cities operate in the future and the profession of planning. 3. For the long-term timeframe, we are raising the question of what all this may mean for the future. We will try to make sense of di erent developments, comprehend what they will mean for the future, and understand how we can begin to prepare for them today. Sources for the Foresight process: Future Today Institute (https://futuretodayinstitute.com/), TrendOne (https://www.trendone.com/); adapted by APA. By talking to planners through di erent channels and platforms, APA is identifying current pain points and di erent actions planners are taking, evaluating what we need to prepare for, and, by "learning with the future," trying to understand what's coming. LENS 1 EXAMPLES 10/27/2020 COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession https://www.planning.org/blog/9198765/covid-19-communities-and-the-planning-profession/3/4 For example, using the community lens we see that public transit use across the nation has dropped to alarming lows due to social distancing measures requiring people to work and study from home and nonessential businesses to close. How can cities continue to support alternative transportation options to prevent a wholesale return to personal auto travel? Bogota, the capital of Colombia, took immediate action by converting 13 miles of roadway to bike lanes overnight (https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/smart-cities-news/smart-cities-news/cities-begin-to-count- the- nancial-cost-of-coronavirus-5168) to provide enough capacity for bus users to switch to bicycle travel. In New York City, use of the local bikeshare program Citi Bike surged in March (https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/03/12/boom-new-citi-bike-stats-show-cycling-surge-is-real-but-mayor-is- not-acting/), prompting calls for similar actions. Looking at these emergency responses, the questions are: What could this mean for the future? Will more people discover the convenience of riding their bikes around town? How can we make sure the bike will continue to be the most attractive option? And in the light of decreasing tra c in general due to shelter-in-place (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/03/26/heres-exactly-how-much-car-tra c-plunged-in- the-u-s-last-week/), would this be the time to rethink our transportation network as a whole? Another example of COVID-19-related impacts on cities and communities is what is currently happening within the sharing economy. Uber and Ly have suspended their pooled ride service due to COVID-19 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/business/coronavirus-uber-pool-trnd/index.html). In some cities, scooter companies have suspended their services (https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/will-scooters- survive-the-covid-19-crisis/574436/) completely, and Airbnb is compensating some of their hosts for cancellations due to COVID-19. Beyond the impacts on the economy as a whole, how will this pandemic a ect the sharing economy, a phenomenon and disruptor in the urban space planners have been trying to accommodate for more than a decade? Will this change our discussion on autonomous vehicles and their deployment in a sharing economy within a "city on demand"? Will social distancing impact our future behavior on how we share space and infrastructure? LENS 2 EXAMPLES For our second lens, through hearing from our members about their immediate challenges in dealing with COVID-19, APA has identi ed a number of pain points so far: How can planners conduct public meetings during times of social distancing? To what extent can an online meeting replace the in-person experience and ful ll legal, procedural, and ethical requirements? Is planning an essential service? What will the nancial impacts on local government budgets and the related impacts on sta ng of planning departments and capital projects be? How can I e ectively work from home? On top of these operational issues, questions regarding approaches, planning objectives, and priorities are haunting our minds. Even during this crisis, we must not forget to continue working on challenges our profession has been dealing with for years and decades: from climate change mitigation and adaptation, to tackling homelessness and the housing crisis, to advocating for dense and walkable neighborhoods, to equity and inclusion issues including the digital divide, and others. How can we make sure that we include these issues in our emergency response, while considering the medium-term and long-term e ects? IMPACTS ON PLANNING This pandemic a ects every aspect of our work. We can already see the economic impact of this pandemic with unemployment numbers going up like never before. We will be facing societal impacts related to months of shelter-in-place, social distancing, and the economic crisis. There will be environmental impacts, possibly positive ones from changes in our behaviors, but also potentially negative ones from rebuilding the economy if we miss out on putting the right measures in place. Political impacts will depend on the severity of all impacts in general. And last, but not least, technological impacts may result in new opportunities for how we respond and prepare for this new future. WHAT'S NEXT? 10/27/2020 COVID-19, Communities, and the Planning Profession https://www.planning.org/blog/9198765/covid-19-communities-and-the-planning-profession/4/4 (https://www.facebook.com/AmericanPlanningAssociation) (https://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanPlanningAssn) (https://twitter.com/APA_Planning) (http://instagram.com/americanplanningassociation) (https://www.linkedin.com/company/24456/) (https://www5.smartadserver.com/click? imgid=25668197&insid=9608985&pgid=584791&ckid=7691876668638730387&uii=395014499522990680&acd=1603808562282&opid=6318550277600525914&opd 19-communities-and-the-planning-profession%2f&go=https%3a%2f%2fplanning.org%2faicp%2f ) < Previous (/blog/blogpost/9143252/)Next > (/apanews/9199136/apa-launches-npc20-at-home/) I'd like to invite our members, our elected leaders, and you — the reader of this blog post — to join us on this journey, to share with us what pain points you are experiencing, and discuss successful solutions to continue our mission of creating great communities for all. Top image: Social distancing on transit. Getty Images photo. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Petra Hurtado, PhD, is APA's research director. APRIL 8, 2020 By Petra Hurtado, PhD Tags: COVID-19, (/blog /?tags=1982) COVID-19, (/blog/?tags=1986) Health, (/blog/?tags=108) Planning Methods and Tools (/blog/?tags=103) Back to Top Log Out (/logout/)Contact Us (/customerservice/)Privacy Policy (/apaataglance/privacy.htm) © 2020 APA. All Rights Reserved (/apaataglance/copyright.htm) | Privacy Policy (https://planning.org/privacy/) AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ISSUE NUMBER 10 PRACTICE POST-COVID ZONING ZONING PRACTICE OCTOBER 2020 ZONINGPRACTICE 10.20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 Zoning for a Post-COVID World By Donald L. Elliott, FAICP The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 has dramati- cally disrupted American life in ways that would have seemed unthinkable just last year, and its impacts will remain with us for a long time. As city and county govern- ments scramble to protect their citizens and to adjust services and budgets based on plummeting revenues, they are also asking how local governance should change as a result of these shocks. And those involved in land use and development are asking how zoning should change. Despite what journal- ists get paid to write, it is too soon to know with much confidence how the fallout from COVID-19 will change the U.S. economy, life- styles, and communities in the long run. We will know more next year, and even more five years from now. Discussions about zoning in the post-pandemic future would be less con- fused if we distinguish between short-term and long-term impacts, and if we distinguish between zoning regulations and the enforce- ment of those regulations. We also need to keep in mind that zoning lends itself to excluding things we do not like, and that the impacts of exclusion often fall more heavily on lower income populations and persons of color. This important fact has been too often ignored in the past, and it is one of the keys to post-COVID zoning: Think twice about using zoning to exclude building unpopular forms and uses unless those exclusions are clearly necessary to protect public health and safety, because unnecessarily rigid zon- ing often complicates Americans’ abilities to house their families and earn a living. This article will discuss likely trends in post-COVID zoning while keeping these dis- tinctions in mind, and without pretending to know things we do not yet know. SHORT-TERM ZONING ADJUSTMENTS When the impacts of the pandemic began to appear and stay-at-home orders started to be issued, local governments were rightly focused on what needed to be done right then. They focused on protecting health and safety in public buildings, parks, and facilities, and they focused on the freefall in public revenues that accompanied