Loading...
09/14/2021 - City Council Regular SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 5:30 PM EAGAN ROOM-EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. JOINT MEETING WITH AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION IV. JOINT MEETING WITH ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION V. AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS UPDATE VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Information Memo September 14, 2021 Special City Council Meeting III. Joint Meeting with the Airport Relations Commission Action for Consideration No formal action is needed. Direction is sought from the Council on the future mission, role, and meeting schedule of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission. Facts: ➢ Each year, the members of the Airport Relations Commission (ARC) meet with the City Council at a workshop to discuss the work plan for the year ahead. ➢ This year, the conversation is different in that the commission is prepared to discuss the future structure of the ARC as opposed to a formal work plan. ➢ The City Council most recently discussed the future structure of the ARC at the April 27, 2021 retreat. The Council directed the topic be brought back to the commission for their review and recommendations leading into the September joint meeting. ➢ The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) held a workshop on Tuesday, July 13 to discuss the future of the commission. An update on the commission’s discussion was provided to the Council via the Additional Information Memo. ➢ There was consensus amongst commissioners that the City and ARC are quite limited in their ability to impact airport policy given the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administrator (FAA). These limitations can be frustrating to residents. ➢ Moreover, the commission opined that the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) has grown in its sophistication and serves as the primary advisory body making recommendations to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and FAA. As such, the ARC is frequently reviewing policy matters before the NOC, which eventually need approval by the City Council, MAC committees, and the MAC commission of the whole. The work can be quite duplicative when there is potential for five bodies to review a single recommendation. ➢ The five commissioners were unanimous in their recommendation that structure of the ARC change. Commissioners suggest that the ARC remain a commission, but only meet two times per year with the understanding that additional meetings could be scheduled if a significant airport policy matter necessitated their attention. ➢ Members preferred keeping the ARC a commission versus an ad hoc committee as they wanted some regularity in the meeting schedule (e.g., meet each January and July). The two meetings allow the commission to stay up to date on airport noise policy matters and happenings at the airport, which would be beneficial should they be called upon to opine on a significant airport policy matter. ➢ Commissioners suggested appointing seven members (rather than the current five members) in order to add depth and diversity to the commission. ➢ Policy Questions: o Does the City Council support the following ARC recommendations? 1. The ARC will meet two times per year (likely January and July) to stay up to date on relevant airport noise and policy matters. Additional meetings could be scheduled if a significant airport policy mattered necessitated their attention and/or recommendations to the Council. 2. The ARC will remain an advisory commission. 3. The ARC will continue to have seven members appointed by the City Council (rather than the current five members) to ensure depth and diversity on the commission. ➢ The Commissioners look forward to the conversation at the worksho p. The ARC is currently operating with four members, as Chair Johnson recently submitted a letter of resignation due to his family moving out of Eagan. His resignation will be included on the September 21 City Council agenda. Vice Chair William Raker is prepared to speak on the commission’s behalf. ➢ Pending direction from the Council, the commission is prepared to meet and further refine how ARC meetings will operate to provide benefit to the community. Attachments: III-1 July 2021 Memo to Airport Relations Commission MEMO To: Airport Relations Commission From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator Date: July 7, 2021 Subject: Public Policy Conversation: The Future of the Airport Relations Commission The City Council is seeking feedback from the Airport Relations Commission (ARC) on the future of the commission. Specifically, the topic will be addressed at a meeting between the ARC and City Council on Tuesday, September 14 as part of the City Council’s workshop. T he following insights explain the history of the commission, the challenges the commission is facing, and possible policy decisions where the commission could opine to assist the Council with decision-making about the future of the ARC. History/Overview The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) was established in 