dramatic reductions in in-person retail, eating, drink- ing, and service activities. They needed to quickly adjust to changing social and spend- ing behaviors, and realized they were not equipped to make those changes quickly because those adjustments often required the approval of an elected or appointed body that was not authorized to make decisions without meeting in person. They asked how zoning could be designed to allow for faster responses to these types of disruptions. The answer is flexibility—to design zon- ing regulations so that the uses of property are more flexible and so that more of those adjustments can happen administratively when emergencies arise. Rules that seemed reasonable at the time can seem unreason- able when circumstances change suddenly, and short-term relaxations of zoning rules seldom impact the long-term future of the city. That applies to rules about the use of a building, its parking lot, its open space, and the public realm along its street frontages. It also applies to regulations about the control of existing public streets and sidewalks in the public rights-of-way, but since those are generally subject to public works regula- tions, rather than zoning regulations, we will not address them here. General and Specific Authority to Make Adjustments In its broadest form, rapid adjustment to economic shocks requires an ordinance permitting an appointed city official (for example, the community development direc- tor or the deputy city manager) to temporarily allow different uses of private property for 30 or 60 days during emergencies if the official determines there is no material risk to public health or safety. The official’s decision needs to be subject to appeal and will need to be reviewed and ratified (or not) by an elected or appointed body within 60 or 90 days with due process and public comment. The ordi- nance could also include the ability to waive any related permit requirements or simply require documentation that the property was being used in a new way within six months or a year. Some local governments already have such an ordinance, and in others, city or county attorneys have quickly drafted reso- lutions covering those emergency powers. But our ability to respond quickly would be enhanced if they were in place ahead of time. When it comes to zoning, the abil- ity to administratively allow the following activities would have made our response to COVID-19 smoother and would have helped citizens and businesses continue their eco- nomic activities in new ways: • Authorizing the use of (suddenly unde- rused) parking lots and outdoor open spaces for outdoor eating and drinking, or for outdoor display of merchandise • Increasing the amount of space in a home that can be used for a home occupation or home-based business activities (think of all the households that suddenly went from no one working at home to two or three people working at home) • Allowing the use of legal accessory structures for home occupations or home-based businesses • Allowing a larger number of unrelated persons to occupy a single-family dwelling unit • Allowing a change of use of commercial or industrial property to another permitted use without the need to obtain a prior permit or complete an adequate parking analysis • Allowing a larger number of temporary signs • Allowing commercial vehicles to park in residential zone districts (think of all the delivery and contractor trucks that are usually parked on a commercial property before the business was suddenly forced to operate remotely) ZONINGPRACTICE 10.20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 Obviously, this list could be much lon- ger. The key question is not whether these types of change could have impacts on traf- fic, or parking, or neighboring properties, because they might. The question is whether those potential impacts are important enough to offset the need for local residents and businesses to act in new ways when old jobs and old customers disappear. Three Key Points About Short-Term Adjustments Three points about this type of emergency adjustment ordinance are worth noting: First, those cities and counties that have broader and more flexible land-use and home-based business regulations already have a substantial advantage. Almost all new zoning ordinances are moving in that direc- tion, and the COVID pandemic provides one more good reason to do so. Minor differences between land uses are not as important as many people think. Second, short-term adjustments to social and economic shocks provide good opportunities to experiment and try new things. Over time, zoning regulations get rigid, and citizens sometimes become defensive about even minor changes even when no one can remember exactly why the restriction was adopted. If allowing parking lots to be used for eating and drinking does not create parking congestion problems, and if allowing home occupations to occupy more of the property does not result in many complaints from neighbors, maybe the regu- lation was too rigid to start with. Third, sometimes what is needed to adjust quickly is not a change in the zoning law itself but a change in the enforcement of zoning law. Almost all zoning enforcement is complaint based, and some of those com- plaints create more serious threats to public health and safety than others. Because of those differences, and because of budget limits, zoning enforcement officials are seldom obligated to investigate or enforce every complaint they receive. Zoning regu- lations are adopted to protect the public health, safety, and welfare—not to engage the local government in disputes between neighbors that have very little to do with those public goods. During times of emer- gency or uncertainty, one possible city or county response is to focus on complaints related to rubbish, waste, obstructions of required corner visibility triangles, or other factors that could create risks to public health and safety, and to deemphasize com- plaints about changes in the use of property that do not create those risks. LONG-TERM ZONING CHANGES As America’s local governments have strug- gled with short-term responses to COVID-19, zoning, land-use, and development pro - fessionals have also focused on what the pandemic may mean for zoning in the long run. There has been an overabundance of media speculation about whether it will permanently change the ways that Ameri- cans choose to live, move around, shop, play, recreate, or educate their children. It is simply too soon to know the answers to many of those questions, in part because it is unclear if and when an effective vac- cine will be developed, and if so, how long it will take the use of the vaccine to be so widespread that citizens feel safe acting as they used to act. Behavior changes habits, and the longer citizens act in a certain way (for example, working from home), the less likely they will be to fully revert to their prior behaviors. In addition, it is difficult to dis- tinguish between the impacts of economic cycles (including a likely upcoming eco- nomic slowdown) from structural changes in the economy or permanent changes in pub- lic preferences. Lots of behavior changes during recessions are at least partially reversed when the economy recovers. In light of that uncertainty, one helpful way to think about the future of zoning is to focus on significant market, lifestyle, and investment trends that were already occur- ring prior to the pandemic and to identify whether COVID-based changes appear to be pushing back against those documented trends. The question is whether the pan- demic will accelerate those trends, slow them down, reverse them, or (potentially) have no long-term impact at all. The significant long-term trends in zon- ing include the following, each of which is discussed in turn below: • Increasing housing diversity • Increasing flexibility in the use of housing • Increasing flexibility in the use of com- mercial space • Increased focus on compact, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development • Increasing focus on walkability, open space, and the “public realm” Housing Diversity For several reasons, most newer zoning ordi- nances are moving toward allowing smaller residential lots, “missing middle” housing, tiny houses, microunits, accessory dwelling units, and other exceptions to our historic focus on single-family detached homes on relatively large lots. Although discussion of this trend sometimes focuses on changing lifestyles, the pressures behind it are much Clarion AssociatesThe move towards smaller, more affordable housing is likely to continue. ZONINGPRACTICE 10.20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 stronger than personal choice. The trend is grounded in global economics and the simple fact that a steadily increasing number of Americans cannot afford to rent or buy the types of single-family detached housing that we built so much of in the past. So the trend toward a more diverse housing stock helps respond to both the recent popularity of urbanism and walkability in younger and older demographics and to the declining affordability of housing in general. It also creates more acceptable alternatives to the larger apartment