1988. The Commission derives its authority from Section 2.50 of the City Code. The purpose and mission of the ARC is as follows: 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. The ARC historically had seven (7) members, which were appointed by the City Council to serve staggered two-year terms. One (1) alternate was also appointed for a period of one year. The ARC meets 6 times per year. In 2021, the Council chose to appoint only incumbents, resulting in a total of five commissioners. The future of the ARC is being raised in light of feedback from commissioners, the public, staff, and the City Council. I spoke to each current member of the commission this past Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 2 spring to gain your thoughts. The following are observations that were shared with me during those conversations: 1. The City’s role in impacting airport policy and/or changing FAA operations is very limited. 2. The MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), an advisory board to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), has grown in sophistication since its inception in 2002. The NOC consists of representatives from communities that border MSP Airport, along with an equal number of members from the airport user community (i.e., Delta Airlines, UPS, Sun Country, etc.). In addition to bi-monthly meetings that are open to the public, the NOC also hosts quarterly public input meetings in the evening for residents to attend and share concerns or ask questions of the MAC staff. Eagan residents have typically attended both forums. For many years, the NOC has been the primary group driving policy change with regard to aircraft noise. Given that most noise policy matters are considered at the NOC, the City’s Airport Relations Commission agendas typically include the items that were previously before the NOC, resulting in a duplication of efforts. Additionally, there are only a handful o f residents who typically attend or contact the City with noise complaints on a regular basis. 3. Residents are growing in frustration with the limited authority of the ARC and the City to influence change at MSP Airport, particularly as it relates to runway use. Moreover, the FAA is within their rights in how they are managing the airport, thus, challenging the FAA on runway use is not resulting in noticeable changes for the public. 4. Current ARC meetings typically include an update from the MAC Community Affairs Manager or a speaker from an airport industry representative as an educational briefing for the commission. There are very few action items that come before the ARC, with the ultimate action being taken by the City Council. 5. There are many duplicative layers of approval when action items are presented to the NOC or MAC. For example, a single letter can start at the ARC for approval, then go to the City Council, followed by NOC consideration, MAC Committee approval, and lastly, approval by the MAC Commission of the whole. This process results in five separate groups/committees considering one piece of communication. 6. The noise contours around MSP Airport continue to decrease in size, meaning the noise impact on communities is lessening. Some residents would note, however, that Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 3 the frequency of aircraft, particularly in the warm summer months, continues to negatively impact their quality of life. 7. The airlines continue to make strides in updating their fleets with planes that produce less noise. For example, the DC-9 and MD-80 aircrafts that were frequently used at MSP over many decades are no longer being used and have been replaced by quieter planes. The reduction in noise contours in 2020 was dramatic given the impact of the pandemic on the aviation industry. That said, the trend of shrinking noise contours has been prevalent for several years prior to the pandemic. Research and Findings The City of Eagan and Mendota Heights are the only two cities in the metropolitan area with an advisory airport commission whose mission is to advise on matters related specifically to MSP Airport. With the exception of Mendota Heights, airport noise and policy issues are managed at the staff level, with input and policy matters being taken to the City Cou ncil as needed. The cities who serve on the NOC have a mixture of elected and staff representation. When the NOC first began, it was more common to have elected representatives attending NOC meetings. In recent years, it is almost a 50/50 split in terms of elected and staff representation. Airport noise and policy matters often use a language of its own and thus the learning curve is high for newly elected officials who have not previously been involved in airport operations or policy matters. Discussion/Public Policy Questions The City Council briefly discussed the future of the ARC at a retreat this past spring. The Council asked to get feedback and suggestions from the commission prior to any decisions being made. The ARC is scheduled to meet with the Council at the September 14 Council workshop. As part of that meeting, the Council will seek feedback from the Commission regarding the future of the ARC. The following policy questions (along with pros and cons voiced to date) are included below to assist the Commission as you formulate your feedback. 