buildings lower density neighborhoods often do not want nearby. The COVID-19 pandemic will not reverse these trends, and will probably strengthen the drive toward more diverse housing, for two reasons. The most basic is that noth- ing related to the pandemic points toward a narrowing of the gap between wages and housing costs. Even if all of the lower- and moderate-income jobs lost since March 2020 were to return (which is very unlikely), those jobs are unlikely to pay more than they did before or to increase the percentage of households that can afford market-rate single-family detached homes. The second reason is that more choice makes for inter- esting cities and counties. In retrospect, the postwar paradigm that housing was either a single-family home, a duplex, or an apart- ment/condominium unit was an artificial construct created or reinforced by zoning. Nothing arising out of the pandemic points to a return to that narrow menu of options. More Flexible Use of Housing Prior to the pandemic, many American communities were revising their zoning ordi- nances to allow more flexible use of new and existing housing. Almost all newer zoning codes include a broader approach to home- based businesses; instead of trying to name what you can do by naming specific home occupations, they focus on what you cannot do based on the impacts of those activities. More specifically, newer ordinances often prohibit a few named uses (such as auto repair and retail uses) and allow all other uses while limiting the number of employees, parking spaces, signs, or deliveries. Limits on the areas that could be devoted to home occupations and prohibitions on the use of accessory buildings were already eroding. In addition, definitions of the “family,” “functional family,” or “household” that can occupy a dwelling unit were also becoming more flexible. Defini- tions based on ties of “blood or marriage” were being replaced by those including civil unions and commit- ted relationships, and were sometimes being expanded to include those whose right to live as a household is pro- tected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. The number of unre- lated persons was also creeping up because the economic pressures discussed above have led to a steady rise in the number of households “doubling up” and living together in order to afford housing. While it is tempting to think of this as having elderly parents or underemployed children move in with mom and dad, the trend is also rising among unrelated households, simply because they need more household income to pay the rent or mortgage. The exception to zoning allowances for higher occupancy is sometimes college towns, where unrelated students have always shared housing at higher rates and fears of overcrowding by college students have long acted as a brake on this trend. Again, the outfall of COVID-19 is not likely to reverse this trend and is very likely to accelerate it. In many communities, stay- at-home orders acted as a shock to the single-family detached zoning paradigm, but one that created very little shock. One week relatively few people were working from home, and the next week a large share of the U.S. economy was being conducted from home, but stories of negative impacts on America’s neighborhoods were few and far between. It turns out that much of America can work from home without a permit and without a review of specific impacts, so it is unlikely that we will return to stricter home occupation regulations in the future. In addi- tion, an increasing number of Americans have more than one job, and that second (or third) job is often conducted from home. That was true before the pandemic, and COVID-19 is unlikely to change it. The discussion of housing occupancy is more complex, because the economic forces leading lower- and moderate-income families to “double up” are in tension with the real- ization that overcrowded housing is one of the significant ways in which the COVID-19 virus spreads. It is unclear whether this ten- sion will be resolved with stronger limits on dwelling unit occupancy, but it is important to unpack this issue a little more. Some limits on occupancy are based on protecting health and safety by avoiding overcrowding, such as the no-more-than- two-per-bedroom limits in some cities or the minimum living space requirements in some versions of the International Residential Code. Other occupancy limits are attempts to pro- tect community character, such as no “more than four unrelated adults” rules in many zoning codes. These character-based occu- pancy limits are not related to overcrowding, health, or safety. As an example, there is no health and safety logic behind limiting a five- bedroom home to four unrelated adults. As the short-term impacts of COVID-19 decline over the next months and years, it is likely that there will be more studies on levels of overcrowding that significantly increased the spread of the virus, and those studies may lead to more health- and safety-based occupancy limits in zoning ordinances. But those studies may not slow the erosion of character-based occupancy limits until they bump up against occupancy limits based on true health and safety concerns. Working from home, and from live-work units, is likely to expand.Clarion Associates ZONINGPRACTICE 10.20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 Flexibility in Commercial Space The types of commercial space needed, and the ways in which we use that space, were in flux long before the stay-at-home orders began appearing in March 2020. Numer- ous studies have predicted the impending demise of single-purpose office parks as workers demand more interesting mixed-use working environments. Other studies docu- ment the decline of indoor shopping malls as consumer preferences changed toward outdoor lifestyle centers, or mixed-use cen- ters, or online shopping. And, as always, the economic pressures of the global economy were pushing office businesses to reduce the amount of space allocated to each worker and then to institute coworking spaces and “hot desks.” To top it off, it seemed that each storefront space vacated by an office, retail, or service use was then occupied by an eat- ing, drinking, or entertainment use built on the ambience of an in-person experience. For all of these reasons, zoning ordi- nances have long been moving toward broader, more flexible definitions of com- mercial uses that allow for quicker market adjustments and shorter vacancy periods, without the need for change-of-use permits or parking adequacy studies with each change in tenancy. More broadly, an increas- ing number of ordinances were already promoting mixed-use development by allowing residential uses to occupy former commercial spaces without the need for dis- cretionary zoning approvals. This is a third example of where eco- nomic responses to the pandemic are likely to reinforce rather than reverse these trends. The answer to changing economics before COVID-19 was flexibility, and the answer after COVID-19 is likely to be more flexibility. There are several powerful forces behind this acceleration. One is the newly discovered ability of many American worker to work from home, the acceptance by many employers that their employees are happier working from home, and the likely demand for less office space to run the U.S. economy in the future. A second is a likely significant reduc- tion in business travel and related demand for new hotel, lodging, and restaurant space aimed at business travelers. A third is the rise in online shopping and home delivery of everything from clothes to groceries to pre- pared meals (sometimes prepared in “cloud kitchens” without a storefront presence). In short, even if Americans resume some of their former working, traveling, shopping, and dining behaviors, the new options cre- ated in response to the pandemic make it unlikely that demand will return to former levels for a long time. So how should cities and counties respond to all that underused office, retail, service, restaurant, and bar space? The answer is to allow a wide range of other commercial, civic, and institutional uses, including adaptive reuse for residential and noncommercial uses, without time- consuming administrative reviews or public hearings. As plans are revised and updated, planners should also take a very hard look at projections of future demand for all of these types of space, because the reality may be much lower than previously thought. This is a good opportunity to help bring the over- retailing and under-housing of America into better balance. Compact, Mixed-Use, and Transit-Oriented Development Prior to the economic shock of COVID-19, many American cities and counties were focused on incentivizing compact, mixed-use development. Those with existing, growing, or aspirational bus or rail transit systems often extended this focus to transit-oriented development—compact, mixed-use devel- opment specifically focused on increasing ridership on transit systems. The forces behind these trends were perhaps not as strong as those behind housing econom- ics, but they were still fairly powerful. Chief among the reasons was rising and continued concern over climate change and broad public support for creating alternatives to long home-to-work motor vehicle trips and the vehicle emissions they generate. Citi- zen concern with climate change has been remarkably consistent throughout the past 20 years and remained relatively strong even during the Great Recession of 2008–2011, so there is reason to believe it will remain strong in the post-COVID world. If we need Shared open workspaces may have fewer users at one time.Clarion AssociatesClarion AssociatesSome dated and obsolete commercial space will be adaptively reused for housing. ZONINGPRACTICE 10.20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 a reminder, more extreme weather condi- tions and events will provide it. A second important reason was the increasing real- ization of citizens and elected officials that low-density, car-oriented development often results in frustrating traffic congestion while generating very heavy costs to taxpayers. In the pre-COVID world, elected officials did not need to fully embrace urbanism; they just needed to support lower government costs and taxes. And that led to more compact, mixed-use development patterns. While these pressures are powerful and incentives promoting compact, mixed-use development have now been embedded in a generation of zoning ordinances, they will now face competing pulls in the opposite direction. Months of social distancing and growing awareness that we may face other airborne virus risks in the future will lead some buyers, renters, and businesses to look for locations with more open space and perhaps less reliance on elevator access requiring spacing of arrivals and depar- tures. While COVID-based concerns about adequate space for social distancing may weaken when and if a vaccine is widely available, they will not go away entirely. Zoning can respond in at least two different ways. The first is to allow more low-density outward growth of our cities—sprawl. The second is to incorporate more open space into and around relatively compact forms of development. The choice of response is not either/or because market demand for each solution will be based on consumer prefer- ences. So the market will probably call for space that allows for more personal distanc- ing in both central and outlying locations. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has not made low-density sprawl more cost-efficient than it was before, and the well-documented higher costs of building and servicing longer streets, pipes, and wires to serve relatively few users will lead many cities to choose mixed-use zoning with more interspersed public and private open space as the pre - ferred response. The future of transit-oriented develop- ment (TOD) is more uncertain because the fate of many urban transit systems is pre- carious. All urban transit systems require subsidies, and the collapse of ridership during the pandemic has turned acceptable operating losses into skyrocketing losses that threaten the survival of many transit systems. And the concerns about spacing and avoidance of airborne viruses in con- tained spaces may not go away soon. Zoning for TODs makes sense if proximity to transit stations will lead to increased ridership and reduced vehicle miles travelled and related emissions. But it makes less sense if even those who live or work close to transit avoid using it, or if financial pressures on ridership lead to downward spirals of service levels and ridership. These threats to transit are compounded by the rise of services like Uber and Lyft (and in the future, autonomous vehi- cles) which, although they involve closed vehicles, are likely to have fewer unknown strangers in the vehicle than a bus or train. All this might point to a bleak picture for the future of TOD zoning if it were not for the fact that Uber and Lyft vehicles take up the same amount of street space as private cars, create traffic congestion just like pri- vate cars, and require the same high costs of building and maintaining streets as private cars. The high costs and traffic congestion that have led cities to focus on mobility management and transit rather than ever- widening streets still apply. So, while explicit zoning for transit-supportive land uses and densities may slow down—at least until the financial futures of transit systems come into better focus—it is likely that zoning for compact, mixed-use development (with increased requirements for private and pub- lic open space) will continue. Walkability, Open Space, and the Public Realm As mentioned in the paragraphs above, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased public interest in walkability and open space. Worries about transmission of the virus in enclosed spaces have made Americans want to spend more time walking, dining, drinking, shopping, and gathering outside. Those desires have already led to an increase in use of sidewalks and parking lots to accom- modate new outdoor activities, and it may also lead to demands for wider sidewalks and more park space. Whether those trends reflect long-term changes in personal pref- erences depends in part on how long it takes to develop and distribute a vaccine and whether those who want more of these public goods are willing to support the tax revenues to pay for them. While some of the discussion about open space and social distancing has pre - dicted the return of sprawl development, and other discussions have focused on the docu- mented need for more parks in urban areas, few articles have pointed to the importance of public streets as primary sources of urban open space. The truth is that between 20 and 35 percent of many urban areas is already publicly owned—in the form of public streets. While some of that right-of-way is needed for the movement of cars and buses, and a variable amount is dedicated to park- ing, some of it is devoted to sidewalks and tree lawns that already serve as an inter- connected network of public open space. Post-COVID planning is likely to see contin- ued discussion of how much of this valuable public land should be devoted to cars rather than people, and memories of sheltering in place and working from home may bend the discussion toward a better public realm as an open space amenity. The outcome will depend in part on whether reductions in traffic from working at home continue over the long run, which would make it easier The focus on quality, connected public open space is likely to increase.Clarion Associates ZONINGPRACTICE 10.20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 Cover: iStock.com/Joseph Rouse VOL. 37, NO. 10 The American Planning Association provides leadership in the development of vital communities for all by advocating excellence in planning, promoting education and resident empowerment, and providing our members with the tools sand support necessary to ethically meet the challenges of growth and change. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Joel Albizo, fasae, cae, Chief Executive Officer; Petra Hurtado, phd, Research Director; Joseph DeAngelis, aicp, and David Morley, aicp, Editors. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). Missing and damaged print issues: Contact APA Customer Service (312-431-9100 or subscriptions@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. ©2020 by the American Planning Association, which has offices at 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927, and 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503; planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means without permission in writing from APA. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. to institute road redesigns in favor of more space for people. Interestingly, the same pressures for social distancing may lead to rethinking recent efforts to limit drive-through uses, because drive-throughs turn out to be a good way to obtain goods without going inside a potentially crowded enclosed space to com- plete the purchase. Some chain restaurants have reported that use of drive-throughs has increased during the pandemic, and some of that behavior change may outlast the pandemic. Fortunately, a growing number of zoning ordinances include compromise approaches that allow drive-through win- dows while prohibiting access to them from pedestrian-oriented streets and barring drive-through aisles between storefronts and sidewalks. The drive-through is probably not going away, and the use of those design compromises is likely to increase. EQUITY, RACE, AND THE LONG VIEW As local governments think through what zoning changes to are needed to adjust to a post-COVID world, it is important to remem- ber that the pandemic has affected persons of color most heavily and that neighbor- hoods with higher percentages of minority residents and low-income households are those most in need of more flexibility and more open space. It is also important to remember that zoning was originally designed to exclude—not include. It is much more effective at keeping unwanted build- ings and land uses out of neighborhoods than forcing desired land uses into neighbor- hoods. Unless zoning is drafted and applied thoughtfully, one unanticipated outcome is that the unwanted land uses and buildings that are kept out of