1. Should the ARC continue in its current form? Pros: • The ARC provides a forum for the public to raise issues or ask questions about airport noise and airport policy. • The ARC is a mechanism to communicate airport noise and policy matters to the community. Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 4 Cons: • Significant City staff time is being dedicated to a commission that often has few (or no) members of the public attending. With the limited data we have for online/cable viewership, it would appear meetings average up to 30 viewers per meeting, and frequently, several of those viewing are staff members from the City, MAC, and FAA. • The Commission adds another layer in an industry with numerous advisory or policy- making bodies where the community is being represented (City Council, NOC, MAC committees, and MAC commission of the whole). • The City has been fortunate to find residents who have an understanding or strong interest in aircraft noise and policy matters. However, for residents without that expertise, the learning curve is steep and new commissioners spend years learning the technical language of the airport as they seek to provide input as a commissioner. 2. Should airport relations be managed at the staff level, with concerns or policy matters being brough directly to the City Council? Pros: • Efficiency (both with Administration and Eagan Television). • Residents could continue to contact City staff with aircraft noise questions and concerns. Staff directly communicates with MAC staff as needed to get appropriate responses to residents. • Staff expertise will continue to be utilized on the NOC and in communication with the public. Letters from the City to the MAC and FAA could continue to be prepared by staff, but taken directly to the Council for consideration, thus removing any delays to accommodate the commission’s meeting schedule. Cons: • Limited depth in airport knowledge beyond Administration (not a lot of “bench strength” amongst staff on this topic). • Current commissioners are passionate, committed, and well-educated about aircraft noise and policy. Thus, existing commissioners could be disappointed if the commission disbanded. • Will the public see the decision to end the ARC as a message that airport noise is no longer a concern in the community? Options for Next Steps If the ARC is changed or abolished, the following are a few options or approaches that could be considered, understanding this is not an exhaustive list. Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 5 1. The Council could dissolve the commission by resolution (per the Handbook for MN Cities). 2. The Council could choose to keep the ARC through 2021, letting the five commissioners finish their terms, and then end the commission in 2022. 3. The Council could abolish the ARC and create by resolution an airport noise ad hoc committee to address airport policy issues as they arise. Such an ad hoc group could be made up of existing ARC members and meet two or three times per year to stay current on airport policy matters and operations. The committee could then be called together if and when any significant airport policy matter comes forward (e.g., Area Navigation (RNAV) changes that would impact Eagan). 4. The Council could keep the ARC in its current form. Depending on the ultimate direction of the Council, community-wide messaging would be important if the commission is altered in any way. Specifically, the City could reiterate Eagan’s commitment to addressing the impact of the airport on the community. I look forward to the dialogue of the Commission on this important topic. Please reach out to me directly if you have any questions prior to the July 13 ARC meeting. /s/Dianne Miller__________ Assistant City Administrator EAGAN Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan 2022 Capital Improvement Plan PROJECT DETAILS •Rahn Park PH II-Shelter Building Remodel ADA upgrades, exterior restroom use, outdoor pavilion •Goat Hill Rink Partnership with EHA Site improvements and design plans •Northview Maintenance Building Maintenance equip and bulk material storage •Professional Services-Northview East Concepts/estimates for 2023 building projects •Allocation for Public Art Northeast Eagan, Lexington Wescott, Rahn Park •Grant Projects Rahn Trail Connection •Small Projects Art Bike Racks Engineered Wood Fiber-Playgrounds Dog Park upgrade fence upgrade to chain link Rahn Park Phase II •Current building constructed 1974 •Upgrade interior/exterior designs and finishes using Trapp Farm and Bridle Ridge as example •Outdoor patio space for rentals •Exterior restroom access •ADA compliance •Interior classroom space/rental space •Winter use includes rink shelter/program space Rahn Park Phase II Goat Hill Rink Partnership with Eagan Hockey Association Phase I: (2021) New Concrete Rink w/Ice Plant Future Phases: (2022) Site Improvements (2022) Building Design & Parking Study (2023) Warming House (2023) Roof Cover Over Rink (2024) Parking Improvements Northview Maintenance Building New storage building similar in size of existing storage building at Lexington Diffley Park. Equipment storage in new building to allow flexible use of Northview West building where field maintenance equipment is currently housed and has outgrown the space. Opportunistic/Grant Opportunities •Rahn trail connection grant received from MN DNR Local Trail Grant Program. 