wealthier neighborhoods often wind up in poorer neighborhoods. In addition, the impact of overly rigid zoning categories and rules—like the exclusion of missing-middle housing, accessory dwelling units, live/work spaces, low-impact fabrica- tion uses, or artisan manufacturing—often fall most heavily on neighborhoods with higher percentages of minority residents and low-income households. So as cities and counties move toward the more flexible zon- ing required in the post-COVID world, they should be particularly aware of the different types of flexibility needed to allow citizens of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and income strata to use their homes and properties to house their families, earn a living, and recreate safely. The needed adjustments will differ by neighborhood, and the most successful zoning ordinances will be those that respond to the economic, social, and cultural realities in each neighborhood. Finally, planners should remember that communities evolve over long periods of time. What seem like dramatic changes in the short run often appear more modest when viewed over the decades in which we live our lives. The “back to the city” head- lines since 2000 actually involved only a (privileged) minority of U.S. households whose changing preferences bent the real estate markets toward traditional down- towns. The vast majority of Americans did not move downtown and had no intention of moving downtown; they continued to live in surrounding areas of the cities and suburbs where the vast majority of U.S. housing is located. The same is probably true of responses to the COVID pandemic. Headlines will be made by a minority of U.S. consum- ers who decide to move outward to avoid the perceived risks of more crowded urban areas, but it is unlikely that a significant share of Americans will make that decision for the reasons outlined above. Housing, employment, and transportation choices are influenced by several constantly changing forces, including the availability of work, stage of life, quality of schools, commuting time, personal preferences, affordability, and discrimination. America’s cities and counties are what they are as a result of decades of individual households balancing these tensions. The fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic will change some of these factors for some households, but not all, and not all in the same way. The most successful post-COVID zoning ordinances will be those that acknowledge the trends discussed above, allow more flexible uses of land and buildings, take climate change, housing affordability, and equity seriously, and do not pretend to know more about future than we really know. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Donald L. Elliott, faicp, is a director with Clarion Associates, LLC, a national land use consulting firm. His practice focuses on land development regulation, zoning, subdivision, fair housing, affordable housing, and plan implementation. Elliott has assisted more than 60 U.S. communities to update plans and regulations related to housing, zoning, subdivision, affordability, sustainability, resilience, and good governance. He is the author of A Better Way to Zone (Island Press 2008), coauthor of the Rules That Shape Urban Form (PAS Report 570) and The Citizen’s Guide to Planning (Planners Press 2009), and has served as the editor of Colorado Land Planning and Development Law for over 25 years. Elliott is a member of the Denver Planning Board and teaches a graduate level course on Land Development Regulations at the University of Colorado College of Architecture and Planning. ZONING PRACTICEAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–5927Creating Great Communities for AllIS YOUR ZONING READY FOR A POST-COVID WORLD? City Council/APC Joint Workshop November 2020 Discussion Topics 1. Lighting/Brightness Standards for Dynamic Display Signs 2. Attached vs. Detached garbage enclosures 3. Impact of COVID-19 on City zoning, development, and 2040 Comp Plan Lighting/Brightness Standards for Dynamic Display Signs Living Word Church Lighting/Brightness Standards for Dynamic Display Signs Brianno’s Lighting/Brightness Standards for Dynamic Display Signs Discussion Questions 1.Should the location of the dynamic display sign be considered when determining the acceptability of the request? Should conditions and/or performance standards be used when signs are near residential properties? 2.Should performance standards regulating sign brightness be adopted? 3.Other considerations as directed by Council. Attached vs. Detached Garbage Enclosures City Code trash enclosure requirements: 7. Enclosure of trash and recyclables containers. All trash and recyclables containers stored outside in the R - 4, LB, NB, GB, CSC, RD, I-1, I-2, PF and BP zoning districts shall be stored within an enclosure subject to the following standards: a.The enclosure shall have an impermeable floor surface. b. The enclosure shall be attached to the principal building in the limited business (LB), neighborhood business (NB), general business (GB), community shopping center (CSC), and research and development (RD) zoning districts. c. The enclosure may be detached from the principal building in the residential multiple (R-4), limited industrial (I-1), general industrial (I-2), business park (BP) and public facility (PF) zoning districts. d. The enclosure shall satisfy principal structures setbacks required for the applicable zoning district. e. The enclosure shall be constructed of materials to match the exterior of the principal structure, with gates or doors having at least 90 percent opacity. f. The enclosure shall be of sufficient size to enclose all trash and recyclables containers and shall be not less than six feet and not more than ten feet in height. g. The above provisions apply in addition to the provisions of chapter 10 of this Code which regulate the storage, deposit, and disposal of refuse on all properties. Attached vs. Detached Garbage Enclosures Hilltop Center Redevelopment Attached vs. Detached Garbage Enclosures Central Park Commons Attached vs. Detached Garbage Enclosures Culvers Attached vs. Detached Garbage Enclosures Discussion Questions 1.Should the City continue to review Variances and Planned Development proposals for detached trash enclosures on a case- by-case basis? 2.Should the City consider Code amendments to provide flexibility and/or other design standards (i.e. accessible pathways, lighting, and covered enclosures to prevent contaminated storm sewer runoff)? 3.Other considerations as directed by Council. Impact of COVID-19 Sources: Future Today Institute (https://futuretodayinstitute.com/), TrandOne (https://trendone.com/) Impact of COVID-19 Medium-term Considerations: •Indoor dining is limited or closed at most restaurants •Restaurants and retail stores are relying heavily on drive- through and curbside pickup •Several banks have not reopened branch services to the public Impact of COVID-19 Potential long-term conditions: •Effect of long-term remote work options on corporate campuses, business parks, and office buildings •Evolution of retail to accommodate on-line shopping and home delivery •Recovery of hospitality demand Impact of COVID-19 Discussion 1.Are additional medium-term responses necessary at this time? 2.Staff will continue to monitor long-term impacts regionally and nationally. Does the Council have initial direction regarding long- term impacts? City Council/APC Joint Workshop Agenda Information Memo November 10, 2020 Eagan Special City Council Meeting V. 2021 ENTERPRISE AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGETS Action to be Considered: To provide direction to Staff regarding proposed 2021 operating budgets for: ENTERPRISE FUNDS 1)Public Utilities (Water, Sanitary Sewer, Street Lighting, Storm Drainage and Water Quality) 2)Civic Arena 3)Cascade Bay 4)Community Center SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 1)ETV 2)Tree Mitigation Facts: GENERAL INFORMATION By definition, enterprise funds are established to account for self-supporting activities with revenues primarily from user fees at rates set by the City Council. ETV and Tree Mitigation are the only special revenue funds under consideration for this workshop. Other minor special revenue funds will be submitted for approval at a regular City Council meeting in December. While not part of the City budget, the 2021 Eagan Convention and Visitors Bureau budget and marketing plan will be presented at the December City Council workshop. The 2021 budget is the second year of the two-year 2020-2021 budget cycle. The 2021 budget highlights and line items for each of these operational budgets were presented to the City Council as part of the 2-year budget cycle at the October 2019 Council workshop. Approval of the 2020 budgets occurred at the December 3, 2019 City Council meeting. The budget team has met on a regular basis during the last several months, including periodic meetings with directors responsible for the enterprise and special revenue fund budgets to discuss the impacts of COVID on the respective 2021 budgets. Most notably, COVID has had a significant impact on the three recreation enterprise funds: Cascade Bay, Community Center and Civic Arena. Special City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 PUBLIC UTILITIES (Water, Sanitary Sewer, Street Lighting, Storm Drainage and Water Quality) The Public Utilities Fund budgets note a net cash outflow of $4.68 million in 2021. The higher than usual outflow amounts are from the increased capital improvement costs in the Public Utilities budgets. Capital expenditures by nature can result in large fluctuations in expenditures from year to year. We anticipate these fluctuations and plan for them accordingly. Modifications in the original 2021 budget (as presented in December 2019) occurred in the following categories: o Personal service expense increased $28,300, which is mostly due to an increase of 2 additional seasonal workers in the Water and Sewer departments with a reduction in Medical premiums from the originally programmed amount. o Other Services and Charges decreased in total by $501,800 due to the following: - $15,000 increase due to the Utility Rate study being conducted partially in 2021 - $29,000 reduction in conferences/travel due to COVID - $487,800 decrease for Met Council sewer charges from the original estimate made when preparing the 2021 budget in 2019. We continue to realize cost savings from the success of the I&I program. The City participates in an annual utilities rate survey by AE2S, an engineering consulting firm. In the 2020 survey, Eagan’s combined rates for water, wastewater and stormwater ranked 4th lowest among the 27 Twin Cities metro communities responding to the survey. User rates for the utilities are approved annually with the Fee Schedule adoption in December. Currently, a utilities infrastructure needs analysis is in process by our consultant AE2S and will be followed by a utility rate study to be completed by Northland in the first quarter of 2021. Until then, staff is recommending the following rate increases based on our internal 20-year model before the needs analysis is completed: o Water: 5.00 % o Sanitary sewer: 5.00 % o Street lighting: 5.00 % o Storm drainage/water quality: 5.00 % Utilities Vehicles and Equipment Capital purchases are also being presented for City Council review. The City funds these purchases by setting aside money as part of the Renewal and Replacement model as used in other Enterprise funds. PARKS AND RECREATION ENTERPRISE FUNDS 2020 Budgets The City of Eagan has been in a State of Emergency since March 17,2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many businesses, the City of Eagan and certain enterprise operations experienced significant economic losses due to the closing and then minimal reopening of the Community Center and the non-opening of Cascade Bay. Special City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 Operational changes were made to reduce expenses, including layoffs at the Civic Arena, Cascade Bay and Community Center, resulting in savings of $532,000. In addition, nearly $250,000 in savings were realized due to the employee reductions within Parks and Recreation. Cascade Bay did not open for the summer, and the Community Center and Civic Arena were open at reduced levels as allowed by the Governor’s Executive Order. In June, staff projected the impact of the pandemic on the enterprise funds would not be dramatic. However, as the pandemic continued, it became apparent that was not the case. The impact has been significant, in part due to high fixed operating costs. No significant overtime expenses were incurred throughout the City operations, as once feared during the onset of the pandemic Projected operating cash deficits through the end of 2020 for each of the three facilities are as follows: Civic Arena $ 185,500 Cascade Bay 348,100 ECC 747,100 Total $1,280,700 Although not a cash expenditure, a set-aside for Capital Renewal and Replacement for each fund is typically reserved from operating income every year. Staff suggests we not set aside 2020 Capital Reserve for Renewal and Replacement as one option to assist with reducing the deficit. It is an approach we could absorb on a short term basis (including 2021), with the expectation that future planning and adjustments may be needed when the pandemic ends, which could include opportunities for bonding, transfer from the General Fund, or adjustments in the tax levy. For 2020, a total savings in the three funds of $496,600 is achieved to assist with the 2020 budget situation. Approximately $400,000 could be used from the Eagan Community Center Fund balance to reduce the deficit in its 2020 Budget. CARES funding of about $3.6 million will be used to replenish the General Fund, primarily due to certain payroll expenses that were eligible. Of this amount, Staff is suggesting $880,000 be used to assist with covering the expenses incurred during the pandemic to assist with keeping the Community Center and Civic Arena open, and certain administrative payroll expenses at Cascade Bay. In summary: • There is a $1,280,700 operating deficit in the Community Center, Civic Arena and Cascade Bay budgets for 2020. • Staff is suggesting the following to address the deficit: o Forgo the usual $496,000 set-aside for capital renewal and replacement in 2020 budget. Special City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 o Utilize $400,000 of Community Center fund balance to absorb some of the deficit. o Transfer $880,000 from the General Fund in the first quarter of 2021 to the respective funds to eliminate the deficits. 2021 Budgets As we approach 2021, the uncertainty of the pandemic, combined with the capacity levels that will be allowed in our various facilities puts the City in a difficult position to plan for the 2021 Budget. Yet, Staff has tried to project, based on various scenarios, as outlined below: Projected operating cash deficit Civic Arena (operating at 50% capacity) $ 63,100 Cascade Bay (operating at 50% capacity) 158,850 Community Center 794,000 Total $1,015,950 Staff anticipates the Civic Arena will operate at 50% capacity, which is a reasonable expectation for at least the first half of 2021, with the hope that higher levels will be allowed as we continue deeper into 2021. Staff anticipates opening Cascade Bay at least at 50% levels. If full capacity is allowed, we project there would be no deficit. However, anything less the 50% levels will require adjustments to the proposed 2021 budget. Communications from Staff to the City Council on these policy and budget decisions will remain fluid throughout early 2021. Budget projections for the Community Center assume operations remain at current levels, which are based on Governor’s capacity orders. Any changes in those orders will lead to future budget considerations, which will be presented to the City Council. No furloughs or layoffs are currently proposed in any Department throughout the City, but Staff will monitor the pandemic and budgets to determine if there should be any in the future. Staff is proposing the following steps to reduce the deficit in the three recreation enterprise funds: a) Two positions under the Parks/Rec purview in the General Fund will be vacant due to retirements for most or all of 2021. In addition, ECC has a vacant position. By not filling these vacancies in 2021, the resulting savings of $190,500 to the General Fund and $132,200 to ECC, a total of $322,700, will be used to offset the deficit. Special City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 b) Current budget projections include a $1 million reduction in property tax collections in both 2020 and 2021. First half payments in 2020 were at normal levels, and early indications for the second half look favorable. While we won’t know final numbers until January, it appears our $1 million reserve for 2020 is more than will be needed. Furthermore, we had anticipated a development-related fees budget deficit of $200,000, and now actuals have already exceeded budget for the year. So instead of having to utilize $1.6 million of General Fund balance to cover General Fund revenue deficits, we think we will need no more than $1.0 million. Consequently, some additional fund balance would be available to supplant 2021 deficits in the recreation enterprise funds. c) A transfer from the replenished General Fund due to CARES funding could assist with the deficits, including setting aside funds for capital renewal and replacement. As proposed for 2020, we could forgo the $471,000 set-aside for capital renewal and replacement funds, but staff is recommending we not do that as forgoing two years’ worth of capital set-aside would have a significant impact on capital funding capacity within each recreation enterprise fund. Staff will monitor and report at least quarterly and adjust or transfer funds as need be, and only if need be. In summary: Depending on the pandemic and capacity levels, the three enterprise operations in Parks and Recreation could see a collective deficit in 2021 amounting to just over $1 million. Furloughs or additional layoffs are not currently under consideration in any City Department. Approximately $322,700 will be saved by keeping three Parks/Recreation positions vacant. The City could forgo the $471,000 set aside for capital renewal and