75/25 match •ADA connection between Rahn Athletic Park and Rahn Park •Other opportunities/matching funds Public Art 2022 4 Bike Racks: City Hall, Northview Park, Ridgecliff Park & Quarry Park Large Project: TBD HeART of Eagan: 4 new pieces to be installed on Municipal Campus Small Projects Small Projects funds support additional infrastructure improvements, ADA improvements, new park amenities and projects that address ongoing maintenance needs FUNCTIONAL PUBLIC ART DOG PARK FENCING CERTIFIED FIBER MULCH 2023 Initial Project Items PROJECT DETAILS •Goat Hill Rink Outdoor Ice Pavilion Phase 2 support for covered structure for ice rink •Northview East Building/Restroom New restroom and storage facility •Professional Services-Quarry Park Building Concepts/estimates for 2024 building projects •Allocation for Public Art Northeast Eagan, Lexington Wescott, Rahn Park •Playground Replacements Lexington Park/Slater Acres •Park Development Northeast Eagan-linear park, pergola, public art •Small Projects Public Engagement Community input is a critical component in proper development and redevelopment of our park system. Public Engagement: Rahn Park –November 15 , 2021 Goat Hill Park –Polco Survey Completed Public Art –Website comments collected and APRC Sub-Committee Formed 2023 -Park Development •Northeast Eagan-Vikings Parkway •Approx. 11-acre park dedication •Pergola, trail connections, art spaces •Park benches, bike station 2024 Initial Project Items PROJECT DETAILS •Quarry Building Remodel Possible remodel, patio space, shade structure •Goat Hill Rink Site Improvements Phase 3 parking lot and other site upgrades •Playground Enhancements Walnut Hill, O’ Leary, Core Valley (Central Park) •Professional Services Parks Master Plan update •Allocation for Public Art •Pocket Park Development Denmark/Duckwood and Lexington/Wescott •Small Projects 2025 Initial Project Items PROJECT DETAILS •Rahn Athletic/Ohmann Restroom Buildings Upgrades for meeting ADA requirements and use •Playground Replacements South Oaks, Cedar Pond •Field irrigation upgrades Rahn Athletic •Allocation for Public Art •Pocket Park Development Federal 16 •Small Projects 2026 Initial Project Items PROJECT DETAILS •Playground Replacements Lakeside, Fish Lake •Field irrigation upgrades Northview Fields 1 –4 •Allocation for Public Art •Pocket Park Development Windcrest •Small Projects Future Funding Options Park Dedication fund balance estimated to be below $1M in 2023. City staff will need to reduce this to $500,000 soon and asks for an increase in funding to be established by 2024. Alternative options that could be included in future discussion: Sales Tax -Legislature has granted cities local sales taxing authority.Edina, Oakdale, Maple Grove and Minneapolis will potentially join WSP, Rogers, Excelsior, Elk River, Mankato, STP, Rochester and 18 other cities who added a tax in 2019. Referendum –Lakeville and Cottage Grove having a special election in 2021 for Park Improvements. Parks and Recreation Thank you Agenda Information Memo September 14, 2021 Eagan Special City Council Workshop IV. 2022 – 2026 Parks CIP and Joint Meeting with Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission Direction for Consideration: This is an informational presentation and joint meeting with the members of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and no specific action is required. Pending Council’s direction, the CIP will be included on a future regular City Council agenda for formal action. Facts: ➢ The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission (APrC) meets annually with the City Council to have dialogue that is important for their advisory work with respect to the Parks and Recreation Department. ➢ As part of the joint meeting, Director Pimental and staff will present the 2022-2026 five-year Parks CIP to Council, with emphasis on 2022 projects. ➢ Like previous years, the CIP focuses on several areas of the park system and development that includes maintenance related items, new park amenities, continued pocket park development, improving current conditions and spaces in some parks, and continuing to seek balance and equity throughout the parks system. ➢ In summary, 2022 will continue a phased strategy for two larger park projects at Goat Hill Park and Rahn Park. Goat Hill Park will focus on the continuation of amenities incorporated into the refrigerated ice rink. Rahn Park will feature remodeling of the park shelter proposed in 2022. ➢ COVID 19 has created several challenges to the City Parks and Recreation Department and our CIP process. Many contractual items are financially impacted due to limited supplies, work force and supply chain issues. ➢ 2022 CIP budget is proposed $1.33M ➢ Foundational work for this CIP includes the 2015 Parks System Master Plan, Eagan Forward and the engagement work with the community that was created throughout that process as well as the additional community engagement and research coordinated through the work of the APrC. ➢ 2022 and beyond projects will continue to have an equity lens and focus on our parks and recreation services to the community and further enhances the park system nicely. Attachments: (1) IV.-1 PowerPoint Presentation Agenda Information Memo September 14, 2021 Special City Council Meeting V. American Rescue Plan Act Funds Update Direction for Consideration No action is required. Staff is seeking feedback and comments on possible uses of $6.9 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds provided to the City of Eagan for Covid relief efforts. Facts ➢ By year end 2022, the City of Eagan expects to have received nearly $7 million in ARPA funds for Covid relief efforts. ➢ The City received its first allotment of $3.5 million in July 2021. ➢ Generally, ARPA funds may be used by the City for the following: o Responding to the Public Health Emergency/Negative Economic Impacts associated with the pandemic o Providing premium pay to workers performing essential work during the Covid 19 public health emergency o To offset any lost revenue in the previous fiscal year that resulted from the pandemic. o To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure ➢ Expenses eligible for ARPA funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. ➢ A key element of the ARPA funds usage includes the identification of revenue loss, using a formula that identifies “General Revenue” for the City. ➢ Recipients are permitted to calculate the reduction in revenue as of four points of time: o December 31, 2020 o December 31, 2021 o December 31, 2022 o December 31, 2023 ➢ This approach recognizes that some recipients may experience lagged effects of the pandemic on revenues. ➢ The definition of lost revenues is broad, and from the perspective of a typical municipality such as Eagan, could include, but may not be limited to: o Taxes, current charges, and miscellaneous revenue o Refunds and another fee forgiveness o Gross revenue from swimming pools, rec centers, skating rinks/arenas o Lease or use fees from community and convention centers o Rentals from concessions at government operated facilities ➢ Staff has determined that all of the $6.9 million ARPA allocation could be used towards lost revenues. The calculation is based on current lost revenues through the end of December 2020. ➢ Once the recipient has identified the reduction in revenue, there are few restrictions on how the funds may be used, as there is broad latitude to use the funds for the provision of government services. ➢ Government services can include, but need not be limited to: o Maintenance of infrastructure o Building new infrastructure, include new roads o Modernization of cybersecurity, including hardware, software, and protection of critical infrastructure o Health services o Environmental remediation o Provision of police, fire, and other public safety services ➢ Staff was asked to provide input on what items might be considered for usage of the ARPA funds, which have been vetted more thoroughly by a team consisting of the Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, Assistant City Administrator and City Administrator . ➢ Based upon review against parameters of the ARPA fund guidelines, all while recognizing that lost revenue will comprise the bulk of the ARPA fund usage, the following 2022 and 2023 project are preliminarily presented to the Council as considerations for expending ARPA funds. These projects are suggestions at this time and would be further vetted by the budget team and senior management team prior to be presented for formal consideration. ● Installation of Air Conditioning in the Vehicle Maintenance Area at Central Maintenance; estimated cost: $125,000 ● River Valley Area (RVA) Property Improvements, including fiber optics: $350,000 ● Retaining wall for MVTA bus shelter (design and construct) at NW corner of Lexington and Lone Oak: $25,000 (possible cost share with MVTA) ● Replace underground fuel storage tank at Central Maintenance: $300,000 ● Various waterbody access improvements: $40,000 ● Purchase and install additional cleaning machines: $50,000 ● Enhance the fee option program in parks for those in need: $75,000 ● Install wireless City fiber at numerous parks: $210,000-$500,000 ● Strengthen Wi-Fi at the Eagan Civic Arena (East and West rinks): $20,000 ● Pre-hospital cardiac arrest management equipment for the Fire Department: $228,000 ● Replace and enhance ECC mechanical systems: $600,000 ● AV equipment improvements and replacements at other City facilities: $75,000 ● Council Chambers equipment updates: $200,000 ● Eagan Room equipment updates: $100,000 ● Website redesign: $50,000 ● Data request work-flow improvements: $11,000 ● Closed Captions to increase accessibility of our programming and meetings: $61,000 ● Digital software and applications to increase accountability, accessibility, and digital distribution: $95,000 ● Staff is also working to get better cost estimates for several other conference room audio and video improvements, and