replacement funds in 2021, but will not do so, until and if needed. The amount of property tax delinquency appears to be less than projected, so General Fund balance will likely not be depleted to the extent predicted at the June Council workshop. A transfer from the replenished General Fund due to CARES funding could be used to assist with projected deficits and to cover expenses. Staff will monitor and report quarterly and ask the City Council to act on these options, only if needed. Special City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 Recreation Enterprise Fund summary: Civic Arena Cascade Bay Community Ctr Total Funding needs: 2020 Operating deficit (185,500)$ (348,100)$ (747,100)$ (1,280,700)$ 2021 Operating deficit (63,100) (158,550) (794,000) (1,015,650) 2021 Capital R&R (157,200) (90,700) (223,300) (471,200) Total (405,800) (597,350) (1,764,400) (2,767,550) Funding sources: 3 vacant positions 322,700 ECC fund balance 400,000 General fund balance 2,044,850 Total 2,767,550$ Because the General Fund balance is proposed as part of the solution to the recreation enterprise fund deficits for 2020 and 2021, we have provided an update on our projections of the General Fund balance through the end of 2021. At the June workshop, we projected a 2020 General Fund deficit of $990,700. With development- related revenues coming in stronger than expected, and tax collections to date seemingly impacted much less than expected, we are now projecting a General Fund deficit of only $200,000—almost $800,000 better than anticipated in June. The CARES Act grant has strengthened our fund balance as well. Without making any adjustments to our June projection of a $591,400 operating deficit for 2021, we expect our fund balance to be within our target range of 40-45% at the end of 2021. General Fund balance summary: % of next year's budget General Fund balance 12-31-2019 21,836,793$ 51.0% Transfer out to Equipment Revolv Fd (2,250,000) 2020 projected operating deficit (200,000) CARES grant 3,600,000 Projected 12-31-2020 fund balance 22,986,793 51.2% 2021 revenue deficit (1,755,000) 2021 expenditure variance 1,163,600 Transfer to enterprise funds (2,044,850) Projected 12-31-2021 fund balance 20,350,543$ 43.2% Special City Council Workshop November 10, 2020 ETV/PEG FEES FUND ETV is funded by a combination of PEG fees and franchise fees. By FCC rules, PEG fees can only be used for programming costs, not staff costs, so franchise fees cover ETV staff costs and PEG fees fund the balance. The proposed 2021 ETV operational budget is mostly status quo. Capital expenditures in 2021 total $135,700. As more people “cut the cord” and move to streaming services, PEG and cable franchise fees continue to trend downward. Conversely, costs funded by PEG and franchise fees (i.e., ETV staff and the Communications budget in the General Fund) are trending upward. In early-2021, staff plans to update the City Council with a long-term funding plan for ETV and the Communications department. TREE MITIGATION Staff prepared a seven-year plan to remove trees infected by the emerald ash borer (EAB) and presented it to the Council this past February. 2020 was the first year of the plan. Tree mitigation fees are funding the program, which includes one staff person and some contractual services for treatment and/or tree removal. Staff was able to complete much more work in the first year than anticipated, and costs going forward may be significantly less than originally estimated. Although the existing balance of tree mitigation funds will support operations for several years, it may not be enough for the entire six years remaining in the program. At the same time, we may see additional tree mitigation fees generated with development in the next few years. Attachments: (3) V-1 2020 Metro Utility Rate Survey Results V-2 2021 Enterprise Fund and ETV, Tree Mitigation Special Revenue Fund Budgets V-3 PowerPoint presentation 6- MINNEAPOLIS/Sl PAUL METRO AREA Maple Grove, MN $3.65 Blaine, MN $33.80 i ■ Water Spring Lake Park, MN $42.16 171 Wastewater Eagan, MN $43.61 ■ Stormwater Ramsey, MN $47.70 Oakdale, MN $48.54 Coon Rapids, MN $49.74 Apple Valley, MN $50.95 Inver Grove Heights, MN $52.09 Eden Prairie, MN $53.83 Plymouth, MN $54.14 Little Canada, MN $54.86 Anoka, MN $56.17 Burnsville, MN $5971 Fridley, MN $64.43= Mounds View, MN $65.50 Minnetonka, MN $66.0 Prior Lake, MN $69;25 Maplewood, MN $70`;05 Richfield, MN $70.98 Columbia Heights, MN $71.46 Falcon Heights, MN $72.08 Waconia, MN $82.51 Forest Lake, MN $85.92 Robbinsdale, MN $89.29 Arden Hills, MN $96.15 Minneapolis, MN $97.13 $0.00 $40.00 $80.00 $120.00 , $160.00 1 � $200.00_ 51 www.ae2s.com I www.ae2snexus.com Copyright 2020 O AE2S - All Rights Reserved Sanitary Street Storm Water Quality Revenues: Service charges 6,227,500$ 8,237,900$ 848,300$ 1,133,400$ 1,700,000$ 18,147,100$ Connection permits 8,000 8,000 - - - 16,000 Meter sales 40,000 - - - - 40,000 Other 16,000 12,000 3,500 - 35,000 66,500 Total revenues 6,291,500$ 8,257,900$ 851,800$ 1,133,400$ 1,735,000$ 18,269,600$ Operating Expenses: Personal services 2,524,800 1,081,400 13,300 297,400 611,100 4,528,000 Supplies, repairs, maint.667,700 99,300 - 64,400 62,300 893,700 Other services & charges 1,953,500 359,800 592,200 311,200 191,900 3,408,600 Merchandise for resale - - - - - - Transfers Out 1,041,500 495,200 52,100 34,100 85,400 1,708,300 MCES disposal charges -5,646,000 - - - 5,646,000 Total operating expenses*6,187,500$ 7,681,700$ 657,600$ 707,100$ 950,700$ 16,184,600$ Net operating cash inflow(outflow) 104,000 576,200 194,200 426,300 784,300 2,085,000 Capital 3,727,300 972,000 165,000 1,372,000 2,072,200 8,308,500 *Excluding depreciation expense Other non-departmental revenues: Interest income 355,000 Connection charges 250,000 Antenna lease revenue (excludes ECC allocation 893,500 Other 40,100 Total - non-dept revenue 1,538,600 Net cash inflow (outflow)(4,684,900)$ Public Utilities Fund 2021 Budget Revenue and Expense Summary Water Sewer Lighting Drainage TOTALS November 10, 2020 Workshop Original 50 % capacity2017 2018 2019Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Results Difference Budget Adjusted Budget DifferenceRevenuesGroup Sales235,661$ 238,994$ 285,800$ 277,000$ 101,800$ (175,200)$ 277,000$ 138,500$ (138,500)$ Concessions44,180 32,690 51,000 36,700 16,400 (20,300) 36,700 18,400 (18,300) Merchandise Sales9,741 7,185 10,000 9,000 1,900 (7,100) 9,000 4,500 (4,500) Vending14,822 17,135 18,500 17,500 7,900 (9,600) 17,500 8,800 (8,700) Rental779,877 788,121 768,400 772,100 706,900 (65,200) 795,400 602,600 (192,800) Other26,062 133,663 28,000 22,000 16,000 (6,000) 22,000 11,000 (11,000) Total Revenues1,110,343 1,217,788 1,161,700 1,134,300 850,900 (283,400) 1,157,600 783,800 (373,800) ExpensesPersonal Services583,909$ 622,264$ 617,800$ 623,300$ 672,000$ 48,700 620,300$ 461,200$ (159,100) Parts & Supplies59,793 63,341 66,100 67,800 64,800 (3,000) 67,500 54,100 (13,400) Cost of Concession Sales37,797 35,509 45,000 35,000 21,100 (13,900) 35,000 17,500 (17,500) Services & Other Charges282,470 268,330 297,600 293,000 278,500 (14,500) 301,800 314,100 12,300 Total Expenses963,969 989,444 1,026,500 1,019,100 1,036,400 17,300 1,024,600 846,900 (177,700) Operating Surplus/Deficit146,374$ 228,344$ 135,200$ 115,200$ (185,500)$ (300,700)$ 133,000$ (63,100)$ (196,100)$ Non‐Operating ExpensesCapital/Reserve for Renewal & Replacement 190,064 156,656 135,200 182,800 182,800 ‐ 157,200 157,200 ‐ Total Expenses/Non‐Op Disbursements1,154,033$ 1,146,100$ 1,161,700$ 1,201,900$ 1,219,200$ 17,300$ 1,181,800$ 1,004,100$ (177,700)$ Operating/Capital Loss(368,300)$ (220,300)$ 20202021Civic Arena Fund2020‐2021 BudgetRevenues, Expenses and Other DisbursementsNovember 10, 2020 Workshop Original100% Capacity 50% Capacity2017 2018 2019Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Results Difference Budget Adjusted Budget DifferenceRevenuesDaily Admissions/Season Pass 770,778$ 860,530$ 756,400$ 807,600$ ‐$ (807,600)$ 828,100$ 403,800$ (424,300)$ Group Sales125,176 149,100 134,000 140,000 ‐ (140,000) 140,000 70,000 (70,000) Concessions247,953 266,146 245,000 245,000 ‐ (245,000) 245,000 122,500 (122,500) Classes / Camps17,827 19,162 20,000 20,000 ‐ (20,000) 20,000 10,000 (10,000) Merchandise Sales17,942 19,832 19,000 18,500 ‐ (18,500) 18,500 9,300 (9,200) Vending‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Rental10,455 11,149 16,700 13,700 ‐ (13,700) 13,700 6,800 (6,900) Interest11,484 29,975 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Marketing Revenue‐ ‐ 4,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other695 1,946 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Revenues1,202,310 1,357,840 1,195,100 1,244,800 ‐ (1,244,800) 1,265,300 622,400 (642,900) ExpensesPersonal Services 694,315$ 711,630$ 699,100$ 722,300$ 267,300$ (455,000) 737,000$ 456,000$ (281,000) Parts & Supplies85,604 92,117 99,900 100,400 24,400 (76,000) 102,400 76,250 (26,150) Cost of Concession Sales132,957 121,168 100,000 122,000 ‐ (122,000) 122,000 61,000 (61,000) Services & Other Charges145,620 146,917 200,200 208,200 54,400 (153,800) 211,200 186,700 (24,500) Capital Outlay8,685 98,689 6,000 2,000 2,000 ‐ 2,000 1,000 (1,000) Total Expenses1,067,181 1,170,521 1,105,200 1,154,900 348,100 (806,800) 1,174,600 780,950 (393,650) Operating Surplus/Deficit135,129$ 187,319$ 89,900$ 89,900$ (348,100)$ (438,000)$ 90,700$ (158,550)$ (249,250)$ Non‐Operating ExpensesReserve for Renewal & Replacement 92,000 89,900 89,900 90,600 90,600 ‐ 90,600 90,700 100 Total Expenses/Non‐Op Disbursements 1,159,181$ 1,260,421$ 1,195,100$ 1,245,500$ 438,700$ (806,800)$ 1,265,200$ 871,650$ (393,550)$ Operating/Capital Loss(438,700)$ (249,250)$ 2020 2021Aquatic Facility (Cascade Bay) Fund2020‐2021 BudgetRevenues, Expenses and Other DisbursementsNovember 10, 2020 Workshop Original Proposed2017 2018 2019Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Results Difference Budget Adjusted Budget DifferenceRevenuesPersonal Trainers 63,288$ 67,493$ 65,000$ 67,000$ 28,000 (39,000) 67,000$ 35,000 (32,000) Equipment Rental30,222 33,408 35,000 33,000 2,000 (31,000) 33,000 5,000 (28,000) Parks/Rec Programming8,266 8,003 16,000 20,000 48,000 28,000 30,000 45,000 15,000 Concessions/Vending/Merchandise Sales72,397 53,938 78,000 23,200 3,400 (19,800) 23,200 ‐ (23,200) Group Sales45,798 55,602 57,000 55,000 9,000 (46,000) 55,000 ‐ (55,000) Daily Admissions89,303 92,506 107,000 92,000 30,000 (62,000) 92,000 15,000 (77,000) Memberships727,495 758,252 750,000 825,000 398,000 (427,000) 825,000 400,000 (425,000) Room & Facility Rentals365,746 351,405 347,000 346,500 131,700 (214,800) 346,500 85,000 (261,500) Contract Revenue98,303 125,916 125,000 125,000 15,000 (110,000) 125,000 30,000 (95,000) ECVB Rent15,545 16,173 15,000 15,000 15,000 ‐ 15,000 15,000 ‐ Other92,350 114,828 50,000 50,000 50,000 ‐ 50,000 50,000 ‐ Total Revenues1,608,713 1,677,524 1,645,000 1,651,700 730,100 (921,600) 1,661,700 680,000 (981,700) Other Financing SourcesAntenna Lease Revenues 296,053 276,923 378,000 342,600 342,600 ‐ 396,600 396,600 ‐ Total Revenues/Other Financing Sources1,904,766$ 1,954,447$ 2,023,000$ 1,994,300$ 1,072,700$ (921,600)$ 2,058,300$ 1,076,600$ (981,700)$ ExpensesPersonal Services 1,302,428$ 1,233,399$ 1,308,300$ 1,386,200$ 1,300,000 (86,200) 1,460,200$ 1,463,000 (2,800) Parts & Supplies56,859 59,589 64,500 71,300 49,600 (21,700) 72,600 52,200 20,400 Services & Other Charges359,643 406,944 432,000 499,600 455,900 (43,700) 512,750 355,400 157,350 Cost of Merchandise Sales39,628 28,641 41,000 10,000 700 (9,300) 10,000 ‐ 10,000 Capital Outlay ‐ Operating10,037 310,235 50,400 13,600 13,600 ‐ 13,600 ‐ 13,600 Total Operating Expenses1,768,595 2,038,808 1,896,200 1,980,700 1,819,800 (160,900) 2,069,150 1,870,600 198,550 Operating Cash Surplus/Deficit136,171$ (84,361)$ 126,800$ 13,600$ (747,100)$ (760,700)$ (10,850)$ (794,000)$ (1,180,250)$ Reserve for Renewal & Replacement147,000 175,000 175,000 223,200 223,200 ‐ 223,200 223,200 ‐ 147,000 175,000 175,000 223,200 223,200 ‐ 223,200 223,200 ‐ Total Operating Expenses and R&R1,915,595$ 2,213,808$ 2,071,200$ 2,203,900$ 2,043,000$ (160,900)$ 2,292,350$ 2,093,800$ 198,550$ Operating/Capital Loss(970,300) (1,017,200) Debt Service ‐‐ voter‐approved tax levy1,117,514 1,120,635 1,111,850 1,119,300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20202021Eagan Community Center Fund2020‐2021 BudgetRevenues, Expenses and Other DisbursementsNovember 10, 2020 Workshop 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Revenues PEG fees 376,129$ 366,512$ 380,000$ 314,100$ 320,400$ City Contribution ‐ Cable Franchise Fees 345,311 403,765 464,600 495,200 526,100 Other Charges 26,533 31,313 40,000 17,300 17,200 Total Revenues 747,973 801,590 884,600 826,600 863,700 Expenditures Personal Services 390,623$ 398,482$ 453,300$ 483,900$ 513,600$ Parts & Supplies 11,981 24,702 38,200 38,300 35,700 Services & Other Charges 134,454 117,644 115,400 163,800 131,300 Capital 22,404 515,044 273,200 115,200 135,700 Total Expenses 559,462 1,055,872 880,100 801,200 816,300 Expenditure ‐ type PEG 164,005 648,100 415,500 308,100 296,000 Non‐PEG 395,457 407,772 464,600 493,100 520,300 Total 559,462 1,055,872 880,100 801,200 816,300 Retained (used) PEG Fees from Balance 212,124 (281,588) (35,500) 6,000 24,400 ETV 2020‐2021 Budget Revenues, Expenses and Other Disbursements November 10, 2020 Workshop Projected 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Property Taxes ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Tree Mitigation 173,095 472,640 245,000 ‐ Investment Income ‐ 1,636 16,215 4,000 4,000 Total Revenues ‐ 174,731 488,855 249,000 4,000 Expenditures Personal Services ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 112,700$ 126,700$ Services & Other Charges ‐ 104,291 84,085 50,000 100,000 Capital ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Expenses ‐ 104,291 84,085 162,700 226,700 Estimated 12/31 Fund Balance ‐$ 70,440$ 475,210$ 561,510$ 338,810$ Tree Mitigation 2020‐2021 Budget Revenues, Expenses and Other Disbursements November 10, 2020 Workshop 2021 Enterprise & Special Revenue Fund Budgets November 10, 2020 Special City Council Workshop 1 Funds Covered Enterprise Funds Public Utilities Water Sewer Street Lighting Storm Drainage Water Quality Civic Arena Cascade Bay Community Center Special Revenue Funds ETV Tree Mitigation (EAB) 2 General Information Enterprise funds supported by user fees 2 special revenue funds supported by PEG fees and tree mitigation fees This is second year of two-year budget COVID has had impact on recreation enterprise funds 3 Public Utilities Mostly as presented a year ago Amendments –net reduction of ($473,500): MCES charge decrease from original estimate –($487,800) Conferences/training (travel) reduced –($29,000) 2 seasonal workers added –$28,300 Tail end of 2020 rate study –$15,000 Northland rate study will follow AE2S needs analysis Both will be presented to Council over next 3-4 months Staff recommends 5% rate increase at 1/1/2021. Future rates will result from study. 4 Policy Questions -Utilities Are proposed modifications to budget acceptable? Are proposed rate increases of 5% acceptable until results of rate study are received? 5 COVID has had a bigger impact on enterprise funds than expected as fixed costs are significant In June, we focused on General Fund impact, but recreation facilities are bearing the brunt of the burden in 2020 2020 projected operating losses: Civic Arena $ (185,500) Cascade Bay (348,100) Community Center (747,100) Total $(1,280,000) Recreation Facilities 6 Recreation Facilities 2021 budget assumptions: Civic Arena –operate at 50% capacity Cascade Bay –operate at 50% capacity Community Center –operate under current guidance from Governor’s order No furloughs or layoffs of existing staff 2021 budgeted operating losses: Civic Arena $ (63,100) Cascade Bay (158,550) Community Center (794,000) Total $(1,015,650) 7 Recreation Facilities Long-standing practice to set aside money each year to fund replacement of capital items at the recreation facilities Revenues in 2020 are not sufficient to fund R&R set-asides Staff recommends the 2021 R&R set-aside be funded 2021 capital R&R set-aside needs: Civic Arena $ 157,200 Cascade Bay 90,700 Community Center 223,300 Total $ 471,200 8 Funding Solutions Civic Arena Cascade Bay Community Ctr Total Funding needs: 2020 Operating deficit (185,500)$ (348,100)$ (747,100)$ (1,280,700)$ 2021 Operating deficit (63,100) (158,550) (794,000) (1,015,650) 2021 Capital R&R (157,200) (90,700) (223,300) (471,200) Total (405,800) (597,350) (1,764,400) (2,767,550) Funding sources: 3 vacant positions 322,700 ECC fund balance 400,000 General fund balance 2,044,850 Total 2,767,550$ 9 2020 Operating Projections: General Fund June workshop est.Today’s projection Revenues $ 40,930,300 $ 41,722,100 Expenditures 41,921,000 41,922,100 2020 projected Gen Fd deficit $ (990,700)$ (200,000) 10 General Fund Balance Target range: 40-45% % of next year's budget General Fund balance 12-31-2019 21,836,793$ 51.0% Transfer out to Equipment Revolv Fd (2,250,000) 2020 projected operating deficit (200,000) CARES grant 3,600,000 Projected 12-31-2020 fund balance 22,986,793 51.2% 2021 revenue deficit (1,755,000) 2021 expenditure variance 1,163,600 Transfer to enterprise funds (2,044,850) Projected 12-31-2021 fund balance 20,350,543$ 43.2% 11 Policy Questions –Recreation Facilities Are proposed service and capacity levels at the recreation facilities for 2021 appropriate? Is the Council OK with not funding capital R&R in 2020, but funding it in 2021? Are the proposed funding solutions—not hiring 3 open positions, using $400K ECC fund balance, and using $2.0M general fund balance—acceptable? 12 ETV Funded by combination of PEG and cable franchise fees Budget is mostly status quo Funding is adequate in 2021-2022, but with PEG and franchise fees on the decline, staff plans to update Council in early-2021 with long-term funding plan 13 Tree Mitigation (EAB) 2021 is second year of 7-year program to mitigate EAB Staff accomplished more than anticipated in Year 1 Existing tree mitigation revenues appear sufficient to fund several years—but perhaps not all—of the 7-year program; future revenues are sporadic and uncertain Staff will continue to monitor progress on EAB 14 Policy Questions –ETV, Tree Mitigation Does the Council have any concerns about 2021 budgets for either ETV or Tree Mitigation funds? 15