improvements to our GIS systems ● “Rec on the Go” bus and trailer to house play and fitness equipment that could be used as a mobile resource for parks, fitness, and recreation staff in addition to being transportation for equity focused programs and events: $175,000 ● Racial Equity Plan consultant $50,000-$100,000 ● Racial Equity and Inclusion Coordinator position: $150,000 annually ➢ Additional projects under consideration, with complete cost estimates yet to be finalized include, but may not be limited to: • Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Disaster preparedness training, equipment, and other projects. • Conduct survey of residents to determine unmet needs due to the pandemic • Finance Committee once discussed setting aside funds for a “legacy” project of some sort, recognizing the one-time nature of the ARPA funds. • Air purifying systems throughout the entire inventory of City owned facilities. • Police facility and operational requests: a. Air Conditioning for PD Garage b. Automated glass frosting for the Training Room c. AV equipment upgrades in offices to utilize wall monitors d. AV equipment updates in the Case Management room e. Outfit Narcan for all officers ( administered for opioid overdoes) f. Increase funding for Police officer mental and physical health programs Policy Questions for Consideration: 1.) Is the Council supportive of staff further pursuing and making plans for the implementation of the projects listed above, reporting back to the Council with final cost estimates, and ultimately seeking approval by the City Council? 2.) Does the City Council have feedback or direction to provide to staff on the ideas offered above, and would you like to receive additional information and cost estimates for further discussion at a workshop? 3.) Is there a “legacy project” the City Council would like to explore and discuss in further detail at a workshop? 4.) Should staff work with the Finance Committee on additional details and direction as need before and leading up to another presentation at a Council workshop? 5.) Any other general direction the City Council would like to provide? Attachments IV-1 Power Point Slides American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) FundsSeptember 14, 2021 City Council Workshop ARPA Funds - OverviewMarch 11, 2021 – President Biden signed the act$1.9 trillion for economic stimulus and COVID 19 relief ($350 Billion for State and Local Governments)City of Eagan allocation - $ 6.9 millionFunds are released in two tranches (equal payments)-July 2021 and 2022 ARPA Funds - OverviewFunds must be obligated by December 31,2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. Unexpended funds must be returned to the Federal GovernmentPeriodic reporting is required to provide a detailed accounting of the use of fundsFour provisions for Funding: ARPA Funds – Use of Funds1. To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to household, small businesses, nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality:-Services to contain and mitigate the spread of COVID-19-Behavioral healthcare services, including mental health or substance abuse-Delivering assistance to households, small business and nonprofits-Speed the recovery of impacted industries ARPA Funds – Use of Funds2. To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers:-Offering additional support to those who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical infrastructure sectors-Designed for low-income earners providing essential work ARPA Funds – Use of Funds3. For the provision of governments services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency:-Recipients may use funds to replace lost revenue-Specific methodology is used to calculate lost revenue-Once shortfall is identified, Cities will have broad latitude to use this funding to support government services ARPA Funds – Use of Funds4.To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure-Make necessary investments to improve access to clean drinking water, support vital wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and to expand access to broadband internet ARPA Funds – Ineligible Uses•To offset a reduction in taxes•Deposits into a pension fund•Funding debt service•Funding legal settlements or judgements•Depositions into a rainy-day fund or financial reserves ARPA Funds – Policy Questions1)Is the Council supportive of staff further pursuing and making plans for the implementation of the projects outlined in the packet, reporting back to the Council with final cost estimates, and ultimately seeking approval by the City Council?2)Does the City Council have feedback or direction to provide to staff on the ideas offered above, and would you like to receive additional information and cost estimates for further discussion at a workshop?3)Is there a “legacy project” the City Council would like to explore and discuss in further detail at a workshop? ARPA Funds – Policy Questions4)Should staff work with the Finance Committee on additional details and direction as need before and leading up to another presentation at a Council workshop?5)Any other general direction the City